Talk:Tampa Bay Rays

"Professional baseball in Tampa Bay": New article?

It looks like this section would be a decent start to a new article. It probably has enough importance to stand on its own without being a part of the Rays article. Any objections to splitting this out? Sliver7 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a point in the section where I think that whatever comes after it should be kept. Everything else before that really has nothing to do with the team.

    Local leaders made many unsuccessful attempts to acquire a major league baseball team...

Keeping that and what follows, I think is relevant to the article because it depicts previous attempts at being awarded a franchise before finally getting one in 1998. All else before that should probably be moved. So what I'm saying is, I agree that the section should be moved, but not all of it. Just what is relevant to the team because of the history of ill-fated attempts to be given a franchise, which I would include to start out the "Before 1998" section. If there's enough information left to make a new article about Pro Baseball in Tampa Bay based on my idea, then I think it should be done. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to come back to this before the "split" template was removed. I'll see what I can do about drafting a separate article for this, and have it ready to be looked at before I put it back up. Sliver7 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion... A separate article about baseball in Tampa Bay is a great idea, imo. Just this month, there were lots of newspaper articles on this subject due to the closing of Al Lang Field, and just today, I picked up the latest issue of Cigar City Magazine with a "baseball in Tampa" theme. I've also seen a couple of books on the subject. There's a lot of interesting history there that's defintely worthy of an entry of its own.

I'll mention this on the Wikiproject Tampa page as well. Zeng8r (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rough Draft: I've created a rough draft of the proposed new article: Baseball in Tampa Bay. Any assistance in getting it up to standards would be greatly appreciated. Sliver7 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good start. There's actually a book called "Baseball in Tampa Bay", and it can apparently be read in its entirety online right here. Also, since the article is supposed to cover "Tampa Bay", current and former minor league and spring training sites in Clearwater, Bradenton, Plant City, etc. should probably be mentioned. Thanks for getting this going, Sliver7! Do you mind if users edit the draft on your page? Zeng8r (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit right on the page I've got up. I just figured we could get it hashed out there before putting it out "live". :-) I'll be pretty busy through the weekend with other things, but I'll try to work on it as I get the time. Sliver7 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More updates: I'm not sure anyone else has been following the page as I've been editing it (I'm the only one so far to edit it, in any case). I'm using the 'official' Hernando County/Hillsborough County/Pasco County/Pinellas County definition of the Tampa Bay Area (so Bradenton, Sarasota, etc., aren't included in the article). In any case, I don't want to clog up this whole talk page. Additional help would be very much appreciated: User:Sliver7/Baseball in Tampa Bay (Also, Zeng8r, thanks for the pointer to that book. The whole thing isn't viewable via Google Books, but next week I'll see if the local library has it.) Sliver7 (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Split re-suggested: Article available: I've placed the split template back in the article. I think the article I've been working on (User:Sliver7/Baseball in Tampa Bay) is reasonably far enough along to move it to Baseball in Tampa Bay. When it's there, more people will see it to make the improvements it still needs. Please comment. - Sliver7 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarification (just in case), this would encompass up to the point suggested by Tampabay721 above. - Sliver7 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Split Complete: Since there was no talk indicating opposition to the move, I've gone ahead and made the new article live, and edited the main Rays article accordingly. See: Baseball in Tampa Bay. - Sliver7 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Citrus Derby

What's the Citrus Derby? --User:Kushboy 17:04 EST July 8, 2005

It's apparently a fig newton of anonymous user 24.171.36.233's semi-fertile imagination, along with all this bogus "main rivals" junk that he's been putting on every baseball team page. Wahkeenah 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

At least, there's some action being taken against these fake rivalries. [1] Win777 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The fake "rivalries" keep on coming. Win777 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

They posted a "Disco Demolition Rivalry" between the White Sox and Tigers. They are really getting desparate. Wahkeenah 17:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Correction

I noticed a spelling error when I was browsing the page. I changed it, just wanted to make a record of it. Doughboy 16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to post that here. Just leaving that in your edit summary will do. OsFan 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Devil"?

Why is "Devil" in quotation in relation to the team's name. The team's name is the Devil Rays, not the Rays, despite the poll of season tix. holders. I'm going to take the quotes off, unless someone can explain them. Wxthewx99 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The team changed the name to simplt the Rays 72.40.104.171 (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Single Season Records

The line that states the requirements to qualify for single season records:

Average records require qualification for end-of-year awards according to MLB standards. For batting average, a player must have a minimum 450 plate appearances. For ERA, a pitcher must be have played in at least 30 games and started at least 25 of those games.

