Talk:Pittsburgh Pirates

Untitled

Curt Roberts that is absent from the Pirate History on WikiPirates. Although his stay was short with the Pirate organization (1954 - 1957), the Pirate organization's he is a part of Pirate history. It would be nice to see that correction...

Fair use rationale for Image:Piratelogo6786.gif

Image:Piratelogo6786.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Peg Legs?

I never heard of it before today either, but I don't live anywhere near Pittsburgh. But a Google search indicates it's pretty common on the internet, so maybe it's an internet thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No that's vandalism, so far I can tell. It's going. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm seeing it in use on the internet. Maybe it's being sarcastic, though, for the punchless Pittsburghers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Being a lifelong Pirates' fan and living pretty close to Pittsburgh, I've never heard it used. Unless a legit source can be found for it, I think it should be removed. Blackngold29 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear on their website. It only seems to be used in blogs. So there's no question it's legitimate, the issue is whether its use is widespread enough (at this point) to be worthy of listing among the nicknames. I'm thinking NOT. I might compare it with the "lovable losers" tag on the Cubs. I doubt very much that the Cubs use that one, either. But its use is very widespread and easily sourced (and I don't much care for it, but that's not relevant, as I don't like "Cubbies" either). "Peg Legs" appears to be an internet nickname that does not have a very wide following at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see 214 hits, few of which refer to this team. Until a source can be provided on mainstream media or team website usage, I vote no. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely not vandalism, it is definitely in use, but its only use that I can find appears to be in blogs. Hence, it's not widespread enough to be included in the infobox. The barometers would seem to be MLB.com and ESPN. It is apparently not used in either place. I could see MLB not using it, as it doesn't exactly have a positive sound to it, but ESPN would have no such qualms, and since they apparently haven't picked up on it, it can't be very widespread (yet). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PA Sports

I know that it would be easy to add 1,000,000 templates at the end of any article, but this one, PA Sports teams, seems relevant. Any objections? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

None from me, as they're in the template I'm surprised that it's not already there. Blackngold29 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

founding of the PBC

I see that the Pirates are in the category "Sports clubs established in 1887". I realize that the Alleghenys joined the National League in that year, but they were in the American Association for 5 season first. Since they were indeed founded before 1887 should that be adjusted? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Pirate's website they were not officially the franchise of the Pirates until they joined the NL. So 1887 would be correct. Blackngold29 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All they did was move from one league to the other. They weren't Pittsburg(h) until they joined the NL - prior to that they were "Allegheny". But they were the same team, as far as I know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Weren't they still the "Alleghenies", then the "Inoocents" and then the "Pirates"? I'll do some digging and see what I can find. Blackngold29 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find The "Pittsburgh Alleghenys", sometimes "Alleghenies" (that's what the book says) were in the American Association, and then another team formed (under the same name to confuse us all, however, the would sometimes be referred to as the "Nationals" or the "Innocents") in the Players League. Some player's "jumped ship" to the Player's League team, which lead to a fight over Louis Bierbauer due to a clerical error. The PL team signed him and the AA team complained, claiming, "The action of the Pittsburgh Club is piratical" which lead to the "Pirates". Blackngold29 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The PL club wasn't called the Pirates, it was the NL club when they signed Bierbauer after the demise of the PL. The Athletics of the AA had failed to protect their rights to him. The Athletics called the Pittsburgh club "pirates" for that action, and that led to a rift between the AA and the NL and helped speed the demise of the AA. Newspapers would have called the NL club "Nationals" in 1890 to distinguish them from the PL club. "Innocents" was another media invention. One joke was that the team was so weak that they were "innocent of winning", but I don't know what the real source of that short-lived nickname was. It would certainly not have been something the team embraced. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Other notable former players" section

I think this section should be removed. While there are a few interesting inclusions it has no criteria, and has basically become a list of favorite players. I can't see how it contributes to making the article any better. Are there any objections to its removal? Blackngold29 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no opposition for a few days, I have gone ahead and removed the list. Blackngold29 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Losing Streak

Having already tied for the record of longest losing streak in all of professional sports (not just baseball), I feel that this is already lead-worthy. If there's major disagreement, however, I'll wait until the end of the season... I hope the Bucs don't make it 17!

