Talk:New York Mets/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Collapse

Should their collapse in 2007 be mentioned? It was pretty historical, but judging from the other stuff in the article I'd say it might not be important enough to be added in. Just thought I'd ask. WrightisRight05 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Colors from the Dodgers and the Giants?

Where's the reference for the Mets' colors being gleaned from the Giants and Dodgers? Has anyone else noticed that the Mets' colors are the same as the NYC flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.198.193 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reference, which I've added: http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/history/timeline1.jsp NYCRuss ☎ 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to re-word the section "Uniform and logo symbolism" and remove the references to white and black being "symbolic" of the Dodgers and Giants. White has been used for baseball uniforms since the beginning, not exclusively by the Dodgers, and black was only introduced by the Mets in 1998. So claiming a connection to the Dodgers and/or Giants on that basis is a bit of a stretch. Even the link referenced by NYCRuss - on the Mets' own website - makes no claim to the white/Dodgers or black/Giants connection. Elsquared (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a little bit of white in the Mets script logo, probably to set the two colors apart and make the logo easier on the eye, but it's not a team color. In any case, there's no source for claims about white and black, as you note. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This has no bearing on the article, but as a historical note, the Dodgers settled on blue as their team color in 1938. Previous to that they had experimented with various blues and reds, although for 1937 their color was green! Meanwhile, the Giants generally wore darkish shades of blue until 1940 when they introduced some red trim. The famous orange-and-black did not appear until 1949. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitans

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead (preferably the first sentence) that 'mets' is short for 'metropolitans?'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. However User:SixFourThree argues on Template talk:New York Mets that "The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club Inc." never has been the name of the team, just the "business name" of the club.[1] However, SixFourThree does not clarify whether it still is the business name of the club or not. On the web-site Bloomberg/Businessweek Company Insight Center you can reed about "The New York Metropolitans Baseball Club, Inc. ... a subsidiary of Sterling Mets L.P.".[2] Someone with greater knowledge about these topics than I ought to write an appropriate wording about it in the article. --Isthmus (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a baseball team in the 1800's: New York Metropolitans. Here, under the 1961 bullet point, it says "The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club Inc., formally receives a certificate of membership from National League President Warren Giles." Do you think that's enough evidence?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's enough evidence that the corporate parent of the team was, at least at that time, "The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club Inc.". But the team on the field has always been the "Mets", not "Metropolitans" (the Schmooze notwithstanding), so there is no need to include "Metropolitans" in the lead. That "Mets" was inspired by "Metropolitans", both the 19th century team and corporate name, is already covered in the first paragraph of the history section. That's sufficient mention, as we don't want to give a false impression by placing undue weight on the fact in the lead. The mets aren't the Knicks, who's name is short for the once-used "Knickerbockers". The Mets have never actually been the "Metropolitans". oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've established the term "Mets" comes from but is not short for "Metropolitans," we do need to include something in the lead as it is a summary of the article's content.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. As it stands, the lead already says the team name and year of founding (the important parts of the early history), and the details of its origin are too trivial for lead mention. It's the sort of detail that isn't critical to understanding that must be mentioned in a summary, but are suitable for inclusion in a more thorough treatment (i.e., the body text). oknazevad (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that I totally agree. All I think is necessary is about one sentence to describe where the name comes from (in my opinion, a pretty important part of this article). Look at the lead of Oakland Athletics, the second paragraph states: "The 'Athletics' name originates from the late 19th century "athletic clubs", specifically the Athletic (Baseball Club) of Philadelphia." That's basically all I think is necessary.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See, I think that's not so important as to need mention in the lead. There's no explanation for the Yankees name in the lead of that article, for example. Looking at a few others there seems to be a split as to inclusion.

I also would be concerned about phrasing, so as not to give the false impression that "Mets" is actually short for "Metropolitans" (Unlike the A's nickname, which is actually short for "Athletics"). I think it's early enough in the article to satisfy the curious as it stands. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rivalries

Hello, I have recently been working on sports rivalries sections, starting with baseball. While some of the rivalry sections suffer from too much emphasis on historical rivalries that are no longer relevant, I think that the Mets section actually suffers from the reverse. There is an overemphasis on the rivalry with the Phillies, which had almost NO significance until 2006 (attempts to trace the rivalry back to supposed prejudice against Jackie Robinson, before the Mets even existed, is specious at best). Likewise, the rivalry with the Braves, while intense for a short period between 1998-2001, has almost no significance outside of that time period with the exception of the 1969 NLCS.

