Talk:Milwaukee Brewers

post-Braves, pre-Pilots

This article is really shaping up nicely - I agree that the Milwaukee Braves stuff more properly belongs in the Atlanta Braves' entry, and the Seattle Pilots information belongs here. I have added some information about the post-Braves, pre-Pilots era, including Bud Selig's attempts to draw an expansion franchise, the White Sox games played at County Stadium and Selig's deal to move the White Sox because they all relate directly to the founding of the Milwaukee Brewers.Chancemichaels 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The chronology is a little messed up. The expansion franchises were awarded for inaugural play in 1969, yet the the history says that the strong attendance at Sox games in Milwaukee in 1969 got everyone's hopes up but they were dashed when Montreal, San Diego, Seattle and KC got expansion franchises. This actually happened in 1968, when the extraordinarily strong attendance wasn't rewarded with an expansion franchise. In 1969, the Pilots had already been born, and they actually played a game at County Stadium. How could it be better and more accurately worded? The material is well-researched and referenced.

Uniform Changes 1978-1993

I'm reverting to the original wording - "the road cap was eliminated" is, I believe, more appropriate than "the yellow panel on the front of the cap turned blue".

First of all, the new sentence is clunky. The front of the cap "turned blue"? Second of all, MLB describes uniform changes using the original words - uniform elements such as alternate caps and uniforms are "added" and "eliminated." -- Chancemichaels 13:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

All time record

I changed the all-time record back to 2,761 wins, 3,100 losses (.471 winning percentage), to reflect the record at the end of the 2005 season. WP is not a news service. --mtz206 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, WP is not a news service, and we should not introduce content that requires daily updates in order to remain accurate. I don't see the utility in constantly updating their "all-time record" as each game occurs. --mtz206 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mtz206. Readers can go elsewhere to find daily statistics. Royalbroil 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Topic headers

Just wondering what the point of "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" is. I believe "We're Taking This Thing National" was actually the team's slogan the year they changed leagues, so there is actually significance to that. Unless there's some significance here that I'm missing, I'd propose that "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" be removed. It comes off as being a bit frivolous. Dhmachine31 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" was the headline in the Milwaukee Sentinel the day after the Brewers won the ALCS. We should include the graphic to justify the headline. --Chancemichaels 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Looking at it again, there is a graphic to justify the headline. Prominently displayed in the "1982 memorabilia" photo is a copy of the newspaper. What do you all think about adding the headline back in? --38.117.200.131 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Going National

In the section "Going National", the writer suggests that the only necessity for having an even-number of teams in each league (and thus necessitating the move of Milwaukee to the National League) is that Major League Baseball was interested in interleague play. This doesn't make sense... interleague play would actually work just fine if each league had 15 teams... all 15 teams would play each section of the schedule with in-league games only and there were an odd number of teams then one team would always have an off day, or, actually, an off-series. The odd team out would have to have 3 days off in a row while the other teams played their 3-game series!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.142.191 (talk • contribs) 16:04, July 9, 2006

I read that and found it other, and no one would be left out of the schedule. Each league needs an even number of teams regardless of the presence or absence of interleague play, because when a league is playing a odd too. I think the original writer meant intraleague play. MLB would need an interleague series all season long if each division had 15 teams and they still wanted off days primarily only Monday and Thursday. I'm going to change it. If anyone feels it is more correct the old way, by all means fix it.Failureofafriend 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "both leagues would need to carry an even number of teams" is confusing, it sounds like the AL and NL would need the to have the SAME number of teams as the other, which they already had at 15 apiece. Does anyone agree? And if so, is changing it to "each league would need to carry an even number of teams" any clearer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.189.69 (talk) 18:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

