Talk:Bleacher Creatures

Bleacher Creatures has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 11, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Baseball: Yankees High‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York Yankees (assessed as High-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias[edit]

This article seems to violate the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. I don't see why there are immature snippets about how another town "sucks". I propose that these references get removed. In addition, the statements are false since Boston won the World Series this year. Perhaps they were added because Yankee fans were upset that they lost in the first round of this year's playoffs and not because the statements have merit. I'll make the edits if I don't see any contrary comments. Mc roach 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The article isn't saying that Boston sucks, the article is saying that the Bleacher Creatures chant "Boston sucks". Which they do, even when Boston is better than the Yanks. This article is (when it hasn't just been vandalized) an accurate depiction of the Bleacher Creatures. Are the Creatures immature idiots? That's for readers to decide, this article just describes them. Wasted Time R 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, including the text "Boston sucks" is trolling. While this may be fine for a Yankee fanboi website, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If the chant were "A-Rod is gay!" (which it might be in 2008 since he opted out of his contract), would you still want to include it in the article? I think not. Mc roach 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would include it, because it would further demonstrate what homophobic jerks the Bleacher Creatures often are. Again, this article isn't saying anything about the Red Sox, just about Yankee fan behavior regarding the Red Sox. Two different things. Wasted Time R 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text also seems to violate Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and profanity. Mc roach 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Bleacher Creatures, not Mc Roach's personal feelings about them. They are important enough to have 2 separate books devoted to them so they are noteworthy enough to have an article. Even though they are crude, detailing their antics is completely allowed but not to a gratuitous level. You show a poor, poor understanding of WP policies MC. Do not insert the POV tag again. Baegis 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, Baegis. I did not suggest that the Bleacher Creatures are not noteworthy enough to have an article. The issue is that the article says that "Boston sucks" several times and serves no purpose other than flamebait. The neutral point of view issue is that these references were added by someone who apparently hates the Boston Red Sox enough to single them out. That is bias. Furthermore, please refrain from Personal Attacks. Also, in the interest of constructive dialogue, I will refrain from adding the POV tag. Mc roach 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mc roach, you still don't get it. The article doesn't say that Boston sucks nor does the article single out the Red Sox. It's the Bleacher Creatures that say that Boston sucks and that single out the Red Sox. Your idea of a neutral article would be to say that the Bleacher Creatures have the same attitude towards the Kansas City Royals that they do towards the Red Sox, and that just ain't so. I wrote bits of this article and added one of the pictures and I dislike the Yankees intensely and am happy that the Red Sox won the series. But it's a simple fact that the Creatures hate the Red Sox, and the article needs to describe that. Wasted Time R 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTR, I looked back at the article history, after you got done with it. I much prefer that version. I am thinking that the current article could be reconfigured to describe the hatred, without including text that is inflammatory. To be honest, I think that if the article continues to say "Boston sucks", it will provoke more vandalism. Mc roach 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is about a specific fan group. It is important to note their cheers. Just because you do not like them is not enough to cause the article to change. If the Red Sox, of whom you are surely a fan, have such a group of fans, they could have the same things on their page. Simply put, there is deep seated animosity between these two clubs and their fans reflect that. Baegis 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you guys' viewpoint. I still disagree, but will not make any edits to the article. What I ask is that this discussion topic stays up on this page for a while to see if others weigh in. Cheers! Mc roach 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

I think that this article is self-promoting and lacks a neutral point of view. This was obviously written by a member of the "Bleacher Creatures" and has no real value to Wikipedia. Duttysean 24 October 2008

I think this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.113.127 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many authors, some creatures, some fans, some non-fans. It's already survived deletion attempts. There are a lot of third-party sources that mention the creatures, so deletion is unlikely to be successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback[edit]

Hey, this is in response to the request for feedback left at WP:RfF about a week ago. Sorry there wasn't an earlier response; the page needs far more traffic than it gets.

The article itself is interesting and fairly easy to read. It's obvious that people have been putting some work into it. The main issues that need to be cleaned up are formatting, organization and some NPOV problems.

I think that the lead should be reformatted, possibly rewritten. The second paragraph is more the sort of thing that would go in the article than in the lead, and could easily be replaced with a sentence or two stating that the Bleacher Creatures are hostile to fans of other teams. A more comprehensive summary of the article would be nice. I also think that a brief comment on how the name was earned would fit nicely in the lead. It's covered in the History, but it would work well in both places.

Discussion of various chants dominate the article. They're obviously a very important to the group, but I think they should probably be confined to the "chants and songs" section. Make sure that everything in any section actually belongs in that section. There are some bits in History that belong in Chants and Songs, and vice versa.

The chants that are listed should be standardized in their format. For example, if you say that the Creatures all shout Melky's name, I don't think that it is necessary to have the (ie: "MEL-KY! MEL-KY! MEL-KY!") there. Hopefully readers can figure this out for themselves.

Some of the comments need to be updated. In History, the article states that the Creatures are no longer allowed to shout "Box seats suck!" However, in Chants and Songs, it lists this as being continued.

The sections pertaining to the police could be phrased in a more NPOV manner.

Finally, I think that a Controversies section could be useful. I'm not familiar with the group, but they seem very polarizing.