Unlike the other articles, I come to this one as a lifelong Mets' fan. Having followed the team for some time, I would actually argue that their most consistent rivals have been the Yankess and the St. Louis Cardinals. The Yankees are obvious because, even when the teams were not playing each other in interleague play, there was the Mayor's Trophy and intense periods where the teams switched places between mediocrity and greatness, battling for the hearts of New York fans, until the Yankees regained their dynasty and the Mets become competitors in 1999, 2000, and 2006.

The St. Louis Cardinals only receive a footnote, but anyone growing up in the 1980's will tell you that rivalry was as intense, if not moreso, than either the Phillies or the Braves. The Cardinals' sports commentators even came up with the name "Pond Scum" for the Mets' 1980's squad, and the two teams often traded places atop the NL East. More importantly, this rivalry is NOT limited a particular period in time, but has been revived with the two teams' recent match-ups in the 2000 and 2006 NLCS. By contrast, the Braves rivalry has died out, and the Phillies rivalry, while hot right now, has no historical context (despite attempts at the contrary to make it appear like it does). Perhaps the only reason these are getting more attention is because the Internet wasn't around in the 1980's.

Just some thoughts from this Mets' fan. TempDog123 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Biggest Rival

Somebody objected to my trimming down of the section entitled "Biggest Rivalry." However, this sub-section is based entirely on one reference, a Bleacher Report article. The articles was originally cited as a "study," but it's nothing of the sort. There was no statistical survey. It's just the opinion of one guy writing on an open-source website. That hardly merits enough notability for its own sub-section.

Furthermore, I also question the reliability of the source. It seems to contain internal contradictions. The author cites Mets-Yankees and Mets-Braves as lacking the "historical significance" of Mets-Phillies. However, the rest of the article speaks at length about how the Mets and Phillies were never really good at the same time until the end of the last decade, therefore there wasn't much of a rivalry(?). The "historical significance" comment also seems to overlook that the Mets-Braves met in the 1969 NLCS, and Mets-Yankees has the entire history of the Subway Series (Mets colors from NY Giants/Brooklyn Dodgers), the Mayor's Cup, Interleague Play, and the 2000 World Series.

Regardless, the article is cited properly as a secondary source, inasmuch as it does claim the Mets biggest rivalry is with the Phillies. Therefore, I'm OK with keeping it. However, at most it warrants a sentence in the Mets-Phillies subsection. I've placed it there as such. But no way does one guy's opinion on the matter warrant an entire section of its own. If this had been a genuine statistical "study" as was originally represented, then maybe it would merit such attention. But it's not, so it doesn't. IMHO. TempDog123 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Bleacher Report isn't considered reliable, then remove the content entirely, IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 12:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider Bleacher Report reliable. They are hacks who speculate and pass it off as fact. If a section is wholly based on a BR "article", it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bleacher Report has never struck me a credible source for information. NYCRuss ☎ 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my feeling as well. With such consensus, I will remove the reference. I believe User:SNIyer12 added it back in and has been writing that the Phillies and Mets were primary rivals into related articles. I'm sure it's well-intentioned and maybe he can explain his reasoning, because I would dispute this contention. The Phillies may be the Mets' biggest rival right now, but I challenge someone to find a source that says the Mets' biggest rival were the Phillies pre-2006. Even the Bleacher Report article says the teams were seldom good at the same time prior to 2006. In my lifetime, the Mets rivalries have changed throughout the 80s (Cards), late 90s-early 00s (Braves), and late 00s (Phillies), with the cross-town rivalry with the Yanks being the only ever-present rivalry, and only really gaining significance after Interleague Play and the 2000 World Series. Rivalries are fun, but we shouldn't take something occuring in the present out of context and pretend that it's always been around. TempDog123 (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The rivalry between the Mets and Phillies dates back to when the Mets entered play in 1962. The two teams have a geographic rivalry, as New York City and Philadelphia are approximately two hours apart by car. The rivalry is because of the long-standing bitter rivalry between sports fans from both cities, seen also between the New York Giants and the Philadelphia Eagles in the National Football League and the New York Rangers and the Philadelphia Flyers in the National Hockey League. Yes, whenever the Mets and Phillies play each other, games between them are often very intense, hard-hitting affairs. – SNIyer12, (talk), 11:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you discussing this, but much of what you wrote strikes me as irrelevant, and I notice that other editors have deleted the same from other articles. This is not about inter-city rivalries, but specific rivalries between specific teams. I'm not calling into question that the Mets & Phillies have a rivalry right now but where is the evidence that it was intense before 2006? Here is the lead from the Mets-Phillies article itself:

"Aside from several brawls in the 1980s, the rivalry remained relatively low-key before the 2006 season,[6] as the teams had seldom been equally good at the same time"

That even has a citation that the rivalry was "low-key" prior to 2006. I've yet to see any similar citation from pre-2006 asserting that the Phillies were the Mets biggest rival, and I certainly don't remember that as a Mets fan. My problem is not with the article itself or asserting that the two teams are now rivals, but it reeks of Wikipedia:Recentism when I look at other articles and see random sentences asserting that the Mets biggest rival has always been the Phillies, such as Mets-Braves rivalry, when the Phillies were a non-factor during the Mets intense rivalry with the Braves between 1998-2001. And, really, the Phillies were not intense rivals of the Mets going back to the 1980s as far as I can remember. It's possible that the rivalry was more intense between 1969-1979 when only three teams sat atop the NL East during that period - Mets, Phillies, Pirates. But really, all the citations I've seen indicate that had more to do with the Phillies-Pirates rivalry since the Mets only won the dvision two of those years: 1969 and 1973.

Long story short, if we want to talk about how much Mets-Phillies has become an intense rivalry in recent years, go for it. But let's not rewrite history to say it has always been that way, when many older Mets fans such as myself will remember that was not the case, no references have been cited that stand for that assertion, and even Mets-Phillies rivalry article says in the lead that the rivlary was low-key until 2006. TempDog123 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

TempDog123, you're going to have to discuss with Killervogel5 (talk) about the Mets-Phillies rivalry, as the article on the rivalry is a GA. I want to keep the section of it intact, as it is in the main rivalry article. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you want to edit the section on the Mets' rivalry with the Phillies, Killervogel5 posted this at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies page: "Well, the fact that Wikipedia's article on the rivalry is a GA heartily supports the fact that the rivalry exists; that being said, this is still one of the few holdovers left from the original article before its overhaul. I'd support rewording rather than removal, as long as concurrent changes are made in the main rivalry article." You can discuss changes on the user's talk page if you want to. – SNIyer12, (talk), 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have spoken with Killervogel5 regarding the Phillies-Pirates rivalry. If you check his talk page, you'll see we reached consensus in an exchange of about four posts without much nonsense involved. From my one interaction with him, he strikes me as a standup editor. But why exactly am I talking to him? You made the recent edits and that is why I was addressing you. Furthermore, I have never stated that the rivalry doesn't exist. I have stated that I fear Wikipedia:Recentism in attempts to make the rivalry seem ever-present, as if it's always been that intense. Again,even the lead from the Mets-Phillies rivalry itself seems to assert the contrary. If you know KV5 and think he'd have some good input, why don't you invite him to come to this talk page and speak for himself? TempDog123 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Rivalries

I'm thinking of deleting this section. The Mets are a team that have only been around since 1962. These so-called "historical rivalries" that they had with the Cardinals and Pirates occurred over the span of maybe one decade each, that's it. "Historical Rivalries" was first used by myself and Killervogel5 as a compromise for including the Phillies-Pirates rivalry as a subsection for Philadelphia Phillies, the idea being that it was a storied, but not currently relevant, rivalry.