National League move

Regarding my edit here [1], there is an on-going discussion at my talk page. In general, this section opines using weasel words. If these concerns are valid, they should be presented as encyclopedic facts with citations to reliable sources expressing such concerns, not just innuendos. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully it looks better at least my part of it. Smith03 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see little encyclopedic utility in this statement: "MLB had other options besided moving the Brewers to the National League. MLB could have put both Arizona and Tampa Bay in one league or moved a National League team to the American League." Of course MLB had other options. They had 30 options. Mentioning two of them is not informative. We should present what happened, and only present controversy if it existed to such an extent that it was discussed by reliable sources. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I change it back to your last edit after I realized you had made some changes so it is better than it was when I first saw it . I do however think that "MLB had other options besided moving the Brewers to the National League. MLB could have put both Arizona and Tampa Bay in one league or moved a National League team to the American League." is encyclopedic because it puts out that MLB had more options than just moving an AL team, when I first read the article today the way it was wrtitten it the article impleaded that the only option was to move an AL team to the NL. It is also certainly reasonable to point out or remind readers that Selig both owned the Brewers at this time and was the commissioner that is a fact. No problem letting readers draw their own conclusions from that. Sorry if you feel that I am attacking your team or your work on the article but it certainly is reasonable to raise points about motives behind way this team was moved to the NL (yes it needs to be sourced) yes baseball had 30 options so why did they pick this one?Smith03 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not "attacking my team or my work on the article" - no one owns anything around here. Just trying to ensure encyclopedic quality. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Season Results?

I am very hesitant about having 2007 listed in the season-by-season results, requiring daily maintenance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Shouldn't we let the dust settle? --Chancemichaels 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Agreed, and for that matter, the blow-by-blow account of the 2006 is far too detailed in comparison to other years. In my opinion, the article should focus on events of historical significance that someone reading in ten years would likely care about. As for the 2007 record, there's no real stopping dedicated fans from doing what they will. --Beaker342 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is - we reach a consensus here, and editors will honor it. I think your criteria is a solid one, if we can get a few more people to chime in then we can apply it to the article. --Chancemichaels 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Maybe I just don't see the harm in the record changing every day. What would a consensus look like? You can't enter the 2007 record until October? I don't see it working, though I'd go either way. I think the ten year criteria, though I just pulled it out of thin air, is actually a Wikipedia guideline WP:RECENT. Thus, events like the bullpen blowing a game in the 2006 season don't matter. If it was game 7 of the NLCS, it would be a different story. As for the 2006 season summary, I'll say this, it's a lot better than some of the garbage on other team articles. For example, take a look at the disaster that is the Toronto Blue Jays. --Beaker342 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right - that's a mess. As for this page, I don't know exactly what we need for a consensus, but we can wait and see. As for changing it every day, that's contrary to Wikipedia policy - this site isn't a place for current news. I don't think the 2007 season record should be included until it is complete. --Chancemichaels 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Throwback

The Throwback uniform has been included, which is good. I, however, am not sure where to find out what teams use throwback uniforms and which do not, as well as which throwback is used. I know the Nationals wear the old "Grays" uniforms as well. Is this practice just among these two teams, or can someone tell me where to find what they wear, or give me a good list with an inclusion of what it looks like so I can pick which one off the MLB shop site is used. Silent Wind of Doom 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are regular throwbacks, and then there are one-offs (like the Milwaukee Braves and Milwaukee Bears uniforms this team wears). I think the regular alternates should be included in the box, while one-offs should be excluded - though mentioned in the text if warranted on a case-by-case basis. As to the complete list, MLB does have a comprehensive list of approved uniforms, but I don't believe it is made public any more. --Chancemichaels 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

untuckem

I too agree the untucking of the jerseys should be mentioned. It is something Wisconsin can be proud of, something similar to the Lambeau Leap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.80.4 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Turn of the century Minor League Brewers ?

Was just reading a white sox history book and it mentioned Connie Mack managing the Milwaukee Brewers. Went to look it up on wikipedia and see no mention of this. Would be nice to know more about it ...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.181.181 (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unifrom Image

On the Unifroms Image, The pants with the Navy Blue Milwaukee Jersey should be Grey not White. That Uniform combo is for wearing on the road only not at home. Please change White to Grey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.215.172 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