Hopefully this was helpful; I'm sorry that it's so long and that it took so long to get to you guys. If you have any questions, I'm going to be watching this page, so I'd be happy to clarify. (Or, of course, you can ask me on my Talk page.) AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips and comments; they are very helpful. I'll try and incorporate as many changes as I can with your suggestions. --Sportskido8 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nom[edit]

I nominated this article for GA consideration. If it's not ready yet, I'll make the necessary changes in the review. --Sportskido8 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be quick-failed for lack of sourcing and citation. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a terribly big article, but I guess it could use a couple more. Shouldn't be quick failed though. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even on a real topic I think it should be positioned for deletion. (RedSoxFanEB (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bleacher Creatures/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Having read the article, the one major concern I have about it is that large portions of the article are uncited. How easy would it be to add cites to these paragraphs? Is it worth continuing with the review if no such references can be found? Aptery gial 07:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess most of it is sourced in the book, which I don't currently have on me. Can you name a few sentences in particular that would need a reference? --Sportskido8 (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the majority of Chants and songs and the first paragraph of History. Aptery gial 02:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no progress after almost three weeks, I'm going to fail this nomination. If you disagree with this decision, you can relist at WP:GAN or contest the review at WP:GAR. Aptery gial 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point Of View[edit]

I feel as though this article violated Wikipedia's TOS based on neutrality, I feel as though indivduals of these "Bleacher Creatures" wrote this article just to have a wikipedia article, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSoxFanEB (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed over and over again...the Creatures are a notable group in many major newspaper articles and various other publications, and there's also a book written about them. They deserve their own article. Also, can you please point out where the article is not neutral? Sportskido8 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file used in this article, File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bleacher Creatures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bleacher Creatures/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sewageboy (talk · contribs) 20:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help review this article for GA status. I can report that the article looks good at first glance and I'll begin looking over the prose and references today. Sewageboy (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

"...and was given a tribute by the Yankees front office before the May 14 game against the Seattle Mariners, a game in which Dwight Gooden pitched a no-hitter." It should be noted that Gooden threw the no-hitter for the Yankees since a casual reader might not know which team he was on.
- Specified that Gooden threw the no-hitter for the Yankees. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph -- change fan's to fans'
- Changed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the fourth paragraph, Tino Martinez is mentioned for the first time in the article, but he is not denoted as the first baseman and his article isn't linked. It looks like his article is linked on his second mention, located in the "Roll Call" subsection, so you can just move that up to the first mention.
- Specified Martinez was the Yankees first baseman, wikilink also added. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it concise, "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States" can be changed to "US Supreme Court Justice".
- Cut down the title to "U.S. Supreme Court Justice". -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current sixth paragraph (beginning with "The Yankees have instituted rules") would be better situated immediately after the current third paragraph ("Because of the rowdiness").
- Paragraph moved. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"9-year alcohol ban" -> "nine-year alcohol ban"
- Done.
In the Nick Swisher quote, "Rightfielder" should be lowercase.
- Changed to "right fielder". -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence of the section about the beer sales being a trial run -- is this up-to-date information? If the beer sales are still considered tentative as of the past ~5 years, it's fine, but since the source is from over 10 years ago, I'm assuming it's no longer considered a trial.
- I'll have to do a bit of research about any current alcohol ban. I will get back to this one. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately I could not find any news articles about any current alcohol bans. I found info on the Yankees Stadium official information guide which I included. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable exceptions[edit]

All the mentions about former players returning and receiving chants (Wells, Soriano, and Damon) should be organized in the same paragraph in chronological order. Right now, they are scattered throughout the subsection in random spots.
Article links needed for the following mentions: Cleveland Indians, Johnny Damon, Mariano Rivera

The Cowbell Man[edit]

Remove "Creature" from "Creature Milton Ousland" -- it is implied he is part of the group and having the title there could potentially create confusion about his name
- Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other chants and jeers[edit]

Put a semicolon after "policy"
- Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The move to Section 203[edit]

Italicize New York Daily News

Controversy and reception[edit]

"However, undercover New York City Police Department officers have issued tickets for public intoxication..." Should be clarified that these tickets were issued to the Creatures
- Specified it was the Creatures who received the tickets. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General notes[edit]

Throughout the article, there is variance in the capitalization of roll call/roll callers. For consistency, it should either be capitalized or lowercase in every instance.
Also noticed that there is some variance in the capitalization of "section" throughout the article

The prose is very good -- thank you for your work. Next, I will look over the references, images, and some other minor aspects of the article. Sewageboy (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the comments Sewageboy. I'll address the points throughout the weekend. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

In the second paragraph of the history section, Bondy is quoted as calling the Creatures "a core group of the most rabid, passionate fans". The cited source at the end of the paragraph doesn't seem to have this quote in it. Add a source for this quote from Bondy
In the source cited for the last sentence of the current fourth paragraph in the History section, I can't find anything that says the stadium staff have been chanted at as the prose says. I might have missed something, but all I see is the interviewed staff saying that the Creatures are obnoxious.
Current citation number 40 ("For Jason Giambi, visit to new Yankee Stadium is sinking in") is a dead link
Current sources number 19 and 59 in The Cowbell Man subsection are duplicates. One should be removed
Current source number 63 ("Fun with the Bleacher Creatures in the Bronx") doesn't make any mention of a "No fun allowed!" chant as stated in the prose
- I either reworded the sentence that is verified in the reference or removed the unsourced material outright. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes[edit]

Earwig's tool found no instances of WP:COPYVIO, only matches for quotes.
The images are all licensed properly
There is no edit-warring or article instability

Once the outstanding issues are resolved, I will proceed with a GA pass. Thank you for your work on this article, LuK3. Sewageboy (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up comments Sewageboy. I addressed all of the reference points. Please let me know if I missed anything. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good on my end, so I've passed the article for GA status. Thank you again for your work on improving this page! Sewageboy (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]