Even as the editor who inserted some of the Cardinals info, I don't think it really fits the bill of what we had in mind when we said historical. I think it's also bloating the rivalry section, which already includes major subsections for three teams (that is more than most teams and, again, the Mets have not been around very long). TempDog123 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting this on the Mets page and on related team pages since no one has commented in over two months. TempDog123 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is really unorganized. It should probably be reorganized to look more like the history sections in New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox. The Mets are not as old as either of those franchises, but the chronological structure of the section (and broken into subsections) of those pages looks much more encyclopedic than what currently exists on this page. History of the New York Mets would be a good place to look to expand what is currently a pretty paltry history section. TempDog123 (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that article was created to shorten this article, as the history section had gotten too long and overwhelming the rest of the article.oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, but surely there must be a good middle ground because the current history recap in this article is way too short and disjointed and, IMHO, sucks. TempDog123 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1962 season

Their actual record was 40 wins, 120 losses, 1 tied, and 1 rainout not made up. The tie (7-7) came on September 9 at Houston, called after 8 innings due to a curfew.[3] The rainout also came against Houston, though I haven't isolated the specific game yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The original schedule called for 9 games at New York and 9 at Houston:

at New York

Apr 16,17

Jun 22,23,24,24

Sep 18/19/20

Apr 16 rained out, made up as part of doubleheader on Jun 22.

Jun 24 doubleheader rained out, 1 made up as part of doubleheader on Sep 18, other presumably scheduled as part of doubleheader on Sep 19.

Sep 19 rained out, 1 made up as part of doubleheader on Sep 20, other game not made up.

at Houston

May 21,22

Jun 11,12,13,14

Sep 7,8,9

Jun 13 rained out, made up as part of doubleheader on Sep 8.

Sep 9 game ended in a tie.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I thought that 1962 was a 162-game season but couldn't reconcile it with their record. Thanks for clearing that up. TempDog123 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

no hitter

blurb on no hitter in franchise history now outdated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.128.80 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure? It specifically says that UNTIL June 1 the Mets never had a no hitter and then in that paragraph goes on to talk about the specifics such as how it eluded Tom Seaver and what not and then in the paragraph after it says, clear as day, Santana threw the no hitter. It's pretty clear. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Tom Seaver part is especially important. --Gary Dell'Abate (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

The Mets retired numbers no longer have the drop outline shadow. If somebody could please fix this with the retired numbers, that would be greatly appreciated. --User:NJ Jurrjens (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly reminder, it has been nearly 6 months and no change has been made. This should be done as soon as possible, thanks! --User:NJ Jurrjens (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

References

New Book

Does anyone have any information on the new 50th anniversary Mets book? Allen 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This? The Mets 50th Anniversary Celebration FriarTuck1981 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New York Mets/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

16 images, 32 citations. JJ98 (Talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 21:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference for Mets colors?

"The Mets' colors are composed of the Giants' orange and Dodgers' blue (which also comprise the outer two bands of the New York City Flag). " I've seen this claim in many places but have never seen an authoritative source. I grew up a Mets fan and always figure the colors were from the NYC flag, with the only connection to Dodgers and Giants colors being that they chose their colors from the same source. Jyg (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind... it's in the same reference for the naming of the team. Somehow I missed it. Jyg (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

Overmydeadbootybody (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) incorrect uniform

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct link to Sports Illustrated

The link to Sports Illustrated greatest upsets in history should go to:

http://www.si.com/more-sports/photos/2013/06/24/greatest-upsets-sports-history/15

Done. Thanks for the heads up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2015

151.202.25.178 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC) World Series (3) 1969,1986, 2015

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The anon was apparently asking to add 2015 to the infobox line listing World Series wins. It is incorrect, of course, because it's a list of World Series wins, not appearances, and the 2015 World Series is still ongoing. (Hopefully we can add it next week. Let's go Mets!!) oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2015

--Hellometropolly (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)--Hellometropolly (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)--Hellometropolly (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)--Hellometropolly (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)ààâè v vvdfdgfdggtrgtg

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York Mets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120113062511/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2006/05/24/2006-05-24_despite_long_game__rivalry_l.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2006/05/24/2006-05-24_despite_long_game__rivalry_l.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retired Numbers No Drop Shadow

My concept skills are awful, so I will need somebody's help. After Mike Piazza got his number 31 retired, a kind user updated the concept of his #31 being retired. However, for the past 2 years none of the Mets retired numbers have had the drop shadow, yet users are still uploading the numbers with the drop shadow. If there is anybody who could upload the Mets retired number concepts without the retired numbers, that would be greatly appreciated. --NJ Jurrjens (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

Please change the roster back to the colors 67.86.57.10 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed the roster template. So easy to forget some of those brackets (I did too!). oknazevad (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the company name be included somewhere on the page?

