Talk:New York Mets

A redesign?

While the Mets are great...this wikipedia page is huge! Any ideas on how to break it up? - benje309

Actually, there are many pages which are much larger (and proposing to break up their sacred cows is often shunned - but that's another issue). That said, I've tossed around the idea of creating individual pages for each season of a particular team. They could include recaps, highlights, day-by-day results, etc. But it's only been attempted on small scales (1999 Minnesota Twins) and I haven't invested any time in the idea either. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan Base

Why did someone mark up for "references or sources" in the fan base section? There does not seem like there is any need for it there as all the information there seems correct and excellent. -bootleg42

I don't remember who did that but it's likely because, for a while, people were just randomly adding names to that list without citing any sources. A little bit of digging showed that several of them were wrong. Personally, I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is to list every single notable person that may be a fan of a team - but that's just me. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Current Stars

Is there a set, agreed-upon convention for what constitutes a Current Star and someone who is Not to be Forgotten? It seems like a lot of effort is spent plugging players in and out of those categories essentially because of confusion over who belongs where.

My sense of what a Current Star should be is a player who has achieved a much higher than average level of success at the major league level and is one of the true "impact" players on his team. It can also be a player whose minor league career has been exceptional and comes to the majors with high expectations. I think a Not to be Forgotten player essentially ought to be a player who, when he was on the team's active roster, was a Current Star for several years, with the possible exception of a lesser player who made an extraordinary play or a crucial hit in a pivotal game that led to a championship.

Personally, I don't believe players of lesser ability but who are "fan favorites" should be included in either category. Nor do I feel that players whose accomplishments with the club are limited to triviata - first hit, first baserunner, first grand slam, etc. I believe there ought to be a place for that kind of information - the more the better - but I think it's important to establish and maintain the integrity of the sections so we can spend more time adding new information.

One suggestion I have is creation of two new pages: one would be a list of the Mets' active roster and the other would be dedicated to the historic 1962 Mets. These pages would be linked to from the main Mets page. This might help capture the kind of information that seems just outside the bounds of the Current Stars and NTBF sections.

What do others think?

-- Veronique

The only thing that I disagree with is that I think a player who has been a fan favorite for quite some time should be included on the aforementioned lists. I assume we are talking about Joe McEwing and Ty Wigginton here. In my opinion, McEwing should be on the list but Wigginton should not be. McEwing has established himself as a true Met for several seasons. Only Franco and Piazza have a longer tenure in the clubhouse (in an age when players rarely remain with the same team for so long), plus he was on the 2000 team. Wigginton, although likeable, is really just the latest in a very long line of average Mets players. Certainly he is no more important than Kevin Mitchell who is not on the list.

-- George78

I'll tell you what, stars can be whoever, but Mike Cameron is definitely not a "star." 162.84.196.235 04:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joe McEwing Stinks Ty Wiggington is Gone but Stunk John Franco Stank Piazza was good untill the last few seasons

My list

David Wright Jose Reyes Carlos Delgado Pedro

Player bios

I'm tired of all the red links in the 25-man roster section. So far, I've created new pages for Manny Aybar, Mike DeJean, Aaron Heilman and Felix Heredia. I can do the rest over the next few days, but if anyone wants to dive in and create pages for any of the others, feel free. Thanks!

-- Veronique 05:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danny Graves

I think Danny Graves should have a US flag, as he grew up in the US, and his father was American. I think he was born on a US base in Vietnam. Anyone else think so?

I'm not sure if he was born on a base, but his father is American and his mother is Vietnamese. He's definitely an American citizen and may or may not have Vietnamese citizenship. Since he was moved to the US as an infant and has spent the rest of his life here, I think a US flag makes more sense. --Veronique 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to be Forgotten

How about including broadcasters in the Not to Be Forgotten section? Would anyone object to inclusion of the late, great, beloved Bob Murphy?--Gumbo T 22:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should add Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley, as well as Bill Buckner, for their vital roles in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 1986? Wahkeenah 22:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two word Xavier Nady He was a key guy in our lineup and now he's gone cause of a taxi cab incident with Duaner Sanchez. He was traded away in 2006 at the deadline for relife help Roberto Hernadez and oliver Perez. I went to a braves game recently and they were playing the pirates and Nady was on the Pirates and i just kept shouting during his atbat XMan Xman and it was so quiet he turned around and gave me a thumbs up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets4117 (talk • contribs) .