The Philadelphia Phillies articles doesn't mention it in the lead; it's lower in the article. If you want it in the article, put it there or in the History article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article, mentioned in the post-1992 "Leland Era" section, and has been cited. I get your point, though. If they lose another season, however, I feel that this will be undoubtedly lead-worthy. Perhaps that's a conversation for post-season... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.233.141 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The conversation certainly may be had, though this precedent has been long-established. That's not in the lead of the Phillies article and never has been. Where it does belong in the lead is at List of Pittsburgh Pirates seasons. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have had a change of heart on this point in the last few months, KV, unless I'm misunderstanding the above discussion. If it was never in the lead of the Phillies article, then why did you re-add it here after I removed it, while giving the impression that it was present in the lead of the Phillies article? 71.162.31.196 (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should look at which article I'm reverting before I revert next time... my bad. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Retired numbers section

Those images can't really be free, can they? If they aren't, they are unneeded decoration and should be removed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell they are indeed free. Uploaded by Ghetto9678 to the Commons as his own creation. They don't include any copyrighted logos or images that I can see. I would certainly prefer that some prose be added to the section, but I don't really see a grounds of removal of said images. The section of images that needs cleaned out is the Logos section, as only one is permitted per article as fair use. blackngold29 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All-Black lineup?

"In 1971, the Pirates also became the first Major League Baseball team to field an all-black starting lineup.[7] That lineup, on September 1, was Rennie Stennett, Gene Clines, Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, Manny Sanguillen, Dave Cash, Al Oliver, Jackie Hernandez, and Dock Ellis.[8]"

The official website for Pittsburgh pirates uses the term "minority". Roberto Clemente was a Puerto Rican, Hispanic American. It would prob be a good idea to change the citation of 7 and the wording to "all-minority" which is straight off the official site of the pirates.Senshisoldier (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Senshisoldier

References

NPOV?

The 2009 section of "Franchise history" violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, this sentence in particular: "The team continued to shed payroll, trade away its best players for prospects, and show no desire to build a contender in 2009." Despite the fact that this is logically incoherent--anyone who knows anything about baseball will tell you that "building a contender" entails stocking a system with prospects--it clearly displays the author's point-of-view. Perhaps it should be clarified that this is the view of many observers of the franchise, but that many *other* sports writers and commentators (I'll be happy to provide links if necessary) see the moves of the post-2007 management as having vastly improved the Pirates' chances of winning down the line. At the very least, the sentence I quoted above ought to be reworded in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Could someone with more knowledge/experience with this page advise me on how to move forward? Can I edit the section in question? Cpollak (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Cpollak

Very much non-neutral. Consider it done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Players

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Losing streak...

Until this streak ends, every year will extend the professional sports consecutive losing season streak. This means when the streak ends, it will provide one heck of a celebration by fans. Before then, it needs to be noted every year that the streak is the longest of any professional sport in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.90.30 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

They suck, BADLY!! Vegas has even taken bets on how many years this streak will be! The most common is 20. How many think it will go another 2 years? How many think it will end next year? How many think it will go past 20? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.88.28 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Purposely Trying to Lose

The following edit:

The Pirates continued their streak into 2010. David Berri, president of the North American Association of Sports Economists, alleges that the Pirates are purposely trying to lose to remain profitable. "Teams have a choice. They can seek to maximize winning, what the Yankees do, or you can be the Pirates and make as much money as you can in your market. The Pirates aren't trying to win."

