From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York Giants (Baseball)

Just noting that New York Giants (Baseball) now exists. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

im the one who created a seperate page for the giants of new york baseball i feel that they deserve it cause the giants when in new york were rich with history 5 WORLD SERIES TITLES tons of pennets and fans i would love if you would help me to expand New York Giants (Baseball and make it a good article about a team that has more history then san fran i kinda copyed the first part of san frans ariticle but please help me expand it and oh by the way im new to wikipedia BigPadresDUDE ( talk) 22:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Teams like nyg and brooklyn deserve there own pagers

i think they deserve their own pages i made a page for the new york giants baseball abd someone just REDIRETCED IT im gonna make it again and a brooklyn dodgers page ETC. they have tons of history and deserve their own pages teams like the pilots Not so much but the Brooklyn Dodgers? The New York Giants? they deserve there own pages PLEASE HELP ME MAKE THESE Pages and make em good articles cause the ny giants have alot more history then san fran see Montreal Expos As an exanple for my petition PLEASE GUYS help the more historic teams have articles BigPadresDUDE ( talk) 04:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It is the same team. Such pages would not only be content forks, but would be wholly unnecessary. Any information contained there can be included in this article. faithless (speak) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

i think they deserve their own pages cause there is a ton more history in new york then san fran 5 WS TIT AND 16 PENNENTS COMPARED TO 4 AND 0 In San Fran They have much history in new york and deserve their own pages like brooklyn and nyg so please keep the new page 65.35.57.23 ( talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It's the same team. Just cause they moved doesn't make it a new team. No need for duplicate pages. The consensus at WP:BASEBALL has been to keep the information in one place. Spanneraol ( talk) 02:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

the only thing they share are name and records i guess they virturly have done nothing in san francisco there 5 world titles ALL IN NEW YORK and the separte pages i would only do for more historical franchises (ny giants brooklyn dodgers etc.) and not (seattle pilots etc.) i thought that the more history was in new york and i would be able to make it a good article but please give it a chance with separte pages for the more historacal teams like new york giants what have they done in san fran? 4 NL TITLES in new york 5 WORLD SERIES AND 16 NL TITLES i propose to make pages like nyg and brooklyn separete pages im starting the ORG FOR HISTORICAL TEAMS WIKIPEDIA PAGES oh by the way this is BigPadresDUDE 65.35.57.23 ( talk) 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

With due respect, BPD, the Giants and Dodgers, etal, do not just share names. The Dodgers move to Los Angeles was in no way different than the move by bowing from Seattle to Chicago. At its heart, the Dodgers are a company, and they moved headquarters. The players were the same, the management team was the same .... the only thing that changed was their home stadium, and a slight geographic adjustment to the name. To split the Brooklyn Dodgers from the LA Dodgers (etal) is to create a content fork based on a non- neutral point of view. I think you will find hte consensus of the editors here to be very much in favor of not splitting those teams. If nothing else, splitting those teams would create greater confusion because it would imply they are not as connected as one should think. With team names in sports often being used over and over again across different eras, that creates a fundamental problem. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
(edit conflict) BPD, shouting is not going to help your case. I agree with the other editors above. The teams are continuously existing franchises, and should be treated as such by keeping their continuous history together. As for your Expos example, the very existence of that page has been a bone of contention for some time. I still believe it should be merged with Washington Nationals to be consistent with the Dodgers and Giants, but understand that some disagree and have stopped tilting at that windmill for now. The Boeing example is quite appropriate. - Dewelar ( talk) 03:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
(ec)Comparing it to a company that shifted headquarters, is a good analogy. The Giants and Dodgers retained their nicknames and embrace their past, including posting retired numbers from their New York days as part of their continuum. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
There are also varying degrees of embracing the past. The Braves continue to connect with their Boston roots, as when they face the Red Sox in interleague play. It seems like they don't say so much about Milwaukee, but that meteoric run was less than 10 percent of their entire history, whereas even now their tenure in Boston far overshadows their stay in Atlanta. The Nats, by contrast, essentially disavowed their Expos past, although they can't escape its reality. Teams like Baltimore and Minnesota and Texas established new identities, with just occasional nods to their past (like the time the Twins handed out Walter Johnson bobbleheads). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
BigPadresDUDE, saying a team "deserves" a page is not a compelling argument. You may wish to review Wikipedia's summary style guideline and determine if the Giants or Dodgers article could benefit from being split into multiple articles. Isaac Lin ( talk) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply


