Talk:Seattle Pilots

Move/Redirect

This page shouldn't be moved or redirected based on discussions on some other page. It doesn't belong to any Wikiproject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there hasn't ever been consensus to redirect this page. This page is covered in much better detail here and information would have to be cut out to fit on those pages. If the problem is too much replication on those other pages then those other pages should have more info cut out of them with the see main article link to this page which would be conforming to summary style. If anything we should do this with most of the other teams too. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This page should be folded into and redirected to the Milwaukee Brewers. The Pilots have almost no history having only existed for one season, and what little they have is hardly notable. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It was at one poinper a duscussion at the baseball wikiproject in consistencyt, but Schmucky took it out, citing that the baseball wiki project doesn't own the article. This, despite a unanimous consensus to do so.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No one project owns an article. Clearly any Seattle editors will have an interest in this topic. However, we should absolutely open up a merge discussion here, as this page does not appear to require its own page. Info can be merged to Milwaukee Brewers, Ball Four, 1969 Seattle Pilots season, and maybe another page or two, if necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We have had merge discussions about this page in the past and like the Expos it came down to no consensus to merge despite JoJ claiming otherwise. Why on earth would you make it harder for people to find information on a topic. -DJSasso (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The last discussion was to merge, but two people didn't like it, so the minority in that case decided against the majority. Why have 4 articles all covering the same topic? It wouldn't be harder to find information about the Pilots if there was a redirect. The only reason, I believe, this is even being contested is because some people don't want the Expos article to be the "only" article about a relocated team in MLB. There's no reason to have four Pilots articles, all covering the same exact information. We wouldn't have seperete articles for Apple Computer and Apple Inc. would we? This is simply about a minority of editors trying to keep articles that obviously shouldn't exist on any level.JOJ ^Hutton 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to where that merge discussion is? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Look here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 28#Seattle Pilots to see the last discussion that took place on this. Only Djsasso commented in the negative.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion that didn't take place on the talk page of the article as is required. Especially since there may be people outside the baseball project that are interested in the subject. As for making it harder to find the information, it certainly would be, you would have to cut about 4/5th of this article out in order to merge it into the Brewers page which would result in a loss of information and thus make it harder for a reader. If anything I would redirect the season page to this page. We don't have 4 articles on the topic. Ball Four is about the book which is its own distinct topic. Just like the Brewers and Pilots are different eras of a topic so are also distinct. The only one that could possibly be considered unnecessary is the stats article which would make more sense merged into this one with this title. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are four, Seattle Pilots, 1969 Seattle Pilots season, Milwaukee Brewers #Seattle (1969) , History of the Milwaukee Brewers #1969–70: Roots in Seattle. The book which you mentioned, wasn't even in my thoughts. If you feel that it would be "harder to find information", then please, pray tell, what is in Seattle Pilots that is not in any of those other three, that the world cannot live without reading on Wikipedia? Since you brought it up. --JOJ ^Hutton 22:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This article definitely should be re-located to Milwaukee Brewers, which is the practice of the other MLB team articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be three practices that are used in Wikipedia for most of the 30 MLB franchises' former team names/locations:

(1) a separate article bearing the former team name/city, e.g.,

(a) Montreal Expos (with a redirect from History of the Montreal Expos).

(b) Seattle Pilots, or

(2) a separate article entitled "History of [former team name/city]", e.g.,

(a) History of the Boston Braves.

(b) History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, whose hatnote says: For the history of the team from 1958 onward, see History of the Los Angeles Dodgers. For information on the franchise in general, see Los Angeles Dodgers.

(c) History of the New York Giants (NL), whose hatnote says: For the history of the team from 1958 onward, see History of the San Francisco Giants. For information on the franchise in general, see San Francisco Giants.

(d) History of the Philadelphia Athletics.

(e) History of the Washington Senators (1901–1960) (now the Twins), or

(3) a redirect to the franchise's principal article or the franchise's "History of" article, e.g.,

(a) Kansas City Athletics redirects to History of the Oakland Athletics #Kansas City (1955–1967).

(b) Milwaukee Braves redirects to Atlanta Braves.

(c) Washington Senators (1961–1971) redirects to Texas Rangers (baseball).

Eagle4000 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that, based on past discussions, most of the active members of the baseball wikiproject, but maybe not all, would prefer the second option. If there is any active members who object to that, its news to me. Of course it was pointed out that the baseball wikiproject doesn't "Own" the articles on baseball, and to that I have to agree, but there is still a majority of total participants who would prefer the second, or at least the third option over option number one.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Conversation at WT:BASEBALL mentioned that option 2 is only done by WP:BASEBALL, which makes me think we should go with option 1, as do the other sports projects. It's clear that the current way we do it, a mixture of the three mentioned above, needs to be made uniform in one way or another. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This page should really stay separate. I can't stand how the Washington Senators page re-directs to the Minnesota Twins. The franchise may be the same, but the teams have two separate histories from two separate cities, don't make the same mistake with the pilots. 24 April 2012

