![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
should this be a seperate section, theres only one name
Now I'm a diehard Reds fan from way back when who thinks that we should change our uniforms ? I like them but I think the black has to go so we can go back to more of the classic red and white look or the 70's and 80's.
AMEN!!!!!
"By some accounts, the AA team simply switched leagues starting with the 1890 season; by other accounts, the AA team folded the same year the new NL team started, and the new team simply signed many of the AA team's star players.
Who says the latter? Perhaps that author makes a technical point, one I daresay cannot be covered by the lingo ("fold" and "team").
"At the turn of the century, the Reds (shortened from the Red Stockings so not to be confused with the Boston AL entry, now shortened to Red Sox)
The statement about shortening Red Stockings to Reds should be more precise. "At the turn of the century" refers to the main clause, not quoted. The parenthetical remark implies that Reds was common by the turn of the century (I would have guessed earlier than that). The Boston team was never (never say never) called Red Stockings and was nicknamed Red Sox for 1908. -- P64 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The image illustrating the 1961-1966 logo is incorrect. During this time, the point of the wishbone was removed, leaving a smooth arc. Acsenray 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Reds haven't used anything blue since 1953. Please correct me if I am wrong. For a time they were the Redlegs, I believe they permanently dropped blue. Soxrock 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I just read over my Baseball chronicle, the Reds who won the 1961 NL Pennant are indeed wearing a non-wishbone C. Soxrock 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Reds are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Reds go by? I'm sure they are not known only as "The Reds". I wasn't sure if "Redlegs" or "Red Stockings" were used (typically former variations of the name are used as nicknames), so I figured I'd ask you, the people who probably know them most. - Silent Wind of Doom 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That section had to be removed unless there is some sourcing. I am sure some are fans in a very loose sense of the word. But the Michael Rosenbaum picture has him in an NY Giants jersey and the article talks about how much he loves the NY Ranges. What evidence is there that any of those people are fans other than some of them having grown up within 20 miles of Riverfront stadium? If someone can find an article that just says that any of those people has attended a Reds game, then it would at least clear the most basic threshold. Montco 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I now have completed my task of making an article for every individual Cincinnati Reds season. jj137 Talk 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The 1961-1966 logo with the point on the "C" is WRONG. Please see the discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Nl 1972 cincinnati.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cincinnati Reds Cap (1967 - 1998).png 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I set up archiving on this talk page because there are some pretty old comments. jj137 ♠ 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Reds 2.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 insure 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) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Reds 3.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 insure 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) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Vida Blue trade - the entry states that the trade took place in the 76-77 offseason. In fact, the trade was made the following year on 12/9/77 and then voided by Commissioner Kuhn. I'm not sure how to correct it as the writer is using it to highlight it as a move to replace Don Gullett who left the club after the 1976 season. Jametz ( talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)jametz
There were 3 distinct versions of the Cincinnati professional baseball franchise:
1. Pre-National Association era (1869-1870). Harry Wright had been managing a Cincinnati franchise on the amateur circuit (National Association of Base Ball Players) since 1867. In 1869, he decided to make his roster professional only, recruited his younger brother George -- the best player in baseball at the time -- and finished 59-0 that season. Cincinnati had their winning streak broken the next season in a famous game against the Brooklyn Atlantics. When the all-professional National Association was formed in 1871, Harry essentially moved the team to Boston (picking up Rockford stars Barnes and Spalding on the way) and kept the Red Stockings nickname. This team has no relationship to the modern-day Reds whatsoever. Note that the pre-1871 era of baseball is a fascinating and untapped-by-wikipedia area of baseball history.
2. Early National League franchise (1876-1880). There were four players to play for both the 1880 NL team and the 1882 AA team, but three of them played for another team in between (i.e. the Reds did not stay intact playing in a minor or independent league somewhere else).
3. American Association and National League franchise (1882-present). Several other AA teams eventually switched the the NL (Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, Brooklyn).
In summary, one could argue that team "2" was somehow related to the modern franchise. Its tenuous, but it could be debated. In my opinion, though, team "1" is completely unrelated and deserves a separate identity.
As noted in the citations, and in the Cincinnati article, the current team dates from 1882. In fact, even if a connection could be proven to the 1869-70 professional team, that year would also be wrong, as that team began as an amateur team several years earlier. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article had George Wright as being the one that took the Reds Stocking players (5 of the original 9) to Boston, but it was Harry that did it. George was merely a player at the time and came along with Harry, but it was Harry that did it. I did a research paper on it, and my resources included historical local newspaper articles, Harry Ellards "Baseball in Cincinnati" book published in 1907, and John Erardi and Greg Rhodes' "They Boys of Summer" 1994. I corrected the error.
I know that Ellard states the Red Stockings won 130 consecutive matches but the season totals in his own book puts the number in question. Do you have another source for the 130 claim?