can we alest come to a compromise? we try it on a trial run and we help the articles if it dosent work it dosent work i thought i could help the older guys who might agree with me and that they need a historical output for there fav team there are people who agree with me i know I JUST WANTED TO HELP 65.35.57.23 ( talk) 03:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Giving away your IP address is not really the best thing to be doing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply


oh and by the way i think the expos article is good cause the nats think the expos never exsisted which makes me sick 65.35.57.23 ( talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You think it's good because it makes you sick??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Per WP:SUMMARY the articles should probably be split, that way each section could be covered in better detail and would allow for expansion of all eras of the team. - DJSasso ( talk) 03:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

One article covering their 75 years in New York and another covering their 52 in San Francisco? Would you balance the content proportionately? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't think we need to split that way.. However, I don't really like the season by season approach to recent years.. That info should be moved to the season pages and the main article should just summarize from a more historical perspective. Spanneraol ( talk) 04:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thats an interesting question bugs and i would and you guys would help since im the newbie but it looks like im gonna lose my case so im gonna start working on being a good editor BigPadresDUDE ( talk) 04:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Unless there could be specific rules to follow, I don't believe splitting team articles would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Yes, the Expos are still separate, but shouldn't be. The Washington Senators from 1901 to 1960 would appear to have a significantly different identity than the Minnesota Twins, but there are same franchise. A separate article, called History of the Minnesota Twins seems to rectify most concerns regarding the long and storied history of both. I am also concerned that if the articles were to be allowed to split, what are the unintended consequences of that move: Bugs mentioned the Braves, how many articles can that franchise be split into? They are the longest continuous franchise in baseball, and logical reason can be made for each era and why it should have its own article. Not only would the Boston and Milwaukee teams have their own page, but one can argue that the Boston Red Stockings of the NA would have a wholly different identity from the Boston Beaneaters, who would have a different identity from the Boston Braves. Neonblak talk - 04:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The article size guidelines in WP:SPLIT imply that History of the San Francisco Giants has reached the size that it "probably should be divided." Certainly, as this and other articles on team history continue to grow they will eventually need to be split per WP:SUMMARY. It should be emphasized, however, that other elements associated with the franchise history, such as navigation boxes, wouldn't need to be split. There's no reason that the idea of "continuity of the franchise" has to prevent the development of sepatate, in-depth articles, such as an article focusing on the Giants' New York period. BRMo ( talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply


well somebody agrees with me i read over the history of san fran and san fran articles and THERE TO BIG that was my first thought when doing this but the historical aspect was the other BigPadresDUDE ( talk) 05:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Splitting the "history of..." articles into separate articles is something that could be worthwhile: "history of the giants, part 1: The New York years" perhaps... but that isn't the same thing as creating a "New York Giants (baseball)" article with a separate nav box and separate championship listings... that is an approach I disagree with. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
One trivial point: The Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants didn't have pagers. They weren't invented yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Bugs, I think we all get your point, and while bunnies do have long teeth, I think one should be cautious not to bite the newbies, no?
I think that some of these team articles are approaching a point where the history section may be split off, but I think it would have to be the entire history, not just selective history. Also, someone noted the use of a separate infobox for "other" incarnations of teams. While in principle, I don't think of it as a bad idea, some care needs to be taken ... if there are to be separate boxes for NY Giants and SF Giants, will there be separate boxes for the original Los Angeles Angels, and the California Angels, and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Orane County, California? Some moves are bigger than others, but in the end, the franchise remains the same. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Split proposal

I've begun a split proposal to create New York Giants (National League). See Talk:History of the San Francisco Giants#Proposal for split into New York Giants (National League). Thank you. Wknight94 talk 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

"Second longest...?"

This edit makes no factual sense: "The Giants have never won a world championship in San Francisco, the second longest streak in Major League Baseball."

