Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

your name means fart

 

Bwahahahaha.  You hold true to your sig.  I love it.

 

Actually, I've used the same name for nearly twenty years, and it was originally a reference to my favorite Angry Beavers episode.  It wasn't until Fraser Agar made a joke about my name about 4-5 years ago during a Minecraft show that I realized it was probably meant to be making that joke.

 

Nevertheless, yes, I've done much work editing on Wikipedia, working primarily on the baseball project.  I haven't been doing it as much lately, but I know how much work people put into this, and it disappoints me when people discount it as nothing but a breeding ground for misinformation.  Your method of going back to the sources that the article... sourced to please people who harp on it, but if you want to know something at the moment, it's always the first place I go to.

 

As for my comments about darker sides, I don't want to get into specifics for fear of setting off a social/political argument, but one controversial figure's article doesn't contain reference to any criticism because of the media's bias and almost all detractors not being considered neutral and reliable under the guidelines.  Then again I don't always agree with guidelines on notability and sourcing, but it's understandable and for the greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Without getting into details, the assumption that every single thing on wikipedia is wrong just because it's wikipedia is absurd.

I'm pretty sure that your statement ISN'T the assumption.

 

I believe it is better stated that you shouldn't use Wikipedia as the arbiter of a discussion because it is based on consensus.  Consensus does not equal fact.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say that people in general feel everything is wrong just because it is Wikipedia.  It is more correct to say that just because Wikipedia says something is so does not make it fact.

 

On Topic - The Style Guide is the source for what is and isn't a team color.  I don't have access to the Style Guide, so I don't know.  Names of colors aren't indicators of the look of the color (another topic altogether), such that Gold is visually different even though it shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Huh.  Is that the first time they've worn the D cap?  I think they've only gone with the A so far.  At least, this is the first time I've actually seen them wear it.

 

 

I have to admit, though, I do miss the old version of the team's branding.  It used to be that everything focused on the bright red/white/blue color scheme, like my old trash can.

 

261987158471_1.jpg

!Bt!N9YQEGk~$(KGrHqYOKjIEvO+VTWcNBL6HgEFil_570xN.656296384_fs70.jpg

 

But in the new Millennium, the team focused on navy and brought gray in a LOT, portraying it as one of the team's primary colors.

 

$_35.JPG

 

It's so dreary.  I miss the brightness of the 90's.

 

 

 

Well, then why the crap didn't they bring the plack piping over?!

Yankees used to use royal blue a lot ?? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, the admiral said:

Can you help me get the over-explained version of the Ol' Dirty Bastard's "Got Your Money" article reinstated? Best wikipedia comedy ever.

 

That was taken down for being considered "original research".  Gimme a few professional articles describing the meaning of the song that I can use as sources, and I can fix that in a giffy.

 

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

Yankees used to use royal blue a lot ?? :o

 

Purely a merchandising and fashion thing.  The team's on-field persona has been the same since the 50's/60's.

 

Fortunately, we seem to have gotten beyond the navy/dark red/dark gray and now are focused on clean navy and bright white, with red limited to the primary logo and light grey used whenever a third color is needed.

 

17dd64ccb1eceeb7f0c51199448e12b8.jpgff_2218988_xl.jpg&w=400

 

51fxJw%2BS8dL.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DiePerske said:

For whatever this is worth, Colorwerx doesnt list gold as a Giants colour.

 

What's your source?  Because from this site that attributes its information to Colorwerx, the gold is a color, and on this site, he talks at depth about the matte gold Pantone, and even notes that the gold is in the "official documentation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I'm pretty sure that your statement ISN'T the assumption.

 

I believe it is better stated that you shouldn't use Wikipedia as the arbiter of a discussion because it is based on consensus.  Consensus does not equal fact.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say that people in general feel everything is wrong just because it is Wikipedia.  It is more correct to say that just because Wikipedia says something is so does not make it fact.

 

On Topic - The Style Guide is the source for what is and isn't a team color.  I don't have access to the Style Guide, so I don't know.  Names of colors aren't indicators of the look of the color (another topic altogether), such that Gold is visually different even though it shouldn't be.

 

Wikipedia is a great source, and 99.9999% correct, but there is that consensus factor that just makes me want to find other resources to confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, insert name said:

The furthest the Yankees ever went with RED was on their jackets in 2000 and I think it was for 1 season. That's the last time I ever saw it.

images.jpg

Yeah, that was very short lived, and wasn't even used consistently. I think that jacket was only used in 2000, but by the time the World Series rolled around, they were already back in the usual blue/white jacket:

 

l66332-1.jpg

 

(On another note, that jacket makes me realize how much better the satin jackets looked than the current Yankees' jackets. Pretty sure the Yanks were the last team to wear satin jackets, since Torre preferred them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, insert name said:

The furthest the Yankees ever went with RED was on their jackets in 2000 and I think it was for 1 season. That's the last time I ever saw it.

images.jpg

 

That was a throwback of sorts to their 1950 jacket:

 

4635620935_931f4cc488_b.jpg

 

But yeah, their use of red is and ought to be sparing.  Though I do miss it on the barterman logos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Without getting into details, the assumption that every single thing on wikipedia is wrong just because it's wikipedia is absurd.

 

Yes, if anyone had said anything remotely like that.  

 

Not everything is wrong, but not everything is right, either, and for that reason it's not itself a reliable source.   It is a great place to go to find reliable sources, but because of its nature you can't automatically trust anything that doesn't link to a verifiable, legitimate source. 

 

Doom, I'm sorry that you took my criticism personally.  It certainly wasn't intended as such.  I'm glad that you have derived such enjoyment from the site, and that you take your responsibilities seriously.  If only more users did, Wikipedia would be much better served. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, if anyone had said anything remotely like that.  

 

Not everything is wrong, but not everything is right, either, and for that reason it's not itself a reliable source.   It is a great place to go to find reliable sources, but because of its nature you can't automatically trust anything that doesn't link to a verifiable, legitimate source. 

 

Doom, I'm sorry that you took my criticism personally.  It certainly wasn't intended as such.  I'm glad that you have derived such enjoyment from the site, and that you take your responsibilities seriously.  If only more users did, Wikipedia would be much better served. 

 

Bah.  It's fine.  No personal offense.  I've just personally seen the hard work people put into it, dwarfing even my small contribution.  I'd say the vast majority of active users fall under that scope.

 

Eh, back to baseball.  Sadly, yes, Thomas.  T'is so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Man, that is just an obvious cash grab, forcing the players to look ridiculous just to make more money. I fear MLB is following the path of the NBA, I never  thought they would do that !

 

Pink gloves and bats were not enough ? :o:wacko:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That was a throwback of sorts to their 1950 jacket:

 

4635620935_931f4cc488_b.jpg

 

But yeah, their use of red is and ought to be sparing.  Though I do miss it on the barterman logos. 

So do I. I've never been fond of the Yankees' use of gray as a third color. Use midnight blue and white exclusively whenever possible, and when a third color is absolutely necessary, use red.

 

30 teams wear gray road uniforms, doesn't make it a "team color" for all of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IceCap locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.