The team was founded in 1869. It is the oldest team in All of baseball. Reds stats go back to 1869 and all of the shirts hats and other memoribela say the team was founded in 1869 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohio state buckeyes football68 ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems pretty wordy with all of the play-by-play - can it be cleaned up at all?-- Thunderbolt2002 ( talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone may want to mention these in the uniform section. See http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/COL03/807090379/1007/SPT . -- Nick ( talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent history needs major pruning. You may want to split off articles to detail each season as other club pages have done. There's no earthly reason for Wily Mo Pena or Gary Majewski to be mentioned in a franchise history. 169.137.151.131 ( talk) 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Mrredleg2007.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
There's an article 1999 National League Wild-Card tie-breaker game which has no links to it. It seems to be something to do with your team. Perhaps someone could figure out how to get a link to it. thanks. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A new page was created entitled Cincinnati Reds (American Association - 1891). I think it should probably be merged into the history section of this page. Just an FYI. OlYeller Talktome 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the page shows the home and away uniforms, but not the home alternate uniform, which they use often.
New uniforms were introduced by the Reds for the 2007 season. Any way to update this?
Just a comment on the caption to the photo of the new 2007 uniforms at the top of the page:
According to the Cincinnati Reds' website, that is actually Chris Denorfia who is modelling the Reds' home uniform and not Jeff Conine. In fact, there is a picture in their December 1, 2006 Redsfest photo gallery of Denorfia with his name badge on the back of the uniform.
In the top right corner of this article, where it lists all of the details of this franchise, can someone add the American Association to "Major League Affiliations"? The Reds played in the Association from 1882 to 1889. I've tried to add it but can't seem to figure out how. SCSRdotorg ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
I recently reverted a change that claimed that the current Reds franchise was founded in 1869 as the Cincinnati Red Stockings. The history is clear that if any current franchise can be considered the direct descendant of the 1869 Red Stockings, it is the Atlanta Braves. The current Reds franchise was established in 1882 as a member of the American Association. Any dispute on this question should be discussed here. Acsenray ( talk) 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think people change the year of origin to 1869 because even though the current team dates back to 1882 the franchise dates to the inception of the first professional baseball team. Even if that team moved and the second team was banned the Cincinnati Reds became a team in 1869. If you look on Wikipedia for the Cleveland Browns it states that their origin was 1946. Clearly that can't be correct since they moved to Baltimore in 1996 and started over in 1999. To follow your logic all the Cleveland Browns records, history and players are non existent. It may be technically correct but the Browns started in 1946 and continue to this day regardless of the mess that Art Modell made. As a Cincinnati fan, our team originated in 1869 with the first professional baseball team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.222.112 ( talk) 21:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The Cleveland Browns situation is completely irrelevant here. The NFL created a legal fiction in order to appease Browns fans -- that doesn't make it the default. The current Cincinnati Reds club was not founded in 1869. Acsenray ( talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this book about the 1975 season: The Machine: The Story of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds by Joe Posnanski via an excerpt from the author-- possibly useful here Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Under the section 'Ballpark,' the article lists the site of Spring Training as 'Goodyear Park.' This link redirects to a completely unrelated cricket stadium in South Africa. This should be changed to connect directly to the 'Goodyear Ballpark' article instead, the location where the Reds' and Indians' spring training actually occurs. I would fix this myself, but I have no idea what I'm doing and would probably screw it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.84.121 ( talk) 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement that the mid-50s to mid-60s Reds wore all red caps is mostly incorrect - during the sleeveless era the Reds famously wore white caps with red bills - the home hat sporting pinstripes like the uniform. The white caps were worn from 1957 through 1966. They did however wear red caps in the first years of the sleeveless uniforms, 1956. Antimatter33 ( talk) 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it time to do something about the repeated reverting introducing the "1869" error? Acsenray ( talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Error? Do you read anything besides this Wikipedia page? Do you know that error doesn't mean 'difference of opinion,' and actually requires some sort of logical argument?
This page is suffering from a sort of unexplained, irrational, nerdy fixation on 'the 19th C. baseball club' as a proleptic 20th C. corporation, rather than what it was: a baseball club. The real phenomenon of a baseball club was never demonstrably equivalent in the popular understanding to 'the management of a baseball club,' as this page absurdly suggests. No normal, academic history text operates under the same margins in developing social phenomena over time. That seems to have been lost in a general current of prissiness about the Reds' 1869 founding.
19th C. baseball clubs were established and re-established with different management configurations, colors and players all the time. They still are. But then as now, fans of a club are near-unanimous in their understanding of when a club really ends and when it merely undergoes a major change, and actual historians use self-referential groups - which majoritatively means 'fans,' in this case, though they're only one part of the phenomenon of a baseball club - to definite concepts. Reds fans have never largely doubted that the Redlegs of 1869 were actually the Redlegs of 1869, and not an isolated event who just happened to have everything important in common with the same Cincinnati club in later seasons, under different owners, with slightly altered nicknames, in different ballparks, but with a fluid body of fans who knew the club to have been essentially fluid as well. The Reds changed owners in 2006. Were they 'founded' in 2006? Were the Cubs 're-founded' after they missed two years due to the Great Chicago Fire? Please explain.