Here's the last time the "Classic 16" won the World Series:

2012 - Giants
2010 - Giants
2009 - Yankees
2008 - Phillies
2007 - Red Sox
2006 - Cardinals
2005 - White Sox
1995 - Braves
1991 - Twins (nee Senators)
1990 - Reds
1989 - A's
1988 - Dodgers
1984 - Tigers
1983 - Orioles (nee Browns)
1954 - Giants
1948 - Indians
1908 - Cubs

← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

CORRECTION: It is the third longest Regisfugit ( talk) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Changes regarding World Series victories

Rather than continually reverting, can the interested parties discuss their proposed changes and their rationale for including or not including info on the World Series victories by the Giants compared to any other teams? Isaac Lin ( talk) 15:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

No. Regisfugit is a vandal and sock-puppeteer who has been indefinitely blocked. faithless (speak) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Affiliation with Indianapolis?

My preface is this... I know next to nothing about baseball and/or baseball history. I'm just trying to figure out what is the right info on something I read. Any baseball statistics I quote could/might be wrong and were probably pulled from baseball-reference.com

I've been reading a book on Indianapolis history.

Leary, Edward A., Indianapolis: The Story of a City, USA: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971.

A portion of the first paragraph of page 142:

But the city's consuming interest was baseball. Indianapolis had fielded the Military and Great Westerns in the late 1860s and the Blue Legs, its first professional ball team, in 1876, and in 1887 it entered the big leagues. John Brush, enterprising owner of the When Store, brought the St. Louis franchise of the National League and moved it to Indianapolis. The team played in the city for four seasons, but after the 1890 season Brush moved it to New York, where it became the Giants, now the San Francisco Giants.


At baseball-reference.com ( http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/IND/) I found a listing for a team called the Indianapolis Hoosiers, listed as a National League team playing 1887-1889 seasons. This almost matches the information presented by Leary.

Examining some of the information on that site, I found that a number of the players were members of a team called the St. Louis Maroons before playing in Indianapolis. Again, this supports a portion of the information presented by Leary.

Some of the confusion may stem from the fact that it appears that, on the 1890 roster, a number of NY baseball teams listed former Hoosier players on their rosters. Seven of the 1889 Hoosiers were on the roster for the 1890 Giants. (One such player appears to be the 1890 NL leader for batting average [.336]; Jack Glasscock was a former player/manager of the Hoosiers). 5 former Hoosiers were on the Player's League team Brooklyn Ward's Wonders for 1890. 1891 NYG shows 5 former Hoosiers, 1892 shows 2, and finally 1977 Hall of Famer Amos Rusie 'The Hoosier Thunderbolt' sticking it out until 1895 and then back for 1897-1898 NYG seasons and then again for the 1901 Reds. 1891 Grooms [Dodgers] shows 2 former Hoosiers (one was from the NYG 1890 roster, the other from Ward's Wonders who stuck with the team until 1895).

The balance of the 1889 Hoosiers roster: 4 ended their careers, 2 stopped playing until 1894 and then one went with the NL Washington Senators, the other to the Phillies. The rest kept playing baseball in 1890: 2 went to the Boston Beaneaters [now the Braves], 1 to the Alleghenys [now the Pirates], 1 to the NL Washingtion Nationals, 1 to the AA Louisville Colonels, and the last to the AA Philadelphia Athletics.

So here's the big question... What's the story? Obviously there has to be some tie-in to the Hoosiers and New York. While browsing the Hoosiers' rosters, I found a couple of players that had been born and/or died in NY. A Hall of Famer that spent most of his career with the Giants was born in Indiana and got his start with the Hoosiers. 12 former Hoosiers were playing ball in NY in 1890. A couple of guys on the Hoosiers' rosters even came from NY teams in the first place. Too much coincidence for me. Clearly the Hoosiers weren't moved to NY to become the Giants, but obviously there is some connection. It is clear that it is likely that the St. Louis Maroons were the team mentioned in the book as they are listed as a National League team and their stats end in 1886, and the Hoosiers start in 1887, sporting several former Maroons players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conanian ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