This contradicts what I have understood the standard to qualify is. To my understanding, to qualify for the batting title, a player needed 501 plate appearances during the season, and pitchers, to qualify for the ERA title needed at least one inning pitched for each team game, whether he be a starter or not (so usually 162 innings per season to qualify for the title). Darwin's Bulldog 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have started some copyediting of this article, but it's in major need of revamping. I'm going to start such an action, this article needs a colaborate effort to repair. Yanksox 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Before the Devil Rays

The Before the Devil Rays section is not even remotely NPOV in either tone or content. It needs a thorough rewrite from someone who knows more than I do about the history of bringing baseball to Tampa Bay. CoramVobis 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't? It seems perfectly fine to me, though sorely lacking in refs. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Prominent Major Leaguers from Tampa Bay

This list has nothing to do with the team. Yes, some of the people on the list have been on the team, but this list is of MLBers who are from the city, not the team. It should be deleted. Doc502 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It should be kept. While the Devil Rays have been in existence for less than a decade, the Tampa Bay region has a rich baseball history, in part because of the prominent major leaguers that it has produced. The list of players is needed in order to understand that the history of baseball in Tampa Bay is far more than just the history of the Devil Rays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpt108 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

But this isn't an article on the history of baseball in Tampa Bay...it's an article on the Tampa Bay Rays. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"famous" fans

Is that section neccesary and/or cite-able? I've heard that a couple of those on the list have been spotted at the Trop, but most I have not, and no sources have been included. Also, does someone count as "famous" if most people have no idea who they are? Zeng8r 03:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The latter portion of this article is really unorganized and includes some questionably relevant information. I feel as though this section is meaningless and ought to be removed. --Valis2374 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Name Change

According to a press release the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will become the Tampa Bay Rays on November 8 2007. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Since that's the case, shouldn't that wait until it's official next Thursday, since they're technically still the Devil Rays until then? And would this mean removing all mention of the word "Devil" from the article, when referring to the history of the team? Tampabay721 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Major Update to the Article

I just edited out all mention of the word "Devil" where I thought it would be necessary. If anyone knows how to change the color of the Season Records table, and how to go about updating with the new logos, please don't hesitate. Tampabay721 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    Logos done, will do the colors. 
    Wait, colors done too. thanks for your updates. --Gingerbreadmann 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I Forgot to add that Raymond the mascot is supposedly involved in the new changes too, but I don't know when his new look is going to be unveiled, if it hasn't been already today. A new picture of him will probably be needed whenever possible. Tampabay721 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all references to the "Rays" between 1998 and 2007 (except for the introductory text at the top of the page) be "Devil Rays"? The name of the team for all those years was Devil Rays and such sweeping edits would appear to be 'sweeping' the old name under the rug. I recommend reverting all references to the team from 1998-2007 to Devil Rays. Basically, using Rays everywhere but in the aforementioned timeframe in "Franchise History" is fine. Using Rays between 1998-2007 is like calling Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth prior to 1952 (like talking about her as Queen Elizabeth in the 1940s). --Thirdmoon 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I just want to make sure that whoever comes across the article understands that the team is no longer to be referred to as the "Devil Rays," although that can be seen under the Names section on the side of the article. I think that referring to them as the Devil Rays throughout the majority of the article, would be confusing when all of a sudden after the 2007 section, they are just referred to as the "Rays," because it's not such a dramatic name change. I propose a little tweaking of the franchise history section, to resemble that of the Los Angeles Clippers, which I came across to get an idea. Just a short sentence to explain that they WERE the Devil Rays, or to just include in the Level 2 heading under the start of the Franchise History section to say something along the lines of "As the Devil Rays." I'm just looking for ideas to make it as disambiguous as possible. Tampabay721 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that "As the Devil Rays" compromise for seasons before 2008. Zeng8r 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

New name: Florida Rays?

I just noticed the couple of sentences stating that the Rays contemplate a change to become the "Florida Rays" when/if the Marlins never move or change their location name. I follow the Rays more closely than anyone I know, and I've NEVER heard that even mentioned as a joke possiblilty. It's also not cited, so unless someone can find a good source, I'm taking it out. Zeng8r (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where would the Florida Marlins go? There were rumours floating the Marlins wanted to respresent just Miami as opposed to the entires state of Florida. In any event, I wonder if it's possible to still refer to the Rays as the Devil Rays, just as many people call the Blue Jays the Jays -- either name is acceptable so we can't have to search and remove the word "Devil" at every instance of "Devil Rays". New York Dreams (talk)

I think somebody already tried to change all references to "Devil Rays" to "Rays". Of course, that's a bad idea, because the change only applies after the close of this season. All previous references to before the change are still valid, and should NOT be changed. - BillCJ (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the "devil" issue here. In the "future" section, the article currently says that the Rays are contemplating becoming the "Florida Rays" (ie not "Tampa Bay") if the Marlins abandon the appelation for any reason. Since it's such an out-there claim that nobody even knows what I'm talking about, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Zeng8r (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that is official, it seems as though not only is the name different, it refers to something new. That is, it seems as though ray is now short for "sun ray" instead of "devil ray." Sylvain1972 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png

Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Draysunis.PNG

Image:Draysunis.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniforms

Hey folks. I've talked with Silent Wind of Doom and asked if he'd be interested and making some GNU Free Documentation Licensed uniforms for the page. He's agreed, and hopefully it shouldn't be too long until the uniforms are back up. If you don't know who Silent Wind of Doom is, check nearly every MLB organization's page; he's created most of the uniforms. FRACTIONS (t | c) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There we go guys, some GNU'd uniforms. FRACTIONS (t | c) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rays trio.jpg