I agree that it is a good idea to do since other sports with players from many different countries use that format. I think it would be best to decide for all MLB teams though, and not on a team-by-team basis. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I propose that Seattle Pilots be merged into Milwaukee Brewers. There appears to be precedence to have teams who have moved cities and changed names, to be merged into a single article. Some examples are Washington Senators (1901-1960), St. Louis Browns, Brooklyn Robins, and Washington Senators (1961-1971), which are teams that have moved cities and changed their names. Boston Braves (baseball), Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants (NL), and Philadelphia Athletics are examples of teams who moved cities, but kept their names.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As the proposer, there is clear precedent to not have separate articles for what are clearly the same team. (See Examples above). Its redundant and the two teams share the same history and records. There is no reason to have separate articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per many of my arguments at the numerous merge proposals on Talk:Montreal Expos. Split articles is preferable, as previous incarnations of franchises deserve greater coverage. WP:NOTPAPER, etc., etc. Resolute 01:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support.. no reason for one season of this teams existence to have a separate page from the rest of the history of the team. Spanneraol (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Given no less than three books have been written about this team, I would say there is ample notability independent of the Milwaukee Brewers such as to justify a stand alone article. Resolute 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Resolute. With that many RS on this team makes it notable in it's own right. Also in the Talk:Washington_Nationals#Merger_Proposal Resolute indicated he would be willing to turn this into a good article, I think that he should be taken up on that offer. A minor paragraph can then be made on the Brewers page with a main article heading, which would improve the encyclopedia as a whole.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course this article does not currently cite ANY sources.. and is really a poorly constructed article. It's still only ONE season and can easily (and is) covered within the Brewers article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So that would be a support?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, the article should be moved to History of the Seattle Pilots & Seattle Pilots made into a re-direct to that History article. See History of the Brooklyn Dodgers & History of the New York Giants (NL) articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really a whole lot of history there. Only one season. And there is already a the 1969 Seattle Pilots season. This info could be merged into that article as well, which may actually be abetter idea.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Exceptions upset consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there's no History of the Philadelphia Athletics, History of the St. Louis Browns, or History of the Washington Senators. All teams with long histories, although I suppose there's nothing stopping anyone from creating them.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Give it time, as I'm confident my proposal will take hold across the MLB articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope so and I would be in favor of those articles based on consistency across the Baseball wikiproject, but the "Pilots" page would be redundant as it was only one season and there is already a page that covers that season.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right.. this information can easily be merged into the pilots season page... No reason at all to have two separate articles on the same season. Spanneraol (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In this specific case, there definitely is merit to the idea of redirecting to 1969 Seattle Pilots season. Personally, I would like to see it go the other way, as with books written about the team, the context of the Pilots extends beyond just the season. But it is certianly true that only one article needs to exist, so no opposition to merging to the season article if that is what consensus holds. Resolute 17:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, I agree. In fact perhaps this could be repropsed to that effect, since I didn't even think about it until after this discussion began.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I like the idea of re-naming Seattle Pilots as "History of the Seattle Pilots" and then re-directing "Seattle Pilots" to "History of the Seattle Pilots". I don't like the idea of merging Seattle Pilots with 1969 Seattle Pilots season. The two articles cover two different perspectives. On one hand, "1969 Seattle Pilots season" discusses one season (albeit the first season) of a baseball team. "History of the Seattle Pilots", on the other hand, would be (is) about an MLB franchise in its first incarnation (location). On a related note, I just looked at History of the Milwaukee Brewers. Its section on the franchise's first season, in Seattle—entitled 1969–70: Roots in Seattle—is written from the perspective of Milwaukee, i.e., not from a Seattle (or neutral) perspective. Eagle4000 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and the WP:COMMONNAME is Seattle Pilots. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:NOTPAPER. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the simple fact that the pilots only played one unforgettable season before moving to Milwaukee. It hardly seems they need their own separate article when we don't afford other much more notable prior franchise incarnations (Washington Senators, NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, etc...) of teams to have their own articles. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  We basically do. See History of the New York Giants (NL) and Brooklyn Dodgers. -DJSasso (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Of Course they already have their own article, the season article.. the issue is if they need TWO separate articles for a team that lasted only one year? Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  If anything I would move the season article into the Pilots article... -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Why on earth would you do that?? Then they would be the only team season in major baseball history to not have a season article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  It would have a season article, it would be in the Pilots article. Again names of articles are supposed to be the most concise appropriate title. It is much more appropriate to call the article Seattle Pilots than to call it the 1969 Seattle Pilots season. Anyway you would just redirect the other name to the article. And everything would be fine. This is no different than the practice of linking List articles to a section of another page for teams where the list isn't very big yet. -DJSasso (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Then we should do the same for the Pilots. Or incorporate it into the Brewers article. The Pilots themselves do not need a stand alone article... Gateman1997 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Revised Merge Proposal