And to make this coincidence even more strange, I looked at some of my old R L Polk City Directories to find Rusie. I found him listed in my 1889 and 1898 directories. The 1889 still used Indy's old addressing system and showed his house at 39 Walcott. The 1898 directory uses a newer (and in the case of the lower number street addresses, almost identical to modern) numbering system showing him at 317 Walcott. Do you want to know where that is in Indy? Most likely it was the house at the corner of the intersection of N Walcott Ave, and (drumroll......) NEW YORK STREET! It's actually even possible that if this the same as the modern addressing, then his house may have been demolished to widen New York, and that looks likely because my 1905 directory shows that William Rusie (I think this is Amos's father as he lived at the same address as Amos previously) now living at 328 Walcott which would have been across the street and a little further north. -- Conanian ( talk) 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The Giants were playing in New York since 1883 so they have no connection with the Hoosiers/Maroons... It is possible that their is some connection with the Players League team that was also known as the New York Giants.. But definitely no connection with the team currently known as the S.F. Giants. Spanneraol ( talk) 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I think I did track down some info. I found an article online about the Hall-of-Famer Rusie who is clearly from Indiana (His nickname was the Hooiser Thunderbolt!) lived in Indianapolis. My take on the article is that the National League of the time was trying to close down smaller markets. I think maybe the league pulled the Indy team to NY to merge them with the Giants, but then the whole Player's League thing happened. I checked baseball-reference.com's entry for the PL Giants (to which there is a link in the wiki entry you cite) and none of the Hoosiers roster is listed on their roster. The bulk of the Hoosiers' players went to either the NL Giants or the PL Brooklyn Ward's Wonders.-- Conanian ( talk) 18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The giants never played in indianapolis. They were known as the New York Gothams before they became the New York Giants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.241 ( talk) 17:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

As I stated in one of other responses here I have started to figure out what's going on. And, I call BS on 'The giants never played in Indianapolis.' According to the schedule page at baseball-reference.com, NY Giants payed the Indianapolis Hooisers in Indianapolis 4 games late June/early July in 1889. I didn't look up any more of the schedule once I saw that... :P Of course, that also proves that Leary's statement from the book is wrong/mis-worded. -- Conanian ( talk) 03:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Monte Irvin's number 20 has been retired

I'm no good with graphics, but someone should add Monte Irvin's #20 to the retired numbers section.

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)

2010

The 2010 season deserves far more detail than it has been afforded so far. It's hard to understand why the many events of 2010, including major acquisitions and other player-related developments, are seemingly presented as a series of minor addenda to the 2009 season. 69.181.247.60 ( talk) 08:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply


Kirk Rueter's last name is misspelled in the history of the Giants section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.251.82 ( talk) 05:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

More on Culture?

Should anything relative to the 2010 season be added on culture? I.e. Fear the Beard or "Giants Baseball: Torture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.229.63 ( talk) 04:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

op-ed on Troy City Trojans and brewing trophy controversy

The Troy Record has started a petition calling for the World Series trophy to be displayed in Troy, NY, noting that the SF Giants started out as the Troy City Trojans.

link: http://troyrecord.com/articles/2010/11/03/sports/doc4cd0d3cec4fcd643460898.txt?viewmode=3

Fatandloud ( talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

This is the first i've heard of an actual connection between the Troy Trojans and the Giants. Not sure if they were actually the same team though. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
They were not technically the same team in the way that the Nationals are the same team as the Expos, but they are the same in that the Trojans were disbanded controversially, and the Giants were created in NY with the same group of players. Fatandloud ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Why do you refer to a Major league Baseball Team in The USA when the win a World Series Championship. "World Champs"

In spite of its name, the World Series is contested solely between Major League Baseball's American and National Leagues. Do we see other nations represented here?

It pains me when listening to Sports Broadcasters saying the Major League World Champs when no other Nation played. Should a National sports Champ be classified as a Nation Champ and not the World.

Try and put together a National Team and play against some of the Worlds team and see if you can be World Champs and than I can say World Champ.

A National past time game Champs to be called World Champ. . . The Definition World "world |wərld| noun 1 (usu. the world) the earth, together with all of its countries, peoples, and natural features :

Please stop using World Champs referring to MLB Champs or NBA Champs or AFL ChampsBold text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.74.83 ( talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply


People outside of America assume it is pure arrogance or some bigoted belief in American superiority that leads Americans to refer champions of American sports leagues as World Champions. The truth is alot more innocent. At least when it comes to Baseball.