Image:Rays trio.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond

Though I'm not losing any sleep because the Raymond picture is now considered "old," this[2] is the new look of Raymond from "his" blog on raymond.mlblogs.com. So, since I have zero clue as to the Wikipedia guidelines for uploading and using pcitres, if someone could take the time to do it and replace the old picture, that would be great. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let's try to get a non-fair use one once Spring Training starts, though. EaglesFanInTampa 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Raymond, I've gone ahead and (re)created the article for him at: Raymond (mascot). Sliver7 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccerball

I keep seeing this soccerball image on baseball pages, and I'm just wondering if there isn't anything better to put there... Drippingyellowmadness (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the soccer ball pic is not actually an image directly placed on this or anyother baseball page. It is part of the {{current sport-related}} template, which is used on many Wikipedia sports-related pages, not just baseball articles. If the pic bothers you that much, you might bring up the issue of changing it to a more generic sports image at the Template talk:current sport-related discussion page. - BillCJ (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Yankee Issue

After today's bench-clearing incident with the Yankees, I feel that this is going to grow into an even bigger story, even larger than it has already become, so should that warrant its own section, rather than what I'm anticipating to be a ridiculously long sub-section under "Rivals"? Tampabay721 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. We should wait for the dust to settle rather than give a blow by blow account (literally) as it happens. Zeng8r (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I just set-up the subs cause I didn't know what would happen next. Now with this going in the directions it is, it could very well warrant its own article, like Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. EaglesFanInTampa 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that it seems the whole thing has subsided (with the players at least), I think the section should be shortened and just placed in the 2008 section I just added. It doesn't seem like anything else will happen related to the spring training incidents, but if it does, it can just be added on there. In my opinion, this isn't so much a "rivalry" like most people would view a rivalry, (For example, Seminoles-Gators, Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-White Sox, etc.), but an incident in one particular season between two teams in the same division of the MLB. OR if anyone has a better idea to do something with it, or even just to let it be, go ahead and throw it out there. I won't lose any sleep if someone disagrees, but I just feel it's better off in a 2008 section. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been general animosity between the two teams for a few years; its just showing more this season. Saksjn (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the separate sections for Red Sox and Yankees under "Rivals"; each section just outlined a single incident (or 2 in the case of the Yankees, both in 2008 though) and attempted to conjure a 'rivalry' out of the incident. There is nothing notable about the brawls that is any more notable than a brawl between any other two teams. If there had been a history more than just this current season for the Yankees/Rays, I could see it. The Sox/Rays did have a few brawls a while back, but unless someone wants to outline them instead of just saying "there were a lot of brawls when Lou Piniella was manager", it doesn't fit. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Being a "bold" editor does not include barging in (as an anonymous user, no less) and cutting out an entire section of a very actively edited article, imo. The rivalry section is notable and needs to remain. I'll wait for more input from other consistent editors of this entry before reverting the text, but mark me down for a proverbial strong keep. Zeng8r (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I said this almost two months ago, and commented on it again almost a month later, so I'll reitierate both into a "Super Comment." This is NOT a rivalry as big as most "household name" rivalries that I mentioned above. However, the spring training issue with the Yankees certainly IS notable considering the attention it received, and was NOT just as notable as a "normal" bench-clearing brawl, considering the events that led up to that day. Also, you can't begin to think people are going to buy the reason for taking off a section about incidents between two franchises whose ages differ in around 90 years because there isn't more of a history between them. Does it need the trading of a future legend more than 85 years ago for there to be a "history"? The section itself, doesn't need to be kept if we can find a place it fits. The intent for the Yankee section was that it would be carried over into the regular season, which it has not after 6 games between the two teams. Becuase it hasn't, it should probably be moved to the 2008 section of the entire article. The Yankees and Red Sox are both rivals because they are in our division, but no more than the Orioles and Blue Jays. However, we do not have as many notable incidents between the O's and Jays, or any other team for that matter, as we do the Yankees and Red Sox. I can understand taking out the Red Sox portion, perhaps because that was too long ago for me to remember (being 18 and having not such a great long-term memory), but don't even try to feed me some bull about the incidentS with the Yankees earlier this year is nothing more notable than a minor altercation that just happens to clear a bench or two. If there's a place for Sammy Sosa's corked bat, there is absolutely a place for everything that happened between the Rays and the Yankees. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk to most fans and they will make some comment about the "freaking Yankees" or the "annoying Red Sox." We definitely hate the yanks and sox a lot more than the jays or orioles. Saksjn (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Colors Section

I noticed an error when I read over the section about the uniform color changes. It notes the teams that do not have a shade of red or blue in the uniforms. However, the Pittsburgh Pirates do have red uniforms that they use as alternate home uniforms. Their spring training uniforms also have a shade of red. The Collector 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but that sentence doesn't really clarify what type of uniforms. The red Pirates jersey you're referring to is an alternate, while whoever wrote that part in the article was probably implying the standard home and road jerseys. So in a way, I think they're both kind of correct, but the article needs to specify one way or the other. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cowbell

