Talk:Cubs Win Flag

Images

I would like to find images like those below, but I can only find http://www.flickr.com/photos/falsecognate/2439409291/ --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/trainboy03/2744578019/
2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/trainboy03/2380124137/

That's another case of a fan snapping a photo just after the W flag was raised and before the other flags were lowered. The first pic we discussed on your talk page. The second pic is from August 5, 2006. [1] It was a 3:05 start, and the game ran 2 hours and 43 minutes, so it would have ended about 5:48. The clock reads 5:55. We know from other photos that they can get all the flag stuff done in as little time as 11 minutes, but apparently not as short as 7 minutes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But the game wouldn't have actually started at 3:05. They get stuff done pretty darn fast up there.Petero9 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It could have started a few minutes after 3:05. I'm just saying that the earliest it could have ended, with that game time, was 5:48 - hence the weaselly, "would have ended about 5:48". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

About the flags in general, I have a postcard from the early 60s that shows 4 flags on the left and 4 on the right, representing the 8 NL clubs prior to the 1962 expansion. After that they went to 5 on the left and 5 on the right. The would have gone to 6 on each side when they split into divisions in 1969, and when the NL went to 3 divisions in 1994 they would have begun the 3 columns of flags. The open question is, when did they start using flags? That's unclear at present, but I think Bill Veeck was involved in the project, so it could have been as early as the bleacher expansion of 1937. More research needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Flags and lights

Notice the two lights on the top of the scoreboard in that one photo. The thing is, we only have photos of the W flag. They do lose occasionally. I wonder if anyone has a picture of the L flag - not only for illustrative purposes, but to see if they fly it on the other side of the scoreboard, i.e. whether it corresponds to the light below it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I answered my own question. I went to a game in 2007 in which the Cubs lost, and I happened to get a photo. It's not good enough to display here, but the L is definitely on the other side of the masthead - thus, it's visually connected with the light below it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the blue-on-white "W" flag flies over the blue light, and the white-on-blue "L" flag flies over the white light. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The masthead itself and the team flags were in place as early as 1938, as per photos in William Hartel's A Day at the Park. The 1938 labeling appears to be correct, as the ivy has just barely started to climb the wall. Even by the the 1938 World Series (as per films I've seen) the ivy was only partway up the walls. That was also before the scoreboard clock was added. The Chinese elms on the "stairsteps" behind the bleachers, as well as the trees in the "wells", are also visible. So the masthead was in place by 1938, and I'm pretty sure flying the flag started then also, as Bill Veeck had an amusing anecdote about it in his autobiography, Veeck as in Wreck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Timing

If the win/loss flags go up after the game and the pennants are up before the game what time of day do the team pennants replace the previous day's game's win/loss indicator flag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good one. I don't know precisely. You'd probably have to call the Cubs office to find out. All I know is that by the time the gates open, the U.S. flag and the standings flags are all in place from the previous day's NL activities, and the W/L flag is stashed away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, U.S. flag protocol calls for the flag to be raised at sunrise. So I would guess that's when they do it, or whenever the work crew arrives, whichever comes later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The book A Day at the Park has an early-morning photo that shows the scoreboard, and there are no flags at all flying there. So either the photographer caught it "in between", or they take down the "W" flag once it gets dark. Hence the blue and white lights - which, according to the book, also began to be used in 1938. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they raise the win flag for night games?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they do. Of course, it would be illuminated by the ballpark lights at that point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

This is my first GA review so apologies if I cock it up in any way. On first glance it appears that the majority of any issues are quite minor, these I will fix myself and i will only bring up more major issues here. Basement12 (T.C) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   I'll take your word o what you'v said about the lead either being fully cited or not at all, I certainly don't think it's wrong to include citations in the lead and since this is only a GA review I won't be too picky.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Hard to do on an article about a "Win" flag, but mention of the equivalent lose flag (particulaly the image) does this i think.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   You've done very well to get such a wide range of images, particularly the image of the flag in the process of going up

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass GA

I have no problems passing this as a Good Article, you've clearly put a lot of effort in to finding images and references and have found out a bit more about the origins of the tradition as I requested. My only ongoing sugestion for further improvement would be that whilst the use of retailers websites to show alternative names is legitimate i'm sure it would be preferable to find some uses of these names in the media. Well done! Basement12 (T.C) 11:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• I've made a few changes, please let me know if you think any of them are incorrect in any way. I have a question regarding the other common names listed, why these two in particular? To someone relatively unfamiliar with the flag like myself they seem to have been arbitrarily picked from the possibilities with no explaination. Basement12 (T.C)

• I agree with your edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, the parts you were talking about make no sense, so I improved that a lil' bit.Petero9 (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted some of your edits. these points add color to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Detail

Apologies for the delay in my review, I thought it best to pause during the time that the aricle appeared as a main page DYK.

