Talk:Cincinnati Reds

The Reds were not kicked out in 1880

The Reds from 1876 to 1879, were not the team kicked out of the National League due to the sale of beer in their ballpark and the rental of their ballpark. It was a team called the Cincinnati Stars. During the 1880 season, there was no Reds club, they disbanded after the 1879 season and were replaced by a new team called the Stars. The Stars were owned by Justus Thorner. SCSRdotorg (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing text?

This entry starts with the second section saying "After the expulsion," but I do not see any "expulsion" refered to in the article. Is there a way to clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.125.254 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111085932/http://www.scsr.org/19CCBB/Home.htm to http://www.scsr.org/19CCBB/Home.htm

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).

• 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) 09:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent cleanup of history section

Indrian, I'm very flexible on content on here, but obvious grammar improvements were reverted unnecessarily. We could break it down line-by-line, if needed, to see where we can find common ground, but I'm not sure why you insist on retaining statements like, "Both were important activities to entice the city's large German population". Entice them to do what? There there's:

On October 6, 1880, however, seven of the eight team owners pledged at a special league meeting to formally ban both beer and Sunday baseball at the regular league meeting that December. Only Cincinnati president W. H. Kennett refused to sign the pledge, so the other owners formally expelled Cincinnati from the league for violating a rule that would not actually go into effect for two more months.

That excerpt struggles mightily from a grammatical standpoint. I fail to see how you'd prefer that over:

A special league convention was held on October 6, 1880, to formally ban both beer and Sunday baseball. At a regular meeting the following December, seven of the eight team owners agreed to the new terms. Only Cincinnati president W. H. Kennett refused to sign the pledge, resulting in the expulsion of Cincinnati from the National League.

Not only does the proposed change avoid the repeated use of "pledge", but it also breaks up the long-winded, poorly structured "...at a special league meeting to formally ban both beer and Sunday baseball at the regular league meeting that December". There was a convention in October, then a regular meeting in December, and the way these two points are crammed into once sentence doesn't work. I also chose to remove "for violating a rule that would not actually go into effect for two more months". It's clunky, unnecessary, and really needs a source that I was unable to locate.

Speaking of sources, this entire section is severely lacking them, and that was the next step I was going to pursue for this article. Do you want my help or not? If you do, then it doesn't seem like we're getting off on the right foot here. If you don't, then I expect you'll do the work in adding inline citations and finding a good compromise between the History section in this article and the dedicated article, History of the Cincinnati Reds. In terms of length, this article's History section should serve as more of a summary of the dedicated article. There's too much overlap at the moment, and I suspect that when this section forked over to the secondary history article, what remained was a shell of what's there now. Drive-by editors probably ignore the fact that there's a separate article covering the history, and continued expanding this section unnecessarily. My goal was to clean this one up first, then compare content between the two. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Because your version is wrong. They were not expelled at the December meeting. They were expelled right after failing to sign the informal pledge at the October meeting. Cleanup the language if you want, but keep the article accurate. Indrian (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, and entice is a much better word than what you were doing there to "make it better" which was grammatically atrocious. "Needing to cater" made no sense structurally in that context and made for one of those awkward sentence constructions you claim to hate so much. But you are right, you do need to entice someone to a specific activity, so I just added like three words to the end of the sentence. Now that was not hard, was it? Nothing wrong with cleaning up an article; I kept most of your changes, but the ones I reverted either resulted in grammatical problems, more awkward sentences, or factual inaccuracies like the one above. If you would get off your high horse and just focus on improving the article and graciously accepting a little feedback when your changes do not work, we would not be wasting our time having this pointless little spat. Indrian (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're more caught up in protecting preferred content than you are in improving it. I see your edits here date as far back as 2012, protecting essentially the same verbiage in the opening three paragraphs. Nine years later, and the section still suffers from a lack of sourcing. It amazes me that this has escaped either your attention or your interest, or both. Perhaps you should devote more time and energy into that as opposed to worrying about how something is phrased. Whatever I fail to find sources for will be promptly {{cn}} tagged and later removed if not fixed, so here's your chance to contribute.