Should we add a section on the significance of the cowbell to Ray's fans? It's basically the same thing as the Terrible Towel. Saksjn (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no... comparing the cowbell to the terrible towel is definitely a stretch. I mean the cowbell has its notoriety (if you can call it that), but I don't think it's notable enough to have its own article. If there was an article, what would it say? "The Rays Cowbell is a promotional gimmick thought up by person X. People complain about it a lot." phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Saksjn said "section" not "article," but even a section might be a stretch for me. The Steelers are synonymous with the Terrible Towel, and I don't think cowbell is much endorsed by the Rays other than that one night of the year. There wouldn't be much to write unless we had it in a trivia section. But so I've seen from the templates, trivia sections are discouraged, so then what? Tampabay721 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, whenever they want more crowd involvement, no matter the game, they flash "More Cowbell!" on the screen, so it's promoted more than once a year by the Rays. They only give them out on one night. I guess they expect you to buy one if you miss that night or something. If the Angels have the Rally Monkey, the Steelers have the Terrible Towel, and the Twins have their Homer Hanky in their articles, I don't see why the Rays can't have this. How it would be worded w/out being trivial, however, is definitely gonna be tricky. EaglesFanInTampa 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fans bring cowbells to every Rays game; I personally own one myself. Just think about it: they flash "More Cowbell!", one particularly well known fan is known as "the cowbell kid", and they have a template on the big screen that points at him and says "cheer with this guy!" Even fans that don't have cowbells routinely bang on the seats in unison with the cowbells. Just watch a home game on TV, the constant banging of cowbells will likely drive you nuts if your not used to it. I think a section would be easier to do, but an article could be warranted for. Saksjn (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I know all about the Cowbell Kid, especially through MySpace, and I make it a personal mission to sit next to him for every game I go to now. All I worry about is a section that will be long enough to be relevant, and also not be trivial, like EaglesFanInTampa said. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources that mention the cowbell kid, cause he's kinda a local celebrity. At least among fans. Saksjn (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I found one here that gives a good history of the cowbell and some quotes from "the kid".

---

The cowbell promotion was the idea of principal owner Stuart Sternberg, who picked it up from a classic Saturday Night Live skit. But its loudest proponent is "The Cowbell Kid" otherwise known as Cary Strukel, 38, a bartender and small-business owner who has become a one-man marching band of Rays fanfare, complete with giant blue afro wig and scuba flippers.

Strukel's proudest achievement is a clip from ESPN where Yankees broadcaster Michael Kay was heard saying about him, "I want to go down and make that guy eat the cowbell!"

But even Strukel realizes cowbells must be used with care.

"When you're beating it for absolutely no reason," that's not good, Strukel said, "but if it's in the ear of a Yankee fan, that's okay in my eyes."source Saksjn (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another article including The Kid, and I don't know if it would be appropriate to include, but for informational purposes I suppose, he's on MySpace. As for a picture of him, anyone could get a free one of him whenever the team comes back from this road trip, because he's at almost every home game. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just added a section. It sounds a little fan siteish, so it would be nice to have a non-fan edit it. Saksjn (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone had a picture of this year's cowbell, which they gave out last Saturday, I think it would be good to add it in there with the section. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about another picture with the bigger cowbell that people use drum sticks on? Saksjn (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't get too crazy about pictures, though. If we just use the one that the team gives out, it will show people how original they are in the look, and that they're not the same as the ones that people use drum sticks on. Otherwise, we could just use the cowbell picture from the cowbell article, and it wouldn't have much of the same meaning behind it than if we had the picture of the official Rays cowbell. I mean, you wouldn't get a yellow towel, write "Steelers" on it, and call it a "Terrible Towel." I would assume people knew what a real cowbell looks like, but they won't know the kind they give out at the game for that one day a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tampabay721 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Soooo... this is a player from the 97x "The Morning X" (comes up as a popup) that announces the retirement of the Cowbell Kid from the Kid himself... Should we uhh... mention something about it in that subsection despite not having a real source other than that link? Tampabay721 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

This is the dumbest thing I think can be discussed here, however I think it should be addressed... The infobox for the team mentions that one of the nicknames is "D-Rays," and a recent edit removed that name. The edit was reverted on the grounds that many people still call them that. Now, I don't want to nitpick because I don't really care, but for the sake of integrity, I think it should be removed per team rule on how references to the former name are not allowable under penalty of a $1 fine.[3] I just think taking that tiny thing out is in the best interest of the article. So if anyone agrees with me, I won't feel too stupid about it. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree with this. I don't feel that it should be removed, however, but that it should just be formated like their old name (i.e., D-Rays (1998-2007). Just my two cents. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like "former names." There could be "former nicknames" I guess. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that'd be a good idea. Lets wait like a day or so and see if anyone else would like to give input. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that, sounds good. Did you hear about sports center purposely calling them the Devil Rays 30 times to donate to the Ray's Baseball Foundation? Saksjn (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? When'd that happen? That's really cool! phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

6/5/08 Red Sox brawl

How long until someone should add something about what Coco Puff started? After suspensions are handed out? Also, where should it be added? I think this is as notable as the Shelley Duncan incident since it has more to it than just a common HBP turned bench clearing. Not a huge section or anything, but a brief mentioning like Coco Puff's article. (although that might not be a good example) Tampabay721 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Coco Crisp bro, not puff.