If we re-name Montreal Expos (as "History of the Montreal Expos", which currently re-directs to Montreal Expos) and re-name Seattle Pilots (as "History of the Seattle Pilots"), we would be (A) retaining them as separate articles and (B) treating them the same way we currently treat the Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Philadelphia Athletics, and Washington Senators (1901–1960) (now the Twins), each of which has its own separate article (entitled "History of ..."). We would need to retain option 3, however, because no separate articles currently exist for the history of the Kansas City Athletics. Milwaukee Braves, or Washington Senators (1961–1971) (now Texas Rangers). Eagle4000 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This was shot down in the paste because it would violate WP:AT which says to use the most concise name possible. The History of is redundant to the fact the article is about the Montreal Expos history so is unneccessary. If anything those other articles should have their History of removed to conform with the article titling guideline. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any merger The franchise may be the same, but they are separate teams. I will have to agree with DJSasso's reasoning above, as I think that simple titles are better. Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 08:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Table We have to consider something else. There is the issue about a team that changes its territorial claim, but stays in the same area. I don't think anyone is advocating a split of article between the Florida Marlins and the Miami Marlins. Some people may say that is the same team name. If so, what about the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the Tampa Bay Rays? We shouldn't move anything until a consensus is reached. Therefore, leave it be for now. Arnabdas (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Move Redux

I'm coming in to this discussion quite late (obviously), but having just become aware of this issue, would like to put my two cents in. In short, when a team moves (say, the Detroit Hot Wheels move and become the Charlotte Cigars), this is how I see it:

1. My first preference is that, when the Hot Wheels relocate but brings its team records (including any championships) with it, that there be only one article (Charlotte Cigars), with an appropriately sized section for the team's previous venue.
2. Recognizing from my perusal of a few articles, that some editors just don't see it this way, my second choice would be for any articles on the the Cigars' existence in Detroit to be titled History of the Detroit Hot Wheels. I see this practice has already been done in several cases, and each makes it clear in their opening sentence that this is a franchise that has moved.
3. The worst possible choice, in my view, is to have a completely separate article named Detroit Hot Wheels. It has the potential to create significant confusion. For example, look at last week, when Chris Johnson had a 94-yard run from scrimmage, breaking a team record that had been set by Sid Blanks in 1964. Every announcer and commentator covering it noted that Johnson had set a team record. But until, what, 1996?, the team was known as the Houston Oilers. The point is they are one and the same. Most importantly, maintaining a fully separate article is not helping the reader understand the history (and believe me, that is one of the most common reasons someone types in "Chicago Cardinals", is they have heard a confusing reference somewhere—often these are probably younger readers who weren't around for the change—and they want to quickly understand what happened to that team). Having the separate article makes it look like a team is defunct when in fact it has just moved.

Anyway, I doubt that I will be able to spark any significant new discussion, let alone change, but if someone else has been waiting to discuss this, let's do it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Several Mild Revisions of the Text

Based on archival and newspaper research for my forthcoming book, Becoming Big League: Seattle, the Pilots, and Stadium Politics I would like to make some modifications in the article on the Pilots. There are some date changes, several adjustments to factual material, and one or two revisions of interpretation--most of this would be considered minor edits, I think. I would like to present the changes, based on research, to the community before editing the text. I will not modify the text until mid-April to give the community a chance to comment (and look at Becoming Big League, coming out April 1)

Move of Pilots to Milwaukee was April 2 not April 1 [Based on newspaper report of timing of bankruptcy ruling (4:25pm! says the Post-Intelligencer)]

Change Sick's to Sicks' [The apostrophe changed when the stadium came under family ownership after Emil Sick's death.]

Revision: "The Pilot's name originates from owner Dewey Soriano's part-time position as a harbor pilot and the city's association with the airplane industry." [Based on an interview with Bill Sears who conducted the name the team contest. See Becoming Big League, p. 105]

In FORMATION Section: Change furnish much of the expansion fee to underwrote much of the purchase price. [Not actually the expansion fee, which was technically $100,000.]

Last paragraph in TEAM ISSUES: . . . Sicks' had to be brought up to major league standards by the start . . . [American League never prescribed what major league standards were. Most guessed 25,000 seats would suffice. Pilots ownership hoped for 28,000. Final total was probably around 25,000. Highest attendance was 23,000.]

19,500 seats rather than 17,000. [Best of several estimates made at the time. See Becoming Big League, p. 141.]

and the Pilots lost several hundred thousand dollars by the end of the season. [This may be a major edit. The estimates of losses ranage from $2.3 million to $250,000. Excluding player depreciation, best estimate is around $630,000. Daley had committed to underwriting the operation for as much as $8 million, but was unwilling to follow through on his guarantee. The American League did not hold him to the promise--but the Pilots' ownership was not out of money. The bankruptcy claim was a ploy to forestall injunctions against the move. Becoming Big League, pp. 231-232, 237-238.]

In RELOCATION Section: "Daley declined to provide more financing, despite earlier promises" rather than "Even with Daley's financing". [See rationale above.]

Before the season was over, PNSI made contact with interests in Dallas-Fort Worth and Milwaukee car . . . [Becoming Big League, p. 192, 194.]

"A slightly modified deal" (rather than more traditional) [The non-profit aspect that A.L. owners loathed was still a part of the offer.]

Injunction date is March 16 not 17.

Last paragraph: Jim Bouton was a Pilot's relief pitcher in 1969. His classic baseball book, Ball Four is based on a journal he kept that year. [I will add Van Lindt's book The Seattle Pilots Story and my Becoming Big League to the further reading section. Along with Hogan's book, already referenced, these books tell the Pilots story. Bouton tells a fascinating, but not comprehensive, story based on his Pilots experience.

I will also add about 18-20 references, mainly newspaper citations, but also 4-5 from my book where the evidence was previously unpublished (archival) sources. 24.19.237.180 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Bill Mullins

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• SEA1969H04.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)