FYI, this "Not to be forgotten" section has been removed for quite some time now. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Can We Remove The Comment About The Olympics?

Since the only ones who want the damn olympics to be in new york are the people in upstate new york, the people who don't vote in mayorial elections, can we just assume bloomberg isn't going to tank his political campaign by shoving the whole queens stadium thing through, and therefore avoid mentioning it in the METS article, where it's really pretty off topic

Since this article is part of an encyclopedia with the intention of providing factual material with a neutral point of view, it seems perfectly appropriate to mention the possibility that the new Mets stadium will be used for the Olympics in 2012. If that stops being a possibility, the language should be removed or reworded. --Veronique 02:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distorted Logo

Can anyone fix the distorted logo in the sidebar box? It suddenly is an oval instead of a circle. --Veronique 29 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)

It's not just the Mets, it's all the major league boilerplates. It shows that way when you look back in the histories. All those dealies use this format: Two left braces, then team name such as "MLB Phillies franchise" then two right braces. I don't know how to get to that. Yet. >:) Wahkeenah 29 June 2005 08:07 (UTC)

It's got to be the way "Template:MLB franchise" is being displayed. The template itself has not been changed recently, so I'm guessing it's something to do with the software "upgrade" that took almost a full day recently. The image itself is fine, if you go to it. I'm going to leave this one for the experts. Do they have a "Help Desk"? Wahkeenah 29 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Main rivals

I don't think the Main Rivals section belongs in the top list of factual data. Since the idea of which teams are "rivals" and which are not is subjective and can change year-to-yeat, to me it seems better suited to the Franchise History section. --Veronique 3 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Why there is no mention of Art Shamsky? --Slugger Metropolitan

He's in the "To Be Forgotten" section. Wahkeenah 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Too much detail recently?

Maybe this is just me but it seems like we're getting too much detail for recent events. Does it really matter how much was spent on Billy Wagner or which farmhands were traded for Delgado and Lo Duca? We don't have those details on Keith Hernandez or Seaver or even more recently Piazza. It seems like the recent changes need to more generalized as the overall new approach of Minaya. Anyone agree? Maybe someone wants to add a section or new article about some of the more interesting Mets transactions in club history (esp. the ones where the results could be analyzed)? There's lots that could be mentioned there like the deals I mentioned above, Gary Carter, trading away Nolan Ryan and Amos Otis, not drafting Reggie Jackson, etc. wknight94 15:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, but I do agree that there's way too much material on this offseason. It should not go in the history :section, as it will seem absurdly out of place there. Rather, it may fit better in a "Current Events" sidebar. Niffweed17 05:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Piazza" era?

I don't think it's appropriate to coin the term "Piazza" era here. Indeed, the last couple years with Piazza have been nothing to write home about. This should be removed to more appropriately reflect the more glorious times from 1997-2000. Niffweed17 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Up to you. It was something I figured I would try out. It wasn't meant to imply that everything has been great with Piazza - just that he has been the centerpiece of the team since he arrived which I'd say was mostly true. As Piazza declined starting in '02, so did the Mets. When he missed most of '03, the Mets lost 95 games. I'd say the as-Piazza-goes-so-go-the-Mets era went from '98 to '04. During that time, when people thought Mets, they thought Piazza. But maybe that's just me. If for no other reason, his draw on the checkbook affected the team for his entire tenure. Again, I'm not married to the idea, just something I threw out there - I won't fight a reasonable change. If I remember right, the previous section heading was just 2000s which I felt reflected the real flavor of the "era" even less. They started turning around in '98. In '97, they had a respectable record but were never in contention. In '98, only a five-game losing streak to end the season knocked them out of the wild card. I could maybe see a reason to call it the Valentine era but I'm not real convinced he was the reason for the turnaround.

While I'm on the subject of seasonal recaps, see my next section... wknight94 12:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

At least in terms of syntax, it's just as much the Al Leiter era. Zookman12 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I could buy that more than the Valentine era. Still, the Mets record doesn't seem to reflect Leiter's as much as Piazza's. Leiter's worst Mets year was '99 when they made the playoffs and he was very good in '01, '02 and '04 when the Mets sucked. But then he also had a good record in '03 when the Mets were awful! I don't know - I just don't think of Leiter as being the guy that determined the Mets' fortunes. wknight94 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Short season-by-season recap section?

