Template talk:RivalryCurse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
RivalryCurse is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] 1967 World Series
Shouldn't the 1967 World Series be included as well? That was the series that saw Boston's "Impossible Dream" get crushed by St. Louis. Darwin's Bulldog 06:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why Is the "Curse" so Prominently Featured?
Sure, the so-called "curse" has been a part of Yankees-Red Sox rivalry lore, but never subsumed the entire rivalry. Especially since any "curse" has been definitively broken with two Red Sox World Series championships to the Yankees' none since 2000, it does not seem to me that the "curse" should be so prominently displayed in the header of the template in bright red lettering. This is of questionable neutrality and inaccurately suggests that the "curse" is the whole of the rivalry, which, if it was ever true, is certainly not the case after 2004. Instead of just changing it, I thought I'd see what people thought first. -- Friejose (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The project started out as two separate templates. I found it wrong to not have Curse of the Bambino and Yankees-Red Sox templates. However, it became readily apparent that there was far too much overlap. Only about three or four articles in the template are exclusive to one or the other. The reason for the red text is so that the colors of each team can be represented. Navy and White for the Yankees, and Navy and Red for the Red Sox. While not the whole of the rivalry, the part the curse plays, or played until recently, cannot be overstated. It is huge. One cannot mention one without the other. Their histories are just barely distinct from each other. I do not think that the Curse is given undue weight (I did bill it second in the template) but seperating the templates would only waste space, and would be futile due to them being integral to each other. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate the good work you did in combining the two templates, and my point is not that there should be two separate templates (one for the "rivalry" and one for the "curse"), but rather that there should be one template that has all of this information and that the one template should be labeled "rivalry" only. The "curse" is only part of the larger "rivalry" and I found it odd that it should be given so much prominence in the title of this template, especially since the "curse" is now three years gone, never to return. I understand historically why this template was labeled so -- because you combined two templates and one was "curse" centered, hence, you retained the name -- but for common sense and current relevance reasons, I believe it makes sense to make this template unitary but to remove the "curse" wording from the header area. -- Friejose (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- While the curse is over in the minds of most fans (which is pretty much where it existed to begin with), that does not diminish in the least it's relevance now, or ever. The fact of the matter is that every part of this rivalry will be just a part of the rivalry, able to be just shoved under the heading of "The Rivalry". However, the curse trancends the rivalry. It is a distinct entity, which sometimes forsook the Yankees, instead choosing the Reds or the Mets. They are really two seperate entities, which are so closely entwined that there is one template for both. The Curse of the Bambino is signifigant enough historically to get it's own template, and, as such, billing in the heading represents that it is the Curse's template as well. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analysis. The "curse" created the "rivalry," and whether it metastasized to include other franchises or not is besides the point. The trade of Babe Ruth to the Yankees, whether causally or coincidentally, marked an abrupt change in fortunes of the Boston and New York AL franchises. Boston had been the behemoth of the AL since the league's renaming from the Western League, the Yankees (nee Highlanders) had been a second tier afterthought, the third team in New York with a spotty record of mediocrity. Post the Babe trade, fortunes completely reversed, with the construction of Yankee Stadium, the Murderers Row lineup, the panoply of HOF'ers, and, who could forget, 26 world championships for the Yanks. The Red Sox saw a owner more concerned with musicals lead to an owner more concerned with his drinking buddies and with keeping Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron off the Sox due to racism than with the club they owned, all of which resulted in a horrific run of abysmal baseball through the 20s and 30s. Only to be followed by heartbreak in the 40s, more racism and rum in the 50s, and, with brief interludes in '67 and '75, even more heartbreak until '04. The sun sets (or rises as the case may be) at the Babe trade, forever altering two franchises. That the Mets had a bit part in the drama is of no moment. If people are really concerned about the ins and outs of the "curse," it is all available in the "curse" article. But really, the so-called "curse" is really nothing more than the intertwined destinies and fates of the Yankees and Red Sox, and should not receive separate billing in the header of this template. -- Friejose (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the Curse it signifigant enough to warrant a template. As this functions as its template as well, then it should get billing. I think that perhaps we should send this to the Wikiproject Baseball talk page to get other opinions.--Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analysis. The "curse" created the "rivalry," and whether it metastasized to include other franchises or not is besides the point. The trade of Babe Ruth to the Yankees, whether causally or coincidentally, marked an abrupt change in fortunes of the Boston and New York AL franchises. Boston had been the behemoth of the AL since the league's renaming from the Western League, the Yankees (nee Highlanders) had been a second tier afterthought, the third team in New York with a spotty record of mediocrity. Post the Babe trade, fortunes completely reversed, with the construction of Yankee Stadium, the Murderers Row lineup, the panoply of HOF'ers, and, who could forget, 26 world championships for the Yanks. The Red Sox saw a owner more concerned with musicals lead to an owner more concerned with his drinking buddies and with keeping Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron off the Sox due to racism than with the club they owned, all of which resulted in a horrific run of abysmal baseball through the 20s and 30s. Only to be followed by heartbreak in the 40s, more racism and rum in the 50s, and, with brief interludes in '67 and '75, even more heartbreak until '04. The sun sets (or rises as the case may be) at the Babe trade, forever altering two franchises. That the Mets had a bit part in the drama is of no moment. If people are really concerned about the ins and outs of the "curse," it is all available in the "curse" article. But really, the so-called "curse" is really nothing more than the intertwined destinies and fates of the Yankees and Red Sox, and should not receive separate billing in the header of this template. -- Friejose (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- While the curse is over in the minds of most fans (which is pretty much where it existed to begin with), that does not diminish in the least it's relevance now, or ever. The fact of the matter is that every part of this rivalry will be just a part of the rivalry, able to be just shoved under the heading of "The Rivalry". However, the curse trancends the rivalry. It is a distinct entity, which sometimes forsook the Yankees, instead choosing the Reds or the Mets. They are really two seperate entities, which are so closely entwined that there is one template for both. The Curse of the Bambino is signifigant enough historically to get it's own template, and, as such, billing in the heading represents that it is the Curse's template as well. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the good work you did in combining the two templates, and my point is not that there should be two separate templates (one for the "rivalry" and one for the "curse"), but rather that there should be one template that has all of this information and that the one template should be labeled "rivalry" only. The "curse" is only part of the larger "rivalry" and I found it odd that it should be given so much prominence in the title of this template, especially since the "curse" is now three years gone, never to return. I understand historically why this template was labeled so -- because you combined two templates and one was "curse" centered, hence, you retained the name -- but for common sense and current relevance reasons, I believe it makes sense to make this template unitary but to remove the "curse" wording from the header area. -- Friejose (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is Buckner included in this box?
Buckner's error came against the Mets, not the Yankees. While of course Yankee fans would ridicule anything to do with Boston, this incident doesn't seem like it belongs here. The 1986 World Series link doesn't seem to belong either. 1995hoo (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - I stumbled across this box at the bottom of a player's page. It seems to list a lot of moments on the Red Sox side over time that have little to nothing to do with the Yankees - Buckner, the 1967 Impossible dream, the 1975 World Series. Not sure what these milestones have to do with the Yankees, unless they are used to highlight the Red Sox' ultimate failures in general by a malicious Yankee fan. I have to wonder that if in 2007 the Sox lost to the Indians with the bugs swarming in the ALDS and the Yankees came back and beat Cleveland in the ALCS if the 2007 Series would also be included in this "rivalry box". Curiously, since it was New York that lost to Cleveland and Boston that beat them, the example is conspiculously absent.Ce2421 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