was removed because it was accused of as being "fringe" and a violation of WP:UNDUE. I don't see either. Fringe from a notable figure on wikipedia whose organization is also notable is not fringe. The weight is not undue either, as it is only one sentence. I propose it be put back in. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's considered undue weight because it has nothing to do with this article as an overview of the franchise itself. It's not a neutral point of view and does indeed represent a fringe viewpoint. If this view were widely reported in reliable, mainstream sources, then perhaps it would deserve a mention in the article relating to the specific season article (2010 Pittsburgh Pirates season), but nearly never in the franchise article for something as potentially divisive and biased as the above statement. Per Jimbo:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

The final bullet is applied, and most valid, in this case. — KV5 • Talk • 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Grammar and diction in the second sentence of the lead

I tried to improve the second sentence of the lead but KillerVogel5 reverted me so I will explain the rationale behind my edit here.

The second sentence of the lead reads "They play in the Central Division of the National League, and are five-time World Series Champions, in addition to the distinction of playing in the first modern World Series."

This sentence is poorly formed because there is no verb that can be reasonably associated with the phrase "distinction of playing in the first modern World Series". The noun distinction needs a verb to go with it and the closest verb is are. The problem is that you would wind up saying "They are the distinction of playing in the first modern World Series" which isn't right. The correct verb to use with "distinction" is "to have" although similar verbs such as "to bear", "to earn", etc. can also be used. The other problem in the sentence has to do with using the present tense for something that happened in 1903. The correct tense would be "having played".

However, since we mention the fact that they played in the first World Series in the fourth sentence of the lead, there's actually no point in saying it twice so I just removed it from the second sentence of the lead altogether.

--Richard S (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It could have just been "in addition to playing in the first World Series", but I agree that the information does not need to be there twice. — KV5 • Talk • 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ownership section needed

I would like to see a list, or a link to an existing article, detailing Pirate ownership. What made me think of it (working mainly from memory) was what led to General Manager Syd Thrift's departure in 1988, essentially a non-coming-to of terms with then owners, but I cannot find (or remember clearly) who the owners were. It was a significant turning point in team history, and a great example of what happens when you have a competent GM but bad ownership. For purposes of this article, though, just having the owner history would be very helpful. Typofixer76 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Pittsburgh Pirates owners and executives. — KV5 • Talk • 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I added the link to the See Also section. Typofixer76 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on deleting some rivalry articles.

A proposal has been made to delete all rivalry articles save Phillies-Pirates. If you have viewpoints on whether to merge/keep/delete and facts/citations to justify it please comment here. Thanks for your participation. Hholt01 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Heberto Andrade has an article now!

Not sure how to do so, as when I go to edit the roster his name does not appear for some reason, but he should be linked to his designated page now! In other words, he is no longer the only Pirate without a Wikipedia page. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Barry Bonds Pirates debut.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Heinz Field reference needs changed

to Acrisure Stadium. I'd do it, but the article is locked. 12.66.25.218 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Pirates and MLB's first draft lottery

As seen here | | is this notable/important enough to mention on the Pirates article as being the first team to be awarded the 1st pick in the first ever MLB draft lottery?

If so, where do we put it? Franchise history, First-in-MLB accomplishments (unlikely), a new section/subsection about the draft history of the club?

Thoughts? TheGREYHORSE (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC) TheGREYHORSE (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Designated interleague rival- detroit tigers

it could be also argued another connection between the cities is the Pittsburgh Steelers winning Super Bowl XL, played in Detroit. Since 1960 world series was the last championship to be won by a team in Pittsburgh, the super bowl was arguably as close to a home clinch as Pittsburgh has had, as it was a de facto home game based on fans attending. The red wings & penguins are mentioned, but it's not said that both teams met in the cup final in both 2008 & 2009, with each team clinching on the road. Lastly the current ballparks opened in 2000 (comerica) and 2001 (pnc). Both stadiums feature only two decks, most built in the 90s-present have 3 or more. Both feature a view of the downtown skyline beyond the outfield. 104.14.176.58 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)