^^^ Completely missed the joke... Tampabay721 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well a joke has to be funny, so I don't blame you for missing it. The only joke really is Tampa's attendance figures this year after a WS appearance. Maybe THAT should be a section if the Red Sox brawl warrants a section in Mr. Comedian's mind 64.69.109.132 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)JontheHorribleAtheist

The English Language

"Tampa Bay's primary rivals are the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees, whom in 2008 they have been in an on-field altercations with." This is a severely fucked up sentence.

I took it out. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

????????

15:44, July 4, 2008 Pats1 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tampa Bay Rays" ‎ (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer)

I must be missing something here. Why was this article deleted, exactly? Presumably it can be restored, but it looks awfully strange on navboxes and the like to have a redlink where a current MLB team should be. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like an explanation too, since I have no idea wtf "R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer" means in layman's terms... Tampabay721 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Pats1 went to delete the redirect ("Tampa Bay Rays") but ended up deleting the whole article. I'm sure it was a mistake and I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. I've restored the article now, so it's fine :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1st place envy rears its ugly head, imo. ;) Zeng8r (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL, I would expect a few vandals now, but a frequent user to delete the whole thing days after his team was swept? I was like "Damn, someone seriously needs a hug." haha Tampabay721 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I just mentioned on his talk, he must've been really upset about the sweep. Enigma ^message 01:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames Continued

I have edited the page a few times adding other various nicknames. THEY KEEP GETTING DELETED Numerous times, Not only are they known as the "d-rays" They are also known as the Rebellion and they are also known as the Alliance. Heard in person at rays games, hear on espn and even seen on shirts SOLD at the Trop. As the terms Alliance and Rebellion are A Star Wars reference ala the YANKEES being KNOWN as the "evil empire" and the Rays being in the same division and doing so good.

Then you need to come up with some references to back that up, and please explain to me how the team no longer known as the Devil Rays can still be nicknamed the "D-Rays" when the letter "D" is no longer present anywhere in the city or team name. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because there are fans of the team that don't care that Devil Rays is no longer the official name, and thus still call their team the "D-Rays" whether the owner likes it or not? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

wow, Ive also heard of them being called the rebellion... i bought one of those shirts for my daughter. and if theyre not known as the drays as you put it than why is it on the page under other nicknames??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.186.213 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up before and we didn't come up with a good decision to figure that out. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The following site refers to the rays as the rebellion: http://raysrenegade.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/07/rays_win_round_1ding_ding.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.39.205 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just a fan blog site. This website refers to Rays fans as "Raysheads" but that's not an official nickname for the fans. I wouldn't call it a reliable source in this context. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Never in my years of Rays and Devil Rays fandom have I ever heard them being called The Rebellion. Sure, a Yankees broadcaster may have called them that once, but just because a broadcaster calls them it doesn't mean it's a nickname. Seriously, you can't just call them something because you heard it once. Let's get something notable, like ESPN or ABC. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reading that a lot of the Tampa fans don't like the Rays name or the sunbeam logo. According to an article that was either in the St. Pete Times or Tampa Trib (I'll get you documentation if you want it), these fans feel that the name is to minor league-ish. They are still fans of the team but refuse to wear the new merchandise and refuse to take the "Devil" out of the Rays. They still call them either the Devil Rays or D-Rays.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So we should keep "D-Rays" as a nickname because some fans are too stubborn to call them what they really are? Tampabay721 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exaclty what should be done. That's what nicknames all about. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In comparison, I don't believe anyone calls them the Mighty Ducks anymore over in Anaheim. I'm sure a giant reason for that is because they win things. As soon as that happened, the Mighty Ducks then became a fictional team of kids, this time for good. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually have friends in Anaheim (many of which are Ducks fans) and nobody there ever called the the Mighty Ducks, they were always called the Ducks since 1995. The same isn't true with Tampa Bay. People have always either referred to them as the Devil Rays, Rays, or D-Rays. It will take a few years before everyone calls them the Rays, and even then we don't know if the team may change their name again. Because of the whole new ballpark fiasco, there have been talks about relocating the team to Orlando or removing the Tampa Bay designation in favor of St. Pete, those move may result in a name change. I'm not much of a Rays fan, but as unbiased writers you have to stay factual and call the team what the fans call them. Even if only 10% of the entire TB fanbase still calls the team the Devil Rays or D-Rays, that's still several million people. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But "D-Rays" being a nickname anymore is not fact. A person in the organization, members of the media, or even blog sites can get fined by the team by refferring to the old name. That's a fact. The Marlins are the fish, the Yankees are the evil empire, the Angels are the halos. The Rays are not the D-Rays anymore. These fans that refuse to acknowledge that shouldn't be the reason why we should list D-Rays as a nickname on this article. "D-Rays" is a former nickname, and that's why (and I brought this up in the other section) it should be mentioned under a "former nicknames" area, despite it already being present in the opening paragraph of the article anyway so wtf is anyone really arguing about? It's there! Tampabay721 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's still used by a substantial portion of the fanbase, it's still a nickname. Nicknames don't need to be official. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently they have been known by those nicknames by the media and at the stadium. But the most prominent nick name right now is The Mohawk Militia. Saksjn (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should the opinion of Rays' fans come into this? I mean they barely attend the games. Even after a great season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.109.132 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Season records

