Talk:Cincinnati Red Stockings

oldest team

Deleted: "It is also a common error to associate the Boston Red Stockings club with the modern Boston Red Sox. The Red Stockings used a variety of names until they became known as the Braves. The club exists today as the Atlanta Braves, professional baseball's oldest team.[some say -P64] Today's Red Sox, on the other hand, was founded in 1901 during the American League's bid for major league status and has no connection to the original Red Stockings other than appropriating the name, a common occurence in that era." Contention regarding the Boston Red Stockings and modern Red Sox or Braves (or Cubs) doesn't belong here. And this contention is debatable anyway. --P64 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

birthplace

The "birthplace" claim is neither necessary nor supported by the citations to "The First Nine" (1869 lithograph) and "The First Professional Baseball Team" by Harvey Frommer (2005 Flashback article). Those two links now appear elsewhere on the page.
["Nevertheless, Cincinnati is the birthplace of professional baseball" formerly closed the text of the article, perhaps as a carrier for external links. --P64, 27 August]

First Nine lithograph

I'm not sure the reproduction lithograph is appropriate but it is nice to visit. --P64 22:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you say question whether the reproduction lithograph is appropriate? It is an image I have seen from the Library of Congress website and on that website it says it may be freely distributed. I did not upload the image but I have seen it other places. Mfields1 01:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. The image has not been uploaded at all, merely cited in a commercial product catalog. I suppose it is literally an image of the modern print reproduction. The super size version is watermarked by the vendor to protect the copyright holder.

I'm not sure any link to a commercial catalog is appropriate. A link to the presumably less colorful image at LOC would be fine. Indeed, whatever is freely redistributable may be incorporated (uploaded not linked). --P64 02:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize the picture was from a commercial catalog. Perhaps the catalog people have taken the original image and colorized it? [1] If you go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html and input "Cincinnati Red Stockings" in the search, the first hit will be "First Nine of the Cincinnati (Red Stockings) Base Ball Club". The Copyright by Tuchfarber, Walkley & Moellman, Cincinnati, Ohio has a date c1869. It would seem the copyright has expired. At the top of the lithograph on the site, a hand written note says "Filed July 31, 1869". Due to the length of time it would seem this is no longer protected by the copyright. Also the original was in color. If a vendor puts their own copyright on it then perhaps they did modify the original artwork in some way. Mfields1 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, I agree that some digital version of the original is probably available and this article should include one. Maybe it should be on the right in a section of the article that includes little text except what identifies the particular people --a vertical caption in effect.

Second, I don't know precisely what copyright of a lithograph (or any print) covers, nor what it covered in 1869. For example, is/was the particular color combination a distinct copyrightable feature? I suppose no one knows the original colors, so a modern reprint must use somewhat different colors willy-nilly. This isn't crucial because the black and white image is fine. --P64 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(back to the left) So I have visited LOC American memory and and WP Images and I don't know what it means in practice. LOC doesn't know of copyright restrictions but that's your problem, visitor. There may be donor restrictions but in the LOC catalog for this item I don't even recognize the acquisition data. gr-r --P64 23:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Players

Toward some ugly table:

• P_ . 68 70 . NY Asa Brainard
• C_ . 68 70 . PA Doug Allison
• 1B . 68 72 . OH Charlie Gould
• 2B . 69 70 . NJ Charlie Sweasy
• 3B . 68 70 . NY Fred Waterman
• SS . 69 78 . NY George Wright (also played for Harry in 1880-81 emergencies and at Providence in 1882)
• LF . 69 78 . NJ Andy Leonard (except 1871)
• CF . 67 73 . NY Harry Wright (as manager, eligible to play for many years?)
• RF . 69 75 . IN Cal McVey (except 1873)
• Dick Hurley, substitute 1869-1870

There may be no call for a data table in this article. Afterward in 2006, I wrote biographies for all of the players, or revised their biographies, always including these data at least. The First Nine played for two seasons '69-70 in stable fielding positions (column one). Column two gives the span, earliest to latest season as a player for Harry Wright's Red Stockings teams, both Cincinnati '67-70 and Boston '71-81. Column three gives the state where each man played before joining the Red Stockings or the rival Cincinnati Buckeyes. --P64 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done

The rework to the Cincinnati Red Stockings article looks good. Mfields1 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What next? I hope soon to get far enough to remove stub tags from some players (as for Alfred T. Goshorn hours ago). During that time, this article will grow without polish.

I suspect that this should eventually split, with one article on the famous professional team(s) of 1869(-1870) alone, focusing on play, tour, national phenom. Probably that one should be "Cincinnati Red Stockings", citing the biographies of players and others, and also a companion article (Cincinnati Base Ball Club?) with much detail more about the club, its arrangements with Union Cricket Club and Harry Wright, some of its own business arrangements, its amateur and junior teams, and capsule biographies of people less notable than Goshorn. In my mind's eye . . . well, maybe that is enough said. WikiProject:Ohio now knows of this work. Someone there might poke around soon.

That doesn't touch on the player table. --P64 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Same Team

What is the point in having two articles on the same team?--Sportman2 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)