Jump to content

Talk:Cardinals–Royals rivalry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WOW

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Notability of rivalry still needs to be cited.

I have officially seen everything! At first I thought I had seen it all when another editor said you needed a reference to say that in 1992 those born in 1976 were 16, but now I see a reference is needed to say that St Louis MISSOURI and Kansas City MISSOURI are in the same state! I truly have seen everything!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.35.190 (talkcontribs) 07:44, 19 November 2011‎

The citation needed tag is there not to cite that both teams are in Missouri, but that both teams are rivals BECAUSE they're from Missouri. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin in the last AfD, closed on May 11, 2012, proposed to "give this article at least 3 months or so before we send it back to the chopping" if it goes unimproved in established the notability of the rivalry per WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

[edit]
Resolved
 – Taken to AfD

I removed the deletion template. I had created this article a few months ago. The rivalry between the Cardinals and Royals exists. They share a state, have played a World Series (with a highly controversial call), and play each other in interleague play every year. In other words, they share in common the aspects of Mets-Yankees rivalry, Cubs-White Sox rivalry, and A's-Giants rivalry (Bay Bridge Series), all interleague rivalries with articles. There are definitely sources out there to prove it as well, unfortunately I haven't had the time to look for them. This rivalry was mentioned on both respective team pages, and also at interleague play#Geographical_matchups_.2F_Natural_Rivals, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling by creating the page. I'd hoped others would have jumped in and contributed by now but I see that is not the case! But I'd urge you to give other editors a chance to improve this article because I know it can be sourced. If they don't, then I may take it upon myself to do so, time permitting. Failing both of those, we can revisit the deletion. Thank you! TempDog123 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to revisit this in an AfD. You've provided some circumstantial evidence that points to a possible rivalry, but per WP:V, we need proof. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pressed for time right now, but here's a few links from reputable sources that I found from a quick Google search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Here's are some from more questionable sources, but that seem current on Missouri baseball: [6], [7]TempDog123 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the chance, bring it into the AfD I created, so the discussion can be centralized. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Oh nevermind, I see you did. Good. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a lifelong Cardinals fan, just my two cents, but if anything this must be more a a "rivalry" in the minds of Royals fans than Cardinal Nation. Our big rivalry(s) are the Chicago Cubs, and to a slightly lesser extent the Cincy Reds -- although that has heated up after that brawl a couple years back. The "pond scum" Mets (always it seems how Cards fans refer to them lol) and Astros are/were traditional rivals, but not so much anymore as both teams are pretty much "also rans". IF the Royals everturn things around, or something untoward happens lke the Cincy brawl maybe a heated rivalry will come to fruition, otherwise its a pretty one-sided or possibly imaginary one. Not even the Kansas City sportcasters seem to make a rivalry deal out of it. When / if it comes up for Afd again, I'd vote in favor of deletion of the article. Sector001 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royals have won no World Series since 1985

[edit]

This statement is down near the bottom of the article, or at least the gist of it. Since that has recently changed, I think this article should updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.232.251 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]