Is there really any reason to keep the section on this article, now that I see there's the Tampa Bay Rays seasons article? Just slip in a main article template under that section on this article to lead to the seasons article, and maybe replace the one here with records by manager? Tampabay721 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

on the season records section shouldnt we add the manager that managed that season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.186.213 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting ahead of ourselves

I noticed that someone had already changed the information that read: Pennants: 0, to Pennants 2008, which was reverted back soon therafter, during the 7th inning of game 5 of the ALCS. The kicker is that if any two teams played 10,000 times and one team had a 7 run lead in the 7th inning, that team would win 9999 times, but OH, THAT ONE TIME. I know that every editor wants to be the first to add new info, especially about their favorite sports team, but lets wait until the final out before we start awarding championships to teams on wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SPECULATION right there... I only put the world series part and all that good stuff on the here because that's how it was done in last season's postseason game log for the Magic, and so it would already have been done in case they made the next round. Last night makes me think about protecting articles, but I know it would never go through... Hidden messages perhaps?

<!-- DO NOT SPECULATE OR SO HELP US GOD WE WILL DESTROY YOU!!!!!!!!!!! --> Or something nicer perhaps... :D Tampabay721 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The actual edit that I was refering to was made about 11:00 Eastern time, 7:00 on the west coast. Here it is <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=245813666&oldid=245813151>. You can see that someone may have forgot the immortal words of Yogi Berra when he said, It aint over til its over.

Oh yeah I saw a bunch of them last night, but what can you really do when it's just a bunch of anonymous IP addresses? Tampabay721 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just another reminder that Baseball is a timeless game and as long as you have outs remaining, you have a chance. Sometimes we forget that and in a vain attempt to be the first to add information.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well going back to the hidden message thing that doesn't show up on the article but when someone makes an attempt to edit it does, when someone put a hidden message in there during the regular season in the season records section to tell anyone who wanted to edit it not to put what place the Rays were currently in since the season was not completed, only a few times did someone actually do it, so I'm thinking it could have the same effect in this case. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

on the season records section shouldnt we add the manager that managed that season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.186.213 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be time to Semi-Protect this page, for the time being. With a game seven coming up, who knows what will get on this page in the next 24 to 48 hours. I just reverted an edit by an Anon user that said "I hate the Red Sox". This may get worse. Just a few days may help. Just my suggestion.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only way they're going to make the page protected is if we get a million "Tampa sucks ahahahah" edits. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

new name, new uniforms

I found vandalism in the New Names, New Uniform section. For why the team eliminated the word "devil" from their name it said "They no longer worship master satan in Florida so the name change was a need. mostly cause rape is now outlawed." How did no one notice this? I removed it. Ingridjames (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There's been LOTS of vandalism on this article (and every Rays-related article) since the team won the AL pennant, so it's hard to keep up. Good job spotting that one. Zeng8r (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I got Semi-protection approved and it will last until October 30. Tampabay721 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the main article on the Rays, I would like to point out that Josh Hamilton was a notable past player for the Rays with his exception paranthesized. If you are to include Hamilton in this based on that he was drafted and played in their farm system, it would be wise also to note that Bobby Abreu was originally drafted by the Devil Rays. Also, the Dick Vitale paragraph is very much so true. He has been a season ticket holder since the inaugural season and is often seen at games behind home plate. The man is local and lives in Sarasota a few miles south of St. Pete. Unbelievable that information was put on Wikipedia, almost as if to question his credibility as a fan or calling him a band wagoneer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.151.250 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, tone down the passion a little. I see your points, but instead of complaining about it, if you see something that you think should be changed, be bold and do it. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Just make sure you can back up everything you say with reliable sources, or it may be deleted. Happy editing! EaglesFanInTampa 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Environmental Record"

I had this same issue over on the Phillies page... I don't see the relevance or notability of the Rays' environmental record. When people go to an encyclopedia to find out about a baseball team, they're generally unconcerned with carbon credits. Furthermore, the section sounds more like a press release than an encyclopedia article -- way too peacock-y for my taste. And finally, "planning" to seek LEED certification is a far cry from actually completing a LEED certified building. The Rays also "planned" to field a competitive team since 1998, but that didn't exactly work out until 2008.  :-)

I'd like to cut this section completely as simply irrelevant. If anyone -- at least, anyone not associated with the Rays PR office -- has a serious objection, may I at least ask that we move the section to a page about the proposed new stadium, where there might be a logical connection? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's why I just cut it loose. It doesn't even go in the New Rays Ballpark article, as it's more promoting what they do now. The only place that would be remotely relevant would be an article about their work in the community, and since no other team has that, let's not start that precedent, shall we? ;-) Great catch, though! EaglesFanInTampa 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting the Devil out of here

Did you know that "Tampa Bay Devil Rays" had been the first four word team name in major league baseball since the St. Louis Brown Stockings of the 1880s? WHPratt (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stadium