But basically it's a tradition that dates back 50 years before the US was a major super power. In the early 20th century, the owner of the White Stockings wanted to name the championship series between the National League and the American League "the Championship of the World" because he believed that Baseball would spread to the United Kingdom, Australia, and then the world. He also wanted a more "grandiose" and "sensational" name that the newspapers could get excited about. It was basically a publicity stunt.

So, it's my contention that the belief it is a mix of naive ignorance and a public relations stunt that caused Baseball champs are referred to as "World Champs". Not arrogance. It's my belief that the other sports adopted this practice from baseball.

On strict logical terms, you are correct, but its a cultural tradition, a viral meme if you will, so I doubt it can be changed by an act of Congress or a Presidential order. Perhaps as Americans gain a more "international" outlook things will change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindamar112 ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The term "World's Championship Series" dates back to at least 1884, and was coined at a time when high-level professional baseball was only played in America. The term has stuck, and the baseball commissioner, even now, refers to the winners as the "World Champions". ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I think it is fair to use the term World Champion despite the fact all the participants are from the United States purely on the basis that, with the exception of Japan, no other nation on earth plays Baseball to such a senior level and even Japanese teams are far inferior to USA teams. To take Association Football as a good bench mark; In the 1960s an, albeit unofficial World Club Championship was set up to be played out every year between the Champions of Europe and South America and no thought was given that North America, Africa and Asia was not represented simply because there were no teams in those regions remotely good enough to compete. It is only in the last ten years that the champions of these other regions have been invited to take part and to date the World Champs have remained either European or South American. By the same token, the term World Champion of Baseball should be considered acceptable until such time as Japanese, or for that matter teams from any other nation reach a level where they could give an average USA team a close game. Captainbeecher ( talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply
There is a Canadian team in Major League Baseball (the Toronto Blue Jays), so it's not simply limited to the U.S. Also, Major League Baseball teams in the U.S. have players from many countries, particularly from Latin America. But as far as this discussion goes, MLB uses the term "World Champions" for the World Series winner; it's not up to Wikipedia to decide that it's not appropriate. Refusing to use that term in this article would make the article inaccurate. JTRH ( talk) 14:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment First thing, this is not a forum for general discussion. But when someone asks a question based on half truths, the question must be answered. The ip using the term "World" geographically, not internationally. The ip thinks that since the games are only played in North America, it can't be a world championship. Yet the players are the top players from all over the world. The represent the worlds best. The best players from just about every country play in the MLB. So yes, it is a worl championship. Would the Olympic Fames not be considered a world championship because all the events take place in one country and not another? The ip needs to expand his/her thinking on this subject. JOJ Hutton 14:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply

18 World Series

With the 2011 pennant, the St Louis Cardinals will appear in their 18th World Series, which needs to be added somehow to this article. Huggs & Kisses- Dupey,-- 75.0.32.52 ( talk) 10:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

This is the page for the San Francisco Giants. Why would you mention the St. Louis Cardinals appeared in their 18th World Series on this page? That should be mentioned on the St. Louis Cardinals page. -- Jimv1983 ( talk) 06:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply


World Series Win-----

Brian Wilson appeared in an Ed Lee mayoral campaign video during the 2011 World Series. Because of this, the Giants were not able to take part in the ceremonial passing of the champs parade as their star was already booked. I believe your point is in valid. 130.212.193.63 ( talk) 04:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Uniform picture is now out of date as of 2012

1. There are now piping accents on the standard away uniform.

2. There is a new alt away uniform with the SF logo on the chest and piping accents. It is only worn on Sundays away.

3. The orange alt uniform is only worn at home on Fridays ("Orange Fridays") and only with the black-billed hat.

4. The orange-billed hat is only worn on Sundays (with the standard home uniform or the alt away uniform), and is therefore never worn with the orange alt uniform.

I do not know how best to introduce these changes to the image and I cannot find definitive sources for these observations, so I'll leave this information and these tasks to anyone who can do so. 69.181.245.156 ( talk) 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I make some redirects

I make some redirect for some messed up typos.