I had a little free time recently and started scanning through the standings section of baseball-reference.com and putting together little paragraph-long recaps of how the Mets fared in the standings month by month or whatever and when they were in contention and when they fell apart. Like does anyone remember they were in the lead for the '98 wild card with less than a week to go before they imploded? I'm thinking about putting a section in either New York Mets or a separate article with such things. Anyone interested? wknight94 12:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Send me an email through Wikipedia -- I'll help you out w/this. --DNL 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve Chilcott in a separate article?

Unless someone plans on putting more in the new Steve Chilcott article, I'm suggesting it be merged here. I included most of that article as a single trivia bullet point in this article so it's mostly merged already. It's not usual practice to include career-minor-league catchers in Wikipedia - even in this unusual circumstance. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say keep it as is. I always wanted to know more about Chilcott, and it seems that we should encourage that. --DNL 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but if nothing can be found on him after some period of time, I'd re-recommend merging. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He was first pick in a major sports draft, therefor he's significantNick Dillinger 10:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is. he never played for the Mets, and his status as a first pick in the draft who never played a game in the Majors gives him a measure of notability in his own right. Alansohn 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hey, how do we tell the difference between a valid external link and linkspam? We've got a few on this page that look questionable at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Omar Era

I think the comments about Omar Minaya are inappropriately POV. Streamless 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably true. Be bold and rip 'em out - people can always put them back if they disagree.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually a lot of anons seem to come through here so your changes would barely be noticed in all likelihood... Maybe that's just my perception though. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the vote of confidence, and i know wikipedia encourages us to Be bold, but i really only have the time to make the occasional talk page suggestion. Streamless 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New Postseason appearances section - comments?

I just threw together a new section at New York Mets#Postseason appearances. Does anyone like it? If not, could something be improved? If you like, is it in the right place in the article? Any other comments? If this looks good, I might start bringing to other teams' articles as well as try something similar for other sports. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Piazza section

I marked the Piazza section for cleanup for a few reasons:

1. I don't remember the Mets having any big expectations for Bonilla in '99 since he was clearly on his way out by that time - but that's the first mention for that season in the article?
2. Only Piazza and Agbayani are mentioned as having good overall seasons in '99. What about Ventura who had arguably the best season of his career and actually received more MVP consideration than Piazza. What about Alfonzo who had his only 100 RBI season and also got MVP consideration? What about Cedeno who hit .313 and set the all-time Mets single-season stolen base record?
3. How did the Mets start somewhat badly in '99? On May 3, they were 17-9, the 4th-best record in the Majors! Things didn't turn sour until the beginning of June when they lost 8 straight and dropped below .500 for one day. Early June doesn't count as a "start" IMHO.
4. I don't get the comment about Rocker. He'd already been in Atlanta for two whole regular seasons so how were the Mets not introduced to him until the '99 NLCS?
5. What does it mean that 2000 "began normally"?
6. The assertion that Bell was the best hitter in the first month of 2000 is possible but questionable.
7. In the 2000-06-30 game, the Mets comeback was in the 8th inning, not the 7th.
8. Hampton didn't perform well "throughout" the 2000 NLCS - he only played in two games.

—Wknight94 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

WKnight94, I agree with most of what you said and I changed some things in the Piazza era part. But there were still some parts I didn't change and agree with like the Bonilla part. Even though Met fans probably didn't expect much, Steve Phillips (not a smart GM) and the Mets organization did because they gave him a big contract and they were hoping he would play right field everyday well. Remember, he was only a year removed, back then, from his 17 hr 96 rbi season with the Marlins. It was worth of first mention in the article because it was one of the first interesting stories from that season (but of course not the last).

Also Derek Bell was the best hitter on the team for the first month of the season. I think he was hitting like .350-.400 for the first month. He was the bright spot at first for the team but then he died out.

Mike Hampton performed well enough throughout that series to win NLCS MVP. But I changed the wording just to make it sound better as you can check.