I just removed some promotional text for a group claiming to be a "movement" for a downtown stadium. With only 10 members and little other support, this is not a movement. However, there has been steady discussion about a stadium, with numerous proposals. These warrant coverage in a new section about "facilities" or the "stadium" itself. I'm sure there are plenty of sources for this. Mindmatrix 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article about the proposed stadium, Rays Ballpark. All discussion pertaining to a new stadium - cited, of course - probably should go there, since it has nothing to do with the team per se and more as to where they may play in the future. EaglesFanInTampa 20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Add to Team Slogans

There is a new slogan for 2010 ... GTMI "Get The Man In" Check it out: http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/rays-mantra-gtmi/1093239 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbbfan (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 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)

Sure, sounds like a good idea. It'll take some time and effort to get it started, tho. Zeng8r (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Where? Tampa!

Does anyone know the story behind the running ESPN/Sportscenter joke? It's usually where one person is segue-ing into something Rays-related, and this joke will just get thrown in. IE: "See the third baseman, Evan Longoria, make a catch all the way in Left Field. Where? Tampa!" etc Ijmitchell (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 Comeback

It is ironic that both league Wild Cards were monumental collapses. However, after the 130 games played mark, the Rays were closer to the Wild Card than the St Louis Cardinals were. After game 130, the Rays were 9 back, the Cardinals 10.5 back. Before September, the Cardinals made up 2 games, to be 8.5 back. Their comeback is the largest for the final month, but NOT the largest overall after game 130. FOX originally reported this as the largest comeback in MLB history after game 130, when only 32 games remain. I added the clarification, since it's not the largest overall, only the largest over the final month.--75.0.33.178 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Team based in...

A lone editor insists upon changing the lead sentence to say the team is based on St. Petersburg instead of the Tamp Bay Area. Even though one sentence later, it is noted that the stadium is no St. Petersburg. It's clear that this does not not to be mentioned twice in the lead, nor wikilinked twice in the lead. Bringing this here to talk for consensus, to give that editor a chance to respond. (That editor having gone beyond the 3RR rule notwithstanding.) I believe that stating the team is based on the Tampa Bay Area, with the later statement that the stadium is in St. Petersburg, is the most appropriate. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not say "based in St. Petersburg, Florida, part of the Tampa Bay Area"? That combined both into one. Then we can leave off the exact location of Tropicana Field, as it's obvious from the first sentence. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

PS, the lead sentence said St. Pete until last week. It was a bad edit to change the longstanding wording for no reason.oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Weird, I missed that change. I agree that your phrasing is better than what was happening recently. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Consolidating proposed ballpark proposals

I just realized that there are currently article for two Rays ballparks that don't exist: the Rays' St. Pete waterfront proposal from 2007 and the Ybor Stadium that was proposed last week. Neither deserves an article at this time, imo, as the first proposal was dropped several years ago and the second is far from being a done deal. Both articles should be deleted and merged into a paragraph or two in the main Rays article and/or Tropicana Field, at least until ground is broken in Ybor. Thoughts, anyone? --Zeng8r (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I started an AfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ybor Stadium

Oppose – I think that the Rays Ballpark and Ybor Stadium pages should be merged, but as a separate page from the Tampa Bay Rays and Tropicana Field pages. SportsFan007 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• I think merging the two articles into a single "New Rays ballpark" article is valid (plenty of precedent across Wikipedia for including failed past proposals in the history section of a stadium article), but merging into this article is plainly the wrong target, as the team and ballpark have separate notability. Also, AFD was utterly premature and the wrong venue completely, and frankly looks a bit like forum shopping. It should be withdrawn and closed immediately so that discussion can continue here where it belongs. oknazevad (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, I hate shopping, just ask my wife! (That's a joke, btw. Well, it's true, but a joke here. Anyways...)

I wasn't "forum shopping", whatever that means. I think that these two stadium articles lack notability and should be deleted/merged, so starting a discussion at "Articles for Deletion" seemed logical to me.

Back to the issues as hand. The St. Pete waterfront ballpark will never be built, just like a bunch of other ballpark ideas that were seriously proposed around the Tampa area both before and after the (D-)Rays existed. None of those proposals are notable enough for an independent article, and should be covered with (at most) a quick mention in this article and/or at Baseball in the Tampa Bay Area. The Ybor stadium was just proposed last week, and while I personally hope it gets built, financing is a serious problem and chances are 50/50 at best. Again, a mention here or at Baseball in Tampa Bay is warranted, but giving it an independent article at this point is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. If the article is turned into a redirect, the current text could be restored, updated, and expanded if and when the project actually breaks ground. I'd be thrilled to do it myself, actually. But not yet.

And if there a bunch more abandoned stadium idea articles floating around Wikipedia, I'd like to know. Barring special circumstances that confer notability on a venue-that-never-was, they should probably be merge/deleted as well. Zeng8r (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If they received substantial third-party coverage, they're notable by Wikipedia standards. The fact that a building didn't get built does not inherently render it non-notable. Indeed, the reasons that a building ultimately didn't get built may contribute additionally to its notability, such as the politics that lead to the un-built status of the West Side Stadium. Now, an argument can be made that such coverage doesn't require a separate article, and its best covered in the background parts of an article on a later proposal, as has been suggested here, but sometimes they deserve their own articles because they are independently notable.