Go Giants! -- B767-500 ( talk) 04:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Capitalization of section headers

The recent lower-casing of section headers in this article looks pretty ridiculous and inconsistently done. Many of the header titles start with numbered years followed by a colon; should the first words after the colon not be capitalized, as the first "words" of those sentences or sentence fragments? 69.181.245.156 ( talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Much of the history stuff should be removed altogether as it belongs in the separate history article. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Technically, colons don't start a new sentence. Wikipedia's guidance on section headings probably wasn't written with this style of sentence in mind. Perhaps flipping the text around would be better (whether the contents stays in this article or is moved to another one): have the short descriptive phrase first, and the year in parentheses afterwards. isaacl ( talk) 14:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

Grammar correction:

our the current World Champions

Should read:

are the current World Champions

Jeffsorr ( talk) 05:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Already done Cannolis ( talk) 06:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

AAA Team

Aren't the Rivercats the AAA team for the Oakland A's and the Fresno Giants the AAA team for the San Francisco Giants i the Pacific Coast League? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.154.3.1 ( talk) 20:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I believe the Giants negotiated a new contract with the River Cats. Don't remember if I heard it or read it somewhere, but I think the reason is because Sacramento is much closer to SF than Fresno is. -- Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Here are a couple of links:
Davemck ( talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Giants colors

I've noticed the ongoing infobox war back-and-forth about the Giants' colors. I don't know what would be the definitive source would be for a team's colors. Is the infobox for reporting the uniform colors, official colors, or something else?

If it's team colors, I guess an argument could be mage the Giants' colors are just "orange and black."

If it's uniform colors, it should noted the Giants' home uniforms switched to 'cream' in 2000. They stopped wearing white. Jeff Kent complained about this in 2000. http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/history/uniforms_logos.jsp confirms this (and the jerseys I bought over the last couple decades).

Of course, do the colors include home white/cream and road grey? The Yankees' infobox lists navy blue, grey, and white, but I think they only wear grey on their road uniforms. The Oakland Athletics' infobox says green, gold, white, but they have a grey road uniform. Should the A's add grey, or should the Yankees infobox remove grey?

What's appropriate standard?

Jjwyatt ( talk) 07:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I see that the team color has been changed from cream to white again. The Giants have worn cream-colored home jerseys since they moved to AT&T Park in 2000, so I'm not sure what the 'white' refers to. Jjwyatt ( talk) 18:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I changed back to cream & added your source as a ref. We'll see how long that lasts. Davemck ( talk) 19:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Not long. The latest edit ignored the note asking for sources and thinks the Giants wear neither white nor cream. Why is this so hard? SMH Jjwyatt ( talk) 16:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco Giants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Subheading titles

Bridesmaid? Resurrection? Awful, and whoever wrote them should be ashamed. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.49.117 ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree. It's not the right WP:TONE for an encyclopedia. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on San Francisco Giants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:San Francisco Giants/Comments (baseball), and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The absence of a Wiki article dedicated to the New York Giants baseball team seems to have resulted in the first half of this article dealing with that team. I suggest the San Francisco Giants article begin with the actual apperaance of the team in California, and refer the reader to a new article on the New York Giants baseball team for any information on play in New York before then. Shoreranger ( talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Last edited at 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Francisco Giants. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Recentism

This page suffers terribly from recentism, especially when compared to other MLB teams. I am in the process of removing some excruciating detail, however it is being reverted. The article is very large. Much of this content could also be moved to History of the San Francisco Giants (which, for the most part, is a mirror of this article's "history" section). Frank Anchor Talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

change "as of 2020" in the intro to "as of 2021" Tstrass ( talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

 Not done: Why? The source hasn't been updated. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
 Done The source has been updated. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022

The Giants have not had a team captain since Jack Clark in 1985. Not Buster Posey and not Brandon Belt. Tugboatcaptain1972 ( talk) 01:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry, Clark was team captain in 1984, as stated on the entry... Tugboatcaptain1972 ( talk) 01:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sennecaster ( Chat) 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The Dodgers have 21 World Series appearances. The Giants 20. Not the same. 

2600:100A:B125:4B94:4122:BDB4:BDB7:C612 (
talk) 06:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
Done. -- Mvqr ( talk) 10:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:San_Francisco_Giants&oldid=1203094594"