-Bootleg42 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good enough to me. I still don't agree about the Bonilla part - they acquired him for Mel Rojas who was just as bad at that point and getting paid almost as much. To some extent, they were unloading one awful contract for another. Maybe my recollection is hazy but I kinda remember getting exactly what I expected from Bonilla in '99. But I won't split hairs to that degree. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Al Jackson (baseball)

Al Jackson (baseball) is an orphan page. Would someone who knows a lot more about baseball know where to link to him from? Thanks, Steve block talk 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R 11:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Orphaned" is a strange concept here. Just adding him to a proper category would also de-orphan him - by my understanding anyway. We don't want to add a link here to every single person who played on the Mets just for the sake of having a link. Regardless, he now has a link from here and I added a bunch of categories - so his article is much more findable now. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't realised that. Steve block talk 09:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Uniform Illustration

That uniform illustration looks very out of date to me. What about the blue and black uniforms? -- Avocado 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Those come from the Hall of Fame website - but I do agree they seem a little out of date. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the franchise colors?

I heard in a radio broadcast on Sunday, April 23, 2006 on San Diego's "Mighty" 1090 radio station that the New York Mets team colors and hat logo were based off the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers. The orange color and interlocking "NY" on the hat came from the Giants and the blue came from the Dodgers. Can anyone verify this? Darwin's Bulldog 08:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this numerous times. It's also already in the (oddly-named) Quick facts section of the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism in the "Origins" section

Lifted word-for-word from this site: New York Mets history Darwin's Bulldog 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No reason to mention it here. Go ahead and take it out or rephrase. Be bold. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NO! Don't remove or rephrase the text here. The material on wikipedia is NOT plagiarized. I should know because I wrote it a huge chunk of it and I have never heard of newyorkmetshistory.info before. They are the ones who plagiarized us. Veronique 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, that entire site is nothing but articles lifted straight from wikipedia with Google ads around them. Veronique 01:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Read that site more closely. It's a total copy and mirror of this article. Nice catch, Veronique. It's not even crediting Wikipedia - nice... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure who plagarised who, that's why I didn't remove it. Thanks for the confirmation guys. Darwin's Bulldog 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Eras

I'm a little disturbed by calling the whole period 1986-1990 "World Champions Again". After all, they only won the WS once in that period, and reached the playoffs only once more as well.

In any case, I think that that era, 1986-1990, should include 1984 and 1985. It was that whole era from 1984-1990 that the Mets were competitive year in and year out. The previous era, where they were in last place every year, extends over the period from 1977-1983 - starting with the Midnight Massacre and ending with the arrival of Darryl Strawberry.

So in any case, that's my proposal - 1977-1983 be one distinct era, and 1984-1990 be another one.--DaveOinSF 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest turning points in the arc of the club's history was the sale of the team by the Payson family after the 1979 season. I think it makes a lot of sense to end a section there and start a new one in 1980. I'd be more inclined to have the period from 1980 to 1990 be a section which started with Cashen's rebuilding and included the 1986 Series as well as the competitive years thereafter up until it all fell apart after 1990. Veronique 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably in the minority but I'd really like to see the championship as a section of its own. It hasn't happened in 20 years - it deserves a special mention. Just my two cents. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the standard for defining an "era"? The composition of the management? The team's success on the field? The general composition of the roster? Putting the cutoff at 1979/1980 because of the managment transition seems arbitrary, considering that several other eras are defined by other criteria, with the team's actual performance on the field being predominant. The eras as defined now:

• 1962-1968 _Loveable Losers_ - Defined by performance
• 1969 _Miracle Mets_ - Defined by performance
• 1970-1979 _YaGottaBelieve and Midnight Massacre_ - Defined by team ownership
• 1980-1985 _Cashen Rebuilds_ - Defined by team management
• 1986-1990 _Champions Again_ - Defined by performance
• 1991-1996 _Hardball Back and The Worst..._ - Defined by performance
• 1997-2004 _Piazza Bobby V_ - Defined by composition of the roster
• 2005- _Minaya takes the Reins_ - Defined by team managment

For a performance-based division, this would be my suggestion:

• 1962-1968 Loveable Losers
• 1969-1976 The Amazin' Mets
• 1977-1983 ??
• 1984-1990 Baseball Like it Oughta Be
• 1991-1996 The Worst Team Money Could Buy
• 1997-2001 ?? (maybe something to do with Defense and Pitching...)
• 2002-2006 ?? (2005 could be start of new era though)

--DaveOinSF 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with the "Worst Team Money Could Buy" tag. First, it isn't really totally performance-based as you suggested, since it draws a relationship between the payroll of the team and the performance on the field. Second, 1996 does probably belong in that grouping of years as an era, by performance standards but it doesn't really belong under that title. By 1996 the Mets had already long abandoned the strategy of signing over-the-hill free agents, and had stripped the team down to the point where it consisted of farmhands and cheap no-names. In 1996 the Mets had the second lowest payroll in the NL to the Expos, and I believe it was low in 1995 as well. The makeup of those teams resembles the later 1997 team more than it does the previous teams.