"someone who doesn't want to except the facts" 'accept' ;) you probably did it subliminally, I touchtype and find myself worrying because just earlier I meant to type 'biggest' and hammered out 'gibbe-' before I caught myself. But that's just my mind jumping from segue to segue, I often find myself typing 'role' when I mean 'roll,' others I can't think of at the moment. I don't have any problems with the their triplets or your twins though.
The reason I originally came here though was to make sure someone added (not me, I am only a casual Wiki user and I don't feel comfortable editing others' pages) that the Reds changed their name during the Korean War. (I think it was the Korean War, but I know they changed their name for *some* war to distance themselves from 'the commie reds.' Dave 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
May be annoying, but not acknowledging the 1869 start of the team is more annoying. - there seems to be a confederacy of Reds haters who troll this page. Baseball Bugs included. Similarly - the restaurant chain of Olive Garden began in 1982 under the name "The Green Frog" - but did not call itself "The Olive Garden" until some time later. Does this negate Olive Garden's inception date? Seems that such a clunky brand of logic is fueling this "1882" revision.
To say they have no connection defies reason - and this seems to be an contended issue involving sports buffs cum armchair historians. One historian's perspective does not a fact make. Where are the sources (notice the plural) describing your claim? MLB seems to hold that the Reds were first, and as such, during the 1994 season, the Reds' uniforms were adorned with a sepia tone patch of that first team. The "disbanded" and "moved" team you describe then moved to Atlanta. So why didn't the Braves wear that patch in 1994?
I have to agree, actually, with real historians on this subject. If you've actually read histories, and you understand words like 'iteration' and 'franchise,' you understand that 'franchise' is an unknown concept in the 19th Century, whereas 'baseball club' is. And no one's actually offered any proof here that 'baseball club' really meant 'corporation,' 'franchise,' or 'baseball club owners and management.' This has become a pretty bizarre echo chamber populated by users who are a bit more into asserting what a coffee-table picture book told them than actually talking about history.
To chime in here, this franchise began operation in 1882. It was a different franchise with the same name that began operation in 1869. They are not the same franchise. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Am I wrong, or have you just named a vandalisable website, some guy's website, some other guy's website, MLB (incorrectly - see the official MLB site of the club you're discussing), and a fudged 'assortment' of unlisted, imaginary sources as 'history'? Read history. There's absolutely no justifiable argument for the Reds being 'founded' later simply because they were shut down for doing things that baseball clubs currently do, and then later sold out by their owners. There's been no discussion yet - and it's hard to imagine how there could be - about the fact that this logic either 're-founds' all existing clubs after they had to break for strikes or natural disasters; or 're-founds' them every time the club changes hands. Either clubs can skip a year or two in reaction to major disruptions and still be considered the same club, or they can't. And either clubs can switch owners and still be considered the same club or they can't. We're still waiting to hear any word on this (or anything, really) from 1882 vandals to this page. "I saw 1882 on the web" just isn't a historical assertion.
Considering 1941 to be preparatory for the Big Red Machine doesn't pass the common sense test. Thirty years of the franchise cannot be devoted to the Big Red Machine. The section needs to be renamed, or at least split. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pete Rose.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
I hate to bring this up but should the Reds birth actually be listed as 1881 instead of 1882 ? The club was actually organized as an independent professional club during the summer of 1881. They played their first game on June 20th 1881. Here is a link to my website where I have the game posted. http://www.scsr.org/19CCBB/Teams/CR3/1881/BS/06/20.htm This independent club went on to join the new American Association in 1882. SCSRdotorg ( talk) 04:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
WHY is Louise Nippert redirected to this article? That's a horrible over-use of redirection, and a waste of the readers's time. It's also a failure to understand and use the benefit of the Wikilink. If I wanted to read about Louise Nippert, I don't want to waste time searching in an overly-long article about something else. Individual biographies deserve respect. Knowing where someone came from and how they came to achieve the life goals they reached is important. Owning a ML baseball team and living to 100 should deserve an individual article. 69.15.219.71 ( talk) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
At the very beginning of this article it states that "the Reds are the oldest major league club to have played continuously in one city"...That's not true. The Cubs are.
SCSRdotorg ( talk) 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Under Hall of Famers who played for the Reds - "Players listed in bold are depicted on their Hall of Fame plaques wearing a Reds cap insignia."
Neither of these players have caps on their plaques or played for this version of the Cincinnati Reds. The Red Stockings were dissolved after the 1870 season. Also, neither of them have Red Stockings listed as their primary team on the National Baseball Hall of Fame's website.
I removed their names just to give whomever heads up.
SCSRdotorg ( talk) 22:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to give you heads-up, the second incarnation of the Reds were not kicked out of the NL for playing Sunday games. It was the rental of the park to other baseball teams on Sundays. Cincinnati never had Sunday baseball on a major league level until 1884. SCSRdotorg ( talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cincinnati Reds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)