• This section seems mostly fine, I reordered it slightly to give the details on colur etc first my one slight issue is that the middle paragraph is completely unreferenced, I assume it is covered by one of the notes already given elsewhere?
  • Found new ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• It would be nice to know whe the flag is taken down again in preparation for the next game but judging from the talk page this is information that is not currently available? Its not crucial in any case.
  • I am trying to seek out sources. The Cubs Media relations office was suppose to send me some things yesterday, but they did not. I am neither sure I will be able to find a ref for the middle paragraph nor that I will obtain answers to our talk page queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

History

• The paragraph on the colour change launches into a list of retired numbers, this makes sense in the context of the colour change but that context should be established first. At the moment it seems to lose track of what its talking about before saying why its relevant.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The media guides also mention blue and white colored lights on the top of the scoreboard, which also appear in a photo here. The lights complement the flags by helping night time passersby learn the result of that day's Cubs game at a glance." — This should be replaced with something simpler removing further mention of the media guide and the reference to the photo in the text , make sure the relevant photo is next to the paragraph and the lights mentioned in its caption.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Since 1998, the flags have become ever more popular with demand reaching a level where they are sold at Wrigley field." — This seems out of place in its currentlocation, it should probably be placed with the other info on the flags bing sold i the "Detail" section. Basement12 (T.C) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General

• Regarding capitalisation – If you are capitalising the w in "Win" should the f of "flag" not also be capitalised, both in the article title and the text? Not every occurence of "win/lose flag" is capitalised. Also does the w in "White flag day" need to be capitalised?
  • I have tried to capitalize Win Flag but leave the word flag in lower case in the most recent edit. I hope I did not miss anything.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Images – the licensing all seems fine but i'd suggest including mention of the flag in the caption for the Navy Seal images. Basement12 (T.C) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is it possible to add more why the tradition started, was it simply to notify people walking by the stadium? Also who started it? I could fully understand if this info has been lost in the mists of time though.
  • I have added text that the lights were added for the Chicago 'L' passengers who were riding by. The flags serve the same purpose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Great. Might be interesting enough to add to the relevant Chicago L article as well (is it the Red line? I have a vague recollection of hearing Cubs v Sox refered to as the red line series).

Final thoughts - The article is generally well written, I found it intersting and it explained most of the things I wanted to know about the flag, and there are no major issues. Fixing the few things i've suggested here and resolving the couple of questions posed on the talk page about when the flag comes down should be fairly trivial tasks i'd hope. I will therefore give you a few days to make the necessary changes and then make my decision on whether it passes or fails. I will leave the review open, rather than putting it on hold during this time, as I wish to keep the invite for others to comment since i'm a GA review rookie. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Random quick hits from the_ed17

Hello, I'll help you out a bit Basement, seeing as it is your first. =) If you have any other questions, feel free to ask!

• Per WP:LEAD, it is desirable (but not required) to not have references in the lead. They should be mentioned and linked below, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.
  • I could use some help beefing up the WP:LEAD to two good paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My concerns from above still exist, but perhaps adding the fact that it is a letter W on a plain background and the colours would be a good thing to add. WP:LEAD says "one or two paragraphs" so i think in the case of this relatively short article one would suffice. Basement12 (T.C) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Better, but i'd still suggest removing the two emboldened alternative names unless you have reason for them being more commonly used than the other possibilities. Don't think there is any need for the citation in the second paragraph, per WP:LEAD, as its mentioned and referenced later in the article. Basement12 (T.C) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Everything in the WP:LEAD is cited in the main body, I believe. You either have a fully cited lead or fully uncited lead. Citing one paragraph and not the other is incorrect. Either you want my to remove citations throughout the lead or you want it fully cited. Which is it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not aware of any such requirement, certainly nothing of the sort is written in WP:LEADCITE. The first statement you cite "The Cubs Win flag is a victory..." is not mentioned explicitly again (its merely implied) but given that the source is an online shop I think its fine to remove all the lead citations. Basement12 (T.C) 00:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Trust me this is the commonly accepted interpretation of WP:LEAD. Either cite the lead properly or present the lead as if everything is properly cited in the main body. Try to get a WP:FAC promoted doing otherwise and you will find out quickly. Which do you want here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Per MOS:IMAGE, images should not be directly under section headings.
  • That rule is for subsections and not sections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't it for level three (===) headings and up...? —the_ed17— 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I'm right. However, level 3 and UP means going to level four headings (not level 2)!!! =/ Never mind! —the_ed17— 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• The 'References' section should be above the 'Notes' section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices.
• Rename the 'References' section to 'Sources' and the 'Notes' section to 'References'....this isn't required under any guidelines that I know, but as you can have separate 'Notes' sections now...
  • Sections are now named and ordered properly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! —the_ed17— 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Road trip

At the end of a homestand, does the win/loss flag continue to fly until the road trip is over?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I talked to a very patient guy at Cubs media relations at Wrigley Field. He said the W/L flags are only displayed for home games (except for that 10,000th win situation) and that he's not sure precisely when the flag is taken down, but it's sometime overnight, as it's always gone by the time he gets to work at 8:30 or so in the morning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Original colors of lights

It's true that Veeck said the lights were green and red. It's also true that Veeck was known to embellish or fill in the blanks or even make stuff up from time to time. One of his major stories had to do with his plan to buy the Phillies and populate them with black players, a couple of years before Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey broke the color line. Modern research indicates that he may have seriously exaggerated or even made up that story. Also, research indicates that the story of his days with the minor league Milwaukee Brewers, in which he claimed to have installed a rolling home run screen, may have been exaggerated or invented. And there was his continual insistance that no one knew how old Satchel Paige was, long after Paige acknowledged his real age in his own autobiography. That's not to say Veeck didn't do a lot of the stuff he talked about in the book, just maybe not all of it. He was certainly an innovator, and hired the first black player in the American League, Larry Doby. But that's the risk in relying too much on autobiographies for information. And it's possible he remembered the colors of the lights incorrectly. Hartell's book on Wrigley Field acknowledges the Veeck statement but says that contemporary newspapers reported the lights were blue and white - just like today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"L" flag

Not something we Cubs fans like to see, but it seemed fair to include an example of it, since it's discussed in the article. I'll let the layout gurus decide on possibly better placement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cubs Win Flag. 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 https://web.archive.org/20071019104209/http://www.usflags.com/productDetail.asp?ItemID=4484 to http://www.usflags.com/productDetail.asp?ItemID=4484

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 10:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cubs Win Flag. 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/20110708124825/http://www.cbssportsstore.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3262218 to http://www.cbssportsstore.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3262218
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711160409/http://www.heartlandflagpoles.com/Sports-Flags/Chicago-Cubs/Grommets-MLB-Chicago-Cubs-Win-W-Flag-3x5;jsessionid=0a01034d1f430af7d02995c9456fab92a9481e259fe0.e3eSbNmTb3mTe34Pa38Ta38Nchb0 to http://www.heartlandflagpoles.com/Sports-Flags/Chicago-Cubs/Grommets-MLB-Chicago-Cubs-Win-W-Flag-3x5;jsessionid=0a01034d1f430af7d02995c9456fab92a9481e259fe0.e3eSbNmTb3mTe34Pa38Ta38Nchb0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711160525/http://www.heartlandflagpoles.com/Sports-Flags/Chicago-Cubs/Banner-Flag-MLB-Chicago-Cubs-Win-W-Banner-27x37;jsessionid=0a01034d1f430af7d02995c9456fab92a9481e259fe0.e3eSbNmTb3mTe34Pa38Ta38Nchb0 to http://www.heartlandflagpoles.com/Sports-Flags/Chicago-Cubs/Banner-Flag-MLB-Chicago-Cubs-Win-W-Banner-27x37;jsessionid=0a01034d1f430af7d02995c9456fab92a9481e259fe0.e3eSbNmTb3mTe34Pa38Ta38Nchb0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 22:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)