1997-2001 could be "A Return to Respectability" or something along those lines. Although you could make an argument that some of the elements that came forward to produce a good season in 1997 were present in 1995-1996 and belong more with the latter era than the earlier one of futility, as a stepping stone to the rebuild of the team after the disastrous early nineties.

I agree with you that 2002-2004 or 2005 needs to be distinct from 1997-2001. Although Valentine was there in 2002, I believe that Valentine's firing ushered in a new valley in franchise history and one that should be kept distinct from the previous era of good feeling.--Darren delgado 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no standard definition of era. It's up to us to decide through consensus. I think there are lots of ways to define section breaks, and there's no problem mixing them. Veronique 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Fans

What happened to the list of famous Met fans (e.g. Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, etc)? Schnu 17:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed it - and good riddens IMHO. Not sure who did it but it may have been me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

With a quick glance of the history pages, my best guess is that it was removed by Veronique, with the comment, "is it verifiable?" I'd like to think that most of it is, and needs to be cited like everything else, but I ain't gonna cry about it if never comes back. I think the "best" solution (to reiterate, I don't care enough about this to anything about it) would be along the lines of Category:Born-again Christians, and marking each of those people's articles with citations where each individual self identifies as a Mets fan. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 03:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it. I agree with D-Rock about verification, but I think if someone wants to do that, they should create a new article and link to it rather than re-insert it into the already lengthy main page. Veronique 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Red links

An anon recently removed some red links from this article [1]as well as from New York Mets roster [2] [3]. I think most (maybe all) of these people deserve articles. I'm inclined to relink them, but I wonder if I missed some consensus on some obscure page I've never been to. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't miss any consensus. I've reverted the changes. Now we can be bold and create those missing articles! Veronique 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll chime in and say I agree with linking anyone who would be notable enough to have an article - whether that article exists yet or not. If the search capability was more thorough here, I might change my mind but, as long as we don't have a perfect way to find all unlinked references to a person, red links are the way to go. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Captains

I've been a Met fan for 28 years, and Mookie Wilson was never captain of the New York Mets. Hernandez, Carter and Franco are the only captains in team history. Can somebody change it, because the wikipedia community seemingly has a problem with all my edits. --anonymous

I've been going through yearbooks and media guides looking for any reference to Mookie being a co-captian, and so far cannot fnd anything. If something does show up, I'll put it back with a citation. Seidenstud 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Xavier Nady

How come nobody has recognized Xavier Nady or Jose Valentin in this article. Both of them have been suprises in the mets oginization this year. And Since Nady is now a porate if anybody wishes to make this i would like to see a negative resoponse by fand on the Nady trade thanks Metlover21

Because this article covers the entire Mets team including 44 years of history. What you're looking for is what I call "recentism". The Nady trade may seem big now and feel like an injury but the reality is that he is just another B- or C-level outfielder who probably won't be missed that much in the long run. If we went to that level of detail for the last 44 years, the article would be 20 miles long and very boring. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Player Movement

I see that people remove a lot of the recent "minor player movement" from the "Minaya Takes The Reigns" section. I'm not saying I disagree, but I did want to bring up one point and see what people thought.

It seems to me that many of the people who read this page are reading to learn about the current team as well as the history. While a guy like Darren Oliver might not go down as a great Met one day, right now he's important and mentioning his aquisition could be helpful knowledge to some readers. Remember that these minor details can be removed at some point in the future as these players fade into relative obscurity.

Also, I think the arguement that its not consistent with the other sections isn't strong because there's no reason it has to be consistent. For now, Julio Franco and Endy Chavez are much more important to mention than a George Stone or Kevin Elster. While this article is supposed to give a general overview of Mets history, its main purpose is still to educate the readers in their area of interest. If they are reading about the Mets right now, their interest is probably as much in the current team as it is in the general history. Therefore, I think there is a strong case that these "minor players" of recent times should be worthy of mention.Ags412 21:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You say there's no reason to be consistent but I completely disagree. While Endy Chavez is huge now, I've been a Mets fan since before '86 so people like Danny Heep and George Stone are just as important. I've made a proposal in the past that would make us both happy - make articles for each individual season. People could put an endless amount of detail about the 2006 New York Mets while the 1979 New York Mets could have their own article and possibly enjoy a similar level of detail if someone were so inclined. The Minnesota Twins have some individual season articles and I like it. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I said there's no reason it has to be consistent - i.e. no rule says it has to be.