As for your explanation regarding the expulsion, it just further solidifies my position that the sentence structure is confusing to begin with. Also your reversion reinserted duplicate links like "Crosley Field" that I had removed previuosly. If anyone needs advice here, it's the editor not paying attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you really are an unpleasant person aren't you? Improve Wikipedia all you like. If you make a mess of an existing sentence though, I will be here to right the ship (just as others, including you in this very article believe it or not, have corrected messes in other sentences on the project). Tag anything you like; its a good system to point out areas needing improvement. But remove accurate content that does not violate BLP just because you are too lazy to look for sources, and your vandalism will be reverted. If I wanted to spend time doing citations, I would have done so already. Thankfully, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so the next person in line can take care of that. Could be you if you decide improving the article is more important than making a scene. Happy editing. Indrian (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, if I'm unable to find sources (which point blank means I'm looking for them), then the statement will get tagged. If no one else pitches in to find sources at that point, then they'll get the ax. Very simple process. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to include disputed content, not the other way around. Keep that in mind. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"you really are an unpleasant person aren't you?"

And no, I'm quite pleasant actually! It takes a lot to ruffle these feathers. Sometimes, difficult encounters require a more systematic approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am admittedly often quite crotchety on Wikipedia, so any accusation levelled at me in that regard would be completely justified! Look, there was no intent to turn this whole thing toward animosity, but it was pretty galling that when I reverted only a small portion of your changes, you went straight to the mattresses and reverted everything back without discussion. It's "bold, revert, discuss," not "bold, revert, revert back, discuss." Quite frankly, the easiest thing for me to do would have been rolling back your whole edit, but I did take the time to go through line by line and only pull out the ones that were awkward. And then some accusations started flying from your camp that I do not think were warranted or helpful. So here we are, but I do have the article's best interests at heart, as I am sure you do as well. I got the information from a very good and very reputable history of all the Major League baseball teams. I would give you the name -- I am not being obtuse -- but I do not have it in front of me, and I forget the title at the moment. I can find it later. I also have a Newspapers.com subscription, and I just confirmed the series of events via several articles reporting on the National League meeting held in October 1880 in Rochester. The clubs got together and resolved to adopt the new rules on beer and Sunday baseball at the annual meeting in December, which I believe according to the league constitution was the only time new rules could be adopted. Kennett objected and on consultation with the shareholders stated that such rules would never be acceptable to the Cincinnati club. Therefore, the League voted then and there to expel them. Its usually stated that the team was banned for violating the rules against Sunday baseball, but the rule had not actually gone into effect yet; it was a preemptive ban. Just because I did not source that statement when I put it in does not mean I just pulled it off a random blog or something. I would have told you all that if you had just asked, but you did not seem interested in actually finding out these details directly from me. Indrian (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and fair enough! I admittedly could have taken a less harsh approach. Didn't realize how much you retained until I took a closer look. Hard to tell what kind of editor you're dealing with sometimes, and yes, I'm sure you have the article's best interests at heart as well. I'm in no rush to remove anything; that's really a last resort for me. Great to know you have a Newspaper.com subscription. That could be a game changer. As far as the article goes, I think adding some mention of the 1869 Red Stockings here might be beneficial as well, considering the "first professional baseball team" is mentioned in the lead. This source should help with that. Not sure how much time I'll have over the next couple weeks, but it's nice to have goals, right?! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a solid basis for moving forward. My apologies for my part in the brinksmanship. By the way, the book I was referring to above is Total Ballclubs: The Ultimate Book of Baseball Teams. Indrian (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Cincinnati Red Stockings played their first professional baseball game in 1869.

This is wrong. 108.28.187.44 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Cincinnati Red Stockings did debut in 1869. Their page is at Cincinnati Red Stockings. This is a different team. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)