The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc., that is. I hesitate to make changes on a popular page like this until floating the idea here. Until learning about the old New York Metropolitans I had always thought the name "Mets" was derived directly from the corporate name. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Added after one week. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bridge in Mets logo

The bridge in the center symbolizes that the Mets, by bringing National League baseball back to New York, represent all five boroughs.

My recollection was that the suspension bridge in the foreground represents the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, which was completed about the same time that the Mets began to play in New York City.Egronenthal (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't represent any one bridge. There's no less than 7 large suspension bridges in NYC (GWB, Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Triborough, Williamsburg, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Verazzano-Narrows). The bridge in the logo doesn't exactly resemble any one of them. It's an intentionally simplified drawing acting as an abstract representation of what is a common feature in the five boroughs. oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Uniform #17

David Cone, in 1991, switched his uniform number to 17 from 44, to honor Keith Hernandez. He is not listed in the section on non-issued numbers that aren't retired. " In 1991, Cone switched from uniform number 44 to 17 in honor of former teammate Keith Hernandez."- David Cone's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.127.19 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• MikePiazzaMets.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Luis Rojas as new manager?

Don’t wanna start an edit war but, why do editors keep thinking that Rojas is already manager? The Mets never announced anything via their social media pages. TheBigMan720 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

They put it front and center on their official website. With comments from the general manager. Just because they haven't had a press conference doesn't mean they haven't stated plainly who their new manager is. oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You do realize those are just reports right? We still need to wait for an official announcement from the organization. TheBigMan720 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

When the actual general manager in charge of hiring the new manager says outright that they've hired Luis Rojas (which is actually in the article at the Mets website – you did actually read it, didn't you?) then waiting for a formal press conference is just that, a formality, and pedantic. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Where did the General Manager say that? Their was no source you provided. TheBigMan720 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In the article right on the front of the mets.com website. here. The article was posted earlier today around 1:30 PM EST and names him directly as the manager. It contains quotes from COO Jeff Wilpon and GM Brodie Van Wagenen. There was no need to remove Rojas's name at that point. A story reported through an official website featuring comments from the executives in charge is as official as it gets. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m done talking here. TheBigMan720 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

2001:B011:7C05:564D:B824:195:E967:5CF0 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

59 Carlos Carrasco 50 Miguel Castro 39 Edwin Díaz 64 Yennsy Díaz 27 Jeurys Familia 44 Robert Gsellman 52 Brad Hand 53 Heath Hembree 21 Rich Hill 32 Aaron Loup 67 Seth Lugo 65 Trevor May 38 Tylor Megill 85 Stephen Nogosek 72 Jake Reed 61 Sean Reid-Foley 62 Drew Smith

0 Marcus Stroman

34 Noah Syndergaard 99 Taijuan Walker 29 Trevor Williams 45 Jordan Yamamoto |Catchers=

76 Patrick Mazeika 33 James McCann

3 Tomás Nido

|Infielders=

20 Pete Alonso 23 Javier Báez 73 Travis Blankenhorn 28 J. D. Davis 13 Luis Guillorme 12 Francisco Lindor

6 Jeff McNeil

18 José Peraza

1 Jonathan Villar

|Outfielders=

30 Michael Conforto 26 Khalil Lee

9 Brandon Nimmo

-- Mark Payton 11 Kevin Pillar

2 Dominic Smith

|InactivePitchers=

|InactiveCatchers=

|InactiveInfielders=

|InactiveOutfielders=

|Manager=

-- Vacant

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Roster

Frame currently has the title "New York Mets 2022 spring training roster" this is INCORRECT, several players are free agents or at the end of their contract and there is no reason to assume they will resign with the team or qualifying offers will be extended where applicable. Header should be changed to 2021 End of season roster and then be updated throughout the off-season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

With regards to New York Mets Staff Section above the Roster Section:

Change General Manager from Zack Scott to Billy Eppler

Change Assistant General Manager from Zack Scott to: Ian Levin: Assistant General Manager, Baseball Operations Bryn Alderson: Assistant General Manager, Professional Scouting

Thank you!

