Talk:George Brett

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 24, 2004.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Baseball: Hall of Fame 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 the Hall of Fame task force.

Rededicated portion of I-70?

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the fact that part of I-70 through Kansas City was renamed in Brett's honor. If I could remember the exact phrasing, I'd have added it myself. :) Also might be worth mentioning that St. Louis was SO sure they were going to take the 1985 World Series (The "I-70 Series" coincedentally) that pre-printed World Champions T-shirts were made, and had to be pulled off shelves when the Royals won! --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-printed shirts like that are made for every team prior to a World Series. The manufacturers are willing to take the risk so they can have the items readily available when and if the team in question actually wins the Series. Items like this, 1983 White Sox World Series pins, 1969 Cubs World Series pennants, 1986 Red Sox World Champions t-shirts and the like are often available as collector's items on eBay. 74.245.91.25 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

This page is kinda hard to read, it might need to be divided up someday. Sigma995 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The text should be organized into sections with headings and subheadings. The grammar is also sloppy, so a good proofreading is in order. I'm adding a cleanup tag. SmartGuy 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Modine relationship

I was informed on my talk page that Brett and Modine are not cousins, and it turns out the only place where it's mentioned is on the IMDB biography of Modine, so seeing as it's only from one source, I'll take that out now. howch e ng {chat} 06:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett's Hemorrhoid History

What happened in the 1980 series is misstated all over the net. The statement that the day after pulling himself out of Game 2 with hemorrhoid pain, "Brett had to have surgery to remove hemorrhoids" isn't, and couldn't be, correct, given that he returned in Game 3 the day after (and homered!). He had a minor procedure done on the off-day, presumably to relieve the pain. Then in the spring of 1981 he had his hemorrhoids removed (a "hemorrhoidectomy"), a thoroughly disabling procedure, and missed over two weeks of Spring training. When I get my refs straight, I'll fix it. Brett's reality is heroic enough without this...JoshFisher

20-20-20

I just composed a page on the 20-20-20 Club, of which Brett is the last member, so far, but I have only identified 5 players (Frank Schulte, Jim Bottomley, Jeff Heath, and Willie Mays). Am I missing someone?TeganX7 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades

An editor just added a discussion into this article of the fact that is not technically accurate to state that Brett won batting titles in three different decades (1976, 1980, and 1990), as his 1990 title was actually won in the 1980s. While this is technically correct, I feel it is basically irrelevant to put such a discussion in a baseball article. I made the mistake of calling it "nitpicking", when I should have made the following point instead.

Baseball has always defined its "decades" as beginning in the year beginning in zero and ending in nine (e.g., the 1980s were from 1980 to 1989). I won't argue the merits of this definition (I'm one of those who believe the new century began in 2001), but explaining that technicality in this article just seems to be going off on a tangent and is irrelevant to the article.

In truth, even if Brett had won his batting titles in 1977, '81, and '91, having actually gained titles in three different (and undisputed) decades, the REAL technicality is simply the count of decades as the measure. Ted Williams won his first and last batting titles 17 seasons apart (1941 to 1958), whereas Brett's first and last titles were only 14 years apart. We shouldn't be discussing the technicality of when a decade begins or ends, but rather the fact that Williams having won titles near the beginning of one decade and near the end of another simply masked the fact that his achievement was greater than Brett's. -- Couillaud (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Brett (military)

Is there some relationship between these two George Howard Bretts? Surely they are either related, or the baseball player was named for the general; its seems unlikely that it could be a pure coincidence. --Xyzzyva (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard is a rather common middle name, isn't it? Kingturtle (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet meme?

Should Brett's youtube video of him telling his "bathroom story" get a mention on the page. It's closing in on half a million views on youtube. --WadeGwynn 25 Sep 2009

Doubt it unless you can find a source, and even then it's borderline. However, I have seen the video, and it's fucking hilarious. Have you seen the auto-tune one? That one is even funnier. Korben Dallas25 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14 years later I was able to find a Deadspin article and an article in The Kansas City Star. Istandwiththesilent 18:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most hits by a third baseman?

Someone anonymously edited this to say he had the second most hits by a third baseman. Although this is a tricky question (what does it mean? Was he on the lineup at third for his first hit in a game, but then was at first for the next two?), every source I can find lists Brett as the holder of that record. I'm going to revert that edit. If he is second, could whoever list the source, at least here? JoshFisher

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– relisting as multimove. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC) – Primary topic. Page views: 129,980, 4,928. Partial title matches: 2,441, 2,267, 2,145. Relisted, also see discussion GB fan 13:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus 04:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The baseball player seems to be far and away the primary target of George Brett. The others can be addressed through a dab page and a hatnote. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm uncomfortable with using page views to establish primary topic. There are cases where I know that method doesn't work, so I don't like seeing it as the primary method employed. I'm not opposing this suggested move, just the methodology. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the commenters have a good knowledge of the characters involved in the request and can apply a little bit of common sense to it. If anything, it inflates the page views of the minority topics with search engine crawlers counting as page views. Marcus Qwertyus 04:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I'd like to see that "common sense" unpacked a little bit for the benefit of move closers, such as myself, who might not share the knowledge or information that's being brought to bear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC) See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary Topic: Plea for clearer wording[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.