Propose that Seattle Pilots be merged to 1969 Seattle Pilots season for reasons of common sense. The Brewers article has enough on the Pilots and it would be quite easy to merge the other two articles. Spanneraol (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is enough material here for a standalone article. No point in merging that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Oppose, this article should be RM'd to History of the Seattle Pilots. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If season articles are essentially spinout articles from the team article, then in the case of the Pilots, it may be more logical for a consolidation or reverse-split to bring the season article into the team article. isaacl (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - There is no reason to have two articles covering the same topic. If there would be no reason to have History of the Seattle Pilots, since the small bit of information is already covered in the Brewers article, as their history is the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this conversation belongs on Talk:Seattle Pilots, not here. IMHO, the season information is long enough and full of tables that would overwhelm the existing article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• ECed on the exact same question: Why is this new merge proposal being held at an irrelevant article? It should be discussed at either Seattle Pilots or 1969 Seattle Pilots season. In either case, my preference is to merge the season article into the Seattle Pilots article, but would accept the reverse. "History of..." is just a ridiculous and pointless name suggestion in this case. Resolute 20:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the season articles need to stay as they are consistent with every team across evert sport.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that every name of every article has to be consistent. All that matters is that the season information is covered. And it would be if it was merged in the Seattle Pilots article. This sort of thing is done often for things like Lists of Coaches or the like when the list is too small to be its own article, they are just redirected to the main article section that covers it. This would be no different. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just making a point that a merge of 1969 Seattle Pilots season into Seattle Pilots, would not go down well with the Baseball wikiproject and would be inconsistent with every other professional team in just about every sport. Would seem odd that this teams season wouldn't have a season article.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But it would have a season article is my point....that is where that argument falls down. The season article would be the Seattle Pilots article. -DJSasso (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But that season article would differ from all the other existing articles.. making an exception in this case is just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Let me start by saying that the effort put into the Brewers wiki page is outstanding, and it has a lot of information about the team. However, as I look back on what the Brewers wiki page used to be and look ahead 10 years from now I become a bit concerned. As it is now, I feel like the Brewers wiki page is extremely long and cluttered and contains a lot of somewhat sensational information. There are era and season by season breakdowns that I just don't feel at this time belong on the page. Is there going to season breakdown every year that gets tacked onto the Brewers main page?

After 10 years time of adding season breakdowns the Brewers wiki page is going to become atrocious looking. To be honest this wiki page looks more like a fan page injected with fandom and opinion than a wiki page that contains relevant, factual information. I know that there is a synopsis of each season, which I think is meant to shorten the length of the main article with more information available through the links, but I do not feel the synopses even belong on the main page. There should just be a link to a Brewers era and season breakdown wiki page page that contains all that information. Either there needs to be a completely separate page or the information that is there needs to be condensed even more than it is now. I think we need to make a change now to really clean up this wiki page. The season breakdowns are great and despite how it may have come across, I think they should continue to be done, but I do not feel like it belongs on the main page.

Team history most certainly belongs on the main page, but season to season breakdowns don't. I suggest that we stick to only including major team milestones or historical information. Things like the 2004–present: Attanasio era section need to go or be greatly summarized.

I hope we can open some dialogue on this and implement some of these proposed changes or come to some sort of compromise to consider the future of this Brewers wiki page if we continue on the road we are on.

Capitalization of colour names in team infoboxes

Regarding this edit: I have started a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Baseball regarding the capitalization. Please provide your feedback in that thread. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bud Selig's retired #1 image

In the retired numbers section, the retired #1 image in honor of Bud Selig is missing.

Megacheez 05:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

New Logo for 2018 Season

Milwaukee has changed their primary logo to the one found on their hats. Their current one has now been relegated to their secondary logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.37 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Just so we have a source on it, since sportslogos.net doesn't qualify, ESPN's uniform column has confirmed it.[2] SixFourThree (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Cap Logo.png
• Main-logo brewers.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Milwaukee Brewers cap logo on navy.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)