Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 9 August 2007

Baseball B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "World Series" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2006) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Template:Talkbottom

Archives

• Archive 1

Trivia or Significant Events?

Where is the list of things like: Longest/Shortest WS game, biggest crowd, most pitchers used in WS game, perfect games, etc? I know it's gotta be someplace. Thanks! Jolomo 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That should be handled in one line, something like "See also World Series records." Something about popularity may belong here, but it would belong in prose --eg, prose comparison of W.S. attendance with ordinary attendance. --P64 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the trivia section I put was deleted? Since there was no reason, I am adding it back. Thanks.

Disputed generalization about early champions

This concerns the {disputed} tag, so the section heading begins with that word.
Determination of the champion by a season of play began in 1871, probably the main innovation by the NAPBBP. That's all for now, pending . -- comment by P64 on September 2006

Champions

Does anyone have a source for the list of 1857-1870 champions?

The word "champions" is once misleading regarding the 1890s. But unrevised for now, pending .

In deference to any controversy, more and more the term "World Series Championship" is being used, the subtlety being that it is merely a title and not a political statement.
"World Series Championship" is used in place of "world championship" to distance the writer from claiming or suggesting that the winner is the world champion. Is "World Series Championship" also used in place of "World Series"? And if so, what is the subtlety in that case? --P64 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Series is called the "World Series", and by winning it, you garner the World Series Championship. The original meaning, "World's Championship Series" is considered a tad politically incorrect (though not by me) because it's not 1884 any more, nor 1903, and baseball is played in many countries. However, the American sport is still the highest level of the sport, at least in terms of money. Wahkeenah 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who can participate

It is not technically "limited to US and Canada", it's limited to Major League Baseball, which currently happens to be only on US and Canada. And if you can cite a baseball league that pays better than MLB, post it, otherwise leave it be. Wahkeenah 07:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The above argument makes no contribution to a logical defense about the National limits of the "WORLD series". The argument can be true for any other NATIONAL league in the planet, only nobody else is stupid enough to think they are entitled to name their NATIONAL final series of game "the world series". The difference is blatant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbabarba (talk • contribs)

• The above red-linked user repeatedly neglects to sign its posts with four tildes, and has also inserted comments on the same topic at different places in the talk page, so it is kind of hard to keep track of. However, in an attempt to address the issue legitimately raised by the user, while at the same time trying to get away from the obvious "how dare the U.S. call it the World Series" tone of the writing, I have attempted to address this topic "early" in the article and as neutrally as I can. Wahkeenah 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • As a non American, I found the section "International impact..." very interesting and well written. Good work! Thehalfone 11:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Champions Prior to and Precursors to the modern World Series (1857-1902) section

There's a {{disputed}} tag in this section. Can someone tell me what the nature of the dispute is? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it's related to the section three and four up from this in the talk page - but I could be wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but that looks to me like a question about sources, not about accuracy. And I don't understand why that editor said that the use of the word "champions" for the 1890s is misleading. By any modern interpretation of events, the winner of a post-season series is considered the champion. Perhaps he'll stop by and expand on his complaints; otherwise, I think that a switch to {{unreferenced}} would be appropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

This needs to be cleaned up some stuff can be split into other pages, Its way too long. DXRAW 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You mention lists in particular. Any example? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Champions Prior to and Precursors to the modern World Series (1857-1902), List of modern World Series, World Series appearances (modern), & posibly Down to the wire & Deficits overcome. DXRAW 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to have the entire list in one place than to have to hunt all over creation for it. Also, according to wiki standards, it is not too long. Wahkeenah 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of modern World Series used to be textual instead of a list - it was awful. Take the content of each individual World Series article and paste them all together into one huge book - that's what this article was becoming. You're contradicting yourself - you say this article is "way too long" but then you say you want lists turned into text which would make it longer. Please explain. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a tag that said the lists should be moved to another page and linked to so to make it shorter. DXRAW 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

According to wiki standards, the article is NOT "too long". And wknight94 is right, it used to be text-based and was huge. Wahkeenah 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to splitting lists into separate articles. Try using the {{split}} and {{splitsection}} tags. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But I would strongly object to turning the lists back into text. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Taged. DXRAW 03:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You want each of those split into separate articles? That seems a little extreme. How about just a single List of World Series? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats fine, i Taged them all so people could see what ones. DXRAW 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of World Series

Well, to get the ball rolling, and because I think it's a good idea, I've created a List of World Series article, and copied (not moved, yet!) the lists and some of the article text from this article. A separate list article is a good idea, and hopefully the World Series article will flow better. We should decide which text should go in each article