-Bristol / Interstate476 / Long Island, NY / Poconos, PA

Citation: Interstate476 (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank You!!! Interstate476 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MattMcA21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Update formatting on table in Mets Hall of Fame section

Can a change be made to the names? All names are in bold, the key indicates bold with a yellow background as a member of the HoF, a dagger indicates that the person went in as a Met, Bold on Green Background indicate HoF Frick award recipient. Just move other names to regular face removing the bold, it’s confusing. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2022 (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:

• Le Red Bull Arena.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

Under the uniforms section, the line "The gray road jerseys feature a radially-arched "NEW YORK" in Tiffany style letters across the chest.." requires a hyphen between Tiffany and style to make "Tiffany-style", a properly-constructed compound adjective. I therefore request that this hyphen be added. Thanks. Johnathanzen (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Misc.

Why isn't the city listed in the miscellaneous section of the infobox like every other MLB franchise club? Shouldn't it say "Based in New York City since ____"? Banan14kab (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Because the team has never moved. That's what that's for. If there are other teams where it's included and the team has never moved, then it should be removed from those, not added here. oknazevad (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

The manager for the NY Mets is Buck Showalter, not Billy Eppler. Eppler is the General Manager 75.134.15.87 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Your request is unclear. In the infobox, Buck Showalter is cited as the manager. M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Joan Whitney Payson

The history section has no mention of Mrs. Payson. The article should acknowledge her role in the creation of the Mets, with a link to her Wikipedia page. That page has more about the Mets' creation than this does. I'm not qualified to make the edit; can someone step up and get it done? 2600:4041:5C11:7D00:4DA:9641:A82E:83BC (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Mets/Cardinals

@Oknazevad:, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Mets rivalry closed as delete in part because of "a lack of historical coverage to justify the article's existence". How can we justify a section for it then on either this or the Cardinals team article when we have deemed it not notable due to insufficient coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We deemed it not sufficiently independently notable, therefore not worthy of an article. But a section at the teams' articles allows us to include coverage without an independent article. While the rivalry is mostly historical, it remains part of each team's history and should be mentioned in that context. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that there was a "historical" rivalry between these two teams, any more so than between any two random MLB teams that play each other several times a year. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you weren't following them back in the mid 80s when they were battling over the NL East every year, a rivalry made more intense by Keith Hernandez having played for the Cardinals before joining the Mets. No less than the radio voice of the Mets (and lifelong fan), Howie Rose, has discussed such things on air, as for that matter so has Hernandez in his current role as a Mets broadcaster. As I said, it was historical, but it was definitely a thing. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that TempDog123 agrees with me that we shouldn't have a section on a non-existent rivalry here. It's a shame there's no further input from other editors.

Two teams being good at the same time does not make for a rivalry. Keith Hernandez getting traded from the Cardinals to the Mets does not make it a rivalry. The comments of the play-by-play announcer do not make it a rivalry. A lack of sourcing even from the mid 1980s about it shows that it wasn't a rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. After I was reverted, I checked the article history and was surprised to learn that it had already been deleted once before only to be reverted by the same user. @Oknazevad even admits it's a "historic rivalry" in the edit summary of their last reversion. Incorporate it into the history section then. An appendage of the past doesn't deserve its own separate subsection. TempDog123 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have no issue with it being worked into the history section. As I said, it is mostly historic, but it was an important part of team history. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That's an acceptable compromise to me. I don't deny that there was a rivalry between the two teams in the 1980s, but that's where it begins and ends. It doesn't warrant a separate subsection but would probably warrant a mention in that part of their history. I've attempted to incorporate it as such. Please let me know what you think. TempDog123 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)