PS, I didn't think you were intentionally forum shopping, just that starting two discussions at the same time can look like that. Something to be careful of. oknazevad (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Both articles are independently notable, and what result are you looking for? A delete or merge? I would personally withdraw the merge until the AfD is finished. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose They are separate proposals and they are independently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Do y'all realize that there have been many, MANY more Rays ballpark proposals than just those two? I look forward to the new stub-sized articles about the Toytown, Carillon, Derby Lane, and Tropicana Field rebuild proposals. Most of these ideas came with press conferences and artists' renderings, so that makes them notable, right? And should there also be articles about these eight ideas that were more or less seriously discussed by local officials? These are just recent examples. There were MANY more ideas and/or serious ballpark proposals thrown around before the Rays existed; some for a potential expansion team, others that would've been the new home ballparks for the White Sox, Giants, Twins, Rangers, A's, or Mariners, all of whom came close to moving here. And that's only in this area! How many more serious stadium proposals have been made over the decades across MLB and other major sports? Where should the line be drawn?

It would make MUCH more sense to add all the failed / potential Rays ballpark proposals to Baseball in the Tampa Bay area, imo, which is in need of some serious expansion anyway. The ballparks-that-never-were could get more or less text there, as applicable. I'm a bit local history obsessive and own at least a couple of books on the history of local sports, so I could easily take care of it before school starts... Zeng8r (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Zeng8r. Since the Rays have had several failed stadium proposals, they should all be merged and added into their own article, or at least a separate subsection of the main Rays article. The Ybor stadium is the only one that has made it beyond the planning process and is likely to be built, so it should have its own article. DampFrijoles (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Both independently notable. Blackguard 23:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose to merging into the Tampa Bay Rays or Tropicana Field articles, but not opposed to having them merge into another article together such as with Baseball in the Tampa Bay Area or distinctly within its own "Rays ballpark" page (but with all proposals instead of the Al Lang Stadium Revamp of 2008 specifically). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Update Unfortunately, the Rays announced today that the Ybor stadium proposal is dead. This means that there are now two independent articles about Rays ballparks that will never exist and never even got past the introductory press conference stage. Perhaps now the articles should be condensed somewhere?...--Zeng8r (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with that. Neither does the consensus above, which won't necessarily change. The failed proposals are independently notable, it seems. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The "consensus above" doesn't agree with a statement made months later, after the situation in question had entirely changed? Alrighty then. And two ballparks that were never remotely close to being built are "independently notable" enough for independent, free-standing Wikipedia articles? That's still a ridiculous position to take, imo, and I'm generally an inclusionist. Just skim on through WP:GNG or WP:NOTTEMPORARY or most of the other notability guidelines. There's not much to say about them individually, and there never will be anything more to add. As stated above and below, each of the withdrawn ballpark proposals merit a paragraph in a larger article about either the Rays or baseball in the Tampa Bay area, and that's about it. Zeng8r (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

And I'm usually a deltionist, but here we are. Each proposal got its own significant independent coverage. Open a new RfC or something if you want to see if this changes consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the ballpark pages should be merged into one article: as what has been done with other articles such as Proposed Los Angeles NFL stadiums or Oakland Raiders relocation to Las Vegas, or under Rays Ballpark. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Once something's notable, it's always notable. Both articles were judged to pass WP:GNG. Don't see the need for a merge. SportingFlyer talk 03:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated primary logo

The Rays updated their primary logo prior to the 2018 season. They discontinued the baseball diamond logo that is currently listed on the Wikipedia article and instead promoted the Rays wordmark to primary status.

DampFrijoles (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@DampFrijoles: Thanks for the heads up, the logo has now been updated. Tampabay721 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tampabay721: My pleasure. Glad that I was able to help out. DampFrijoles (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Owner?

In the lede it says "The Rays are owned by Randal Grichuk, the greatest player of all time." I don't personally know who the Rays owner is, but Randal Grichuk is currently in the MLB (Blue Jays) and there is no source for the claim that he is the owner. I think this could be vandalism of the Tampa Bay Rays article, and would like an experienced editor (I am not) to revert or delete this. MEEPBUD (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism that's already been reverted. Happens all the time in sports article when one player has a strong showing against a team. Revert it as the childish nonsense to is. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite of Rays fandom section/removal of team slogans?

These two sections feel woefully outdated, particularly the "Mohawks" subsection and the entire team slogans section. Those elements of the team came from Joe Maddon, primarily, and haven't transcended him to become facets of the team itself. Perhaps the team slogan section could be condensed down into a single section rather than broken out for three separate years, with more of a historical angle - that the slogans were used at the time, but that the team doesn't really do that kind of thing any more. Would anyone be opposed to a restructuring of these sections, to make them a little more timeless and not so reactionary to the team's first taste of success? Hello2112 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection. They reeked of WP:RECENTISM when they were added anyway, and slogans are not particularly encyclopedic unless they're used for decades. oknazevad (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2021 (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:

• RandyArozarena2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)