Remember the recent stuff can stay for a year or so and the be removed when these players fizzle out. When all is said and done, Stone and Heep will be as important figures in Mets history as Valentin or Oliver will be, but the people researching right now will benefit more having the recent stuff there than they would without the recent stuff.

If you desire consistency, maybe the trend on this page should be that teams have greater detail regarding recent movement as it is more likely to be helpful to readers.

I agree too that adding new pages for every season would solve all these issues and encourage anyone with the time and interest to undertake this project.Ags412 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be very much in favor of a separate article for the current season. I think the main article's history section is fairly bloated with excessive detail, tangents and parentheticals, especially for the recent years. --Veronique 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Then someone make it so!  :) I actually started minor little writeups outside of Wikipedia and started making them a little more encyclopedic at User:Wknight94/New York Mets seasonal recap. Feel free to steal those. This really isn't on my radar to be done anytime soon but I fully support if someone else wants to dive in. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

More Pictures

I feel like this page needs to be spiced up layout wise to give readers a better visual sense of the Mets throughout their history. While it's already lengthy in text, pictures, if used well, would give more oomph to the article. Though I hate to cite it, the Yankees article is a good example of how pictures can be used to good effect, showing stadium changes, important player and moments in the teams history. If we could do this for the Mets it would be great. Anybody willing to work with me on this?-—caz

I think that is an excellent idea. --Veronique 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This picture[4] would be fantastic for the 1962 section, but I have no idea if wikipedia's copyright rules allow it. I've always been very confused by what pictures are OK and what are not. --Veronique 23:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's a very contentious issue here. A small percentage of images you see on Wikipedia are completely free and kosher according to the GFDL. The images that are completely free and clearly in the public domain are few and far between. Personally I try to stay out of it since two different admins would give you two completely different opinions on the subject of fair use images. I generally stick to uploading my own images, images of historical figures that are hundreds of years old and images from government web sites which are likely to be public domain (I think even that last category can be argued). The burden is that it has to not only be free for Wikipedia to use but free for everyone downstream meaning the owner could not make a claim against Wikipedia or anyone that got the image from Wikipedia. Personally I would not upload the image you provided as an example but you could probably make a good case for including it like I did for Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg (and an admin still tried to get mine deleted). —Wknight94 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We should note that nearly every image on the MFY page is tagged for deletion. Woodshed 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the MFY page? --Veronique 04:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New York Yankees. Most (if not all) of the post-1920s images are tagged as "being considered for deletion". Woodshed 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and those are from the same web site as the one Veronique likes. Even the permission claim on the images themselves sounds questionable: "I just wrote an email to the guy who runs the site I got this from, (one of the sample emails from the free license page) and his response was: 'As long as Im sourced or can get a link from Wikipedia some how, I grant you permission to use this under the...'". Let alone the fact that sportsecyclopedia probably doesn't own the images in the first place. Even linking to copyrighted works can be problematic. Like I said, I usually stay away from it altogether. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably pay attention to this page to see what happens to the Yankee pictures. Following a resolution there we can decide how to proceed here. caz

That works for me. --Veronique 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy got his pictures deleted. Veronique, Wknight94, would you like to work with me to find appropriate and usable pictures? I e-mailed an editor of sheabaseball.com because it seems they have a copyright-free gallery, but I have not heard back from him. caz | speak 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical teams

I have removed the "Historical teams" section (twice now) because the links just go straight to the World Series pages for 1969, 1973, 1986 and 2000. The 1962, 1963 and 2006 links go nowhere. I'm all for re-adding this section if and when someone wants to step up and start pages that don't just redirect to pages that the article already links to. But until then, I think it just adds to the length and clutter of the page. Anyone agree or disagree? --Veronique 01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The section is PPP (probably pretty pointless), I agree. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

no crits section?

this article looks like it was written by mets fans please fix it to reflect the negative views that a lot of notable critics have about the mets for balance--Nyorker 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)--Nyorker 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)