Talk:Portland Beavers

"Historically questionable" notation Est. 1903

I'm removing the phrase "historically questionable" as applies to the "Est. 1903" sleeve patch, because it's editorializing. I'm not really disputing the validity of the claim, but unless you can find an outside source making it, it's OR.

Perhaps interestingly, it's not uncommon in baseball - the Washington Nationals, who moved to DC in 2005, have "Established 1905" on the sleeves of their jersey. SixFourThree (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Which is equally fraudulent, as well as inaccurate in any case. However, I don't need an outside source to point out that the current Portland franchise has no connection to the 1903 franchise, as the article itself does that sufficiently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's a stretch at best, but I think "fraudulent" is a strong term. I also tend to think the article makes the point clear without the editorializing, or the reminder in the last sentence. We don't need it pointed out twice, and it's stronger to include the notation in the opening paras, isn't it? SixFourThree (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Okay, I reworked it to make the point clear without editorializing. What do you think? SixFourThree (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

The immediately previous version didn't editorialize either. But your version probably makes the point sufficiently. This kind of problem exists in other articles as well. For major league teams, usually there is a separate article for each. For minor league teams, it doesn't really seem justified, as the minors are much less stable and there have been countless franchise shifts in countless minor leagues over the years. However, there have been other Portland teams. The Portland Mavericks have a separate article. The only justification for doing things that way is that the Mavericks were in a different league. But all of them were different clubs. I would argue that they should all be in a single article about Portland professional baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Portland Rockies have a separate page as well. Ideally, I'd like to see four separate articles created, one for each incarnation of the Beavers, but that doesn't seem likely (nor, given this article's size, a good idea). There probably should be a History of baseball in Portland page to cover the complete timeline. Glad the compromise satisfies you. SixFourThree (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

I raised this issue on the baseball project page. The only opinion expressed so far is to separate them into 4 articles, as per your suggestion. I also like the idea of a page that summarizes a city's professional baseball history. I wonder if you'd be willing to add your comments to that page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Portland Baseball

I'm planning on working on improving the articles for Portland Baseball and/or the Portland Beavers. I'd be willing to put together a comprehensive article on the Baseball in Portland. The information I have includes some pre-1903 info as well as info about the Rockies & Mavericks. T-75|talk|contribs 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's exactly what we need - this article has drifted away from the Beavers to include other teams in Portland. I'm moving all that content to History of baseball in Portland, Oregon. FWIW, you'll need to provide verifiable sources, preferably online, for your information. SixFourThree (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

All of the information I provided is supported by verifiable sources I listed in the reference section. I attempted in put in line citations for any content that is likely to be challenged. I have no problem with where the info is found, but it would probably be good to add a "see also" section with links to wikipedia articles about baseball in Portland. T-75|talk|contribs 06:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to Tucson Padres

No doubt the current incarnation of the AAA Portland Beavers is legitimately placed in a Tucson Padres article, but does the old Portland Beavers PCL history apply to this franchise? It seems like we need to create a new article called Portland Beavers (PCL) and move the history section there. Thoughts? --Esprqii (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify further, the AAA Beavers franchise was created in 1978 and had no connection to the PCL team other than the naming. It should have been split out then (similar to how the Portland Timbers articles are split), but since the names were the same, no one did. It doesn't really make sense now. --Esprqii (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That tends to be standard order. The Portland Beavers that were in Portland last year were not the Portland Beavers listed in this article. The Albuquerque Dukes were the team that was relocated to Portland in 2001. The Portland Beavers of the past are now know as the Colorado Springs Sky Sox, the Las Vegas 51s, and the Salt Lake Bees. Keeping the teams history on one page helps clear up any confusion. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, that's like putting people with the name John Smith in the same article. As you note, the teams are completely different. I think Portland Beavers should be a redirect to the various incarnations, similar to Portland Timbers, with the Portland Beavers (AAA) redirecting to Tucson Padres. --Esprqii (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same. Spreading it out over periods of time in their own individual articles (i.e. Portland Beavers (1903–1917), Portland Beavers (1919–1972), Portland Beavers (1978–1993), Portland Beavers (2001–2010)) is as useful as having it all on the same page. The article should chronicle the history of the franchise. If they left, that should be noted. If they returned, that should also be noted. It should note what the team exists as to day. There is a separate article for the Portland Rockies who turned into the Tri-City Dust Devils. It's standard for minor league teams at WP:WPBB. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the Tucson Padres have nothing to do with the Portland Beavers other then the fact that they were re-located from Portland. The Tucson team is actually the Los Angeles Angels (PCL) franchise from 1903. They were relocated and named the Spokane Indians, which turned into the Albuquerque Dukes, which turned into the Portland Beavers. If you want to be bold and move all the different information into the aforementioned teams, then no one is stopping you. I would just think it would be easier to have the Beavers be their own separate article. But it is clear that the pre-2001 info has no place in this article as it's not the same team. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, separate articles for each incarnation is probably overkill. It seems to me that the PCL teams, like the league itself, has the most history and significance beyond just being yet another portable minor league franchise. The way this is handled in San Francisco Seals (baseball) seems like a good model, where the history of the original franchise is maintained, with descriptions of where the team moved after it left its historic base. --Esprqii (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Portland Beavers. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100319020353/http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090320&content_id=228140&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp to http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090320&content_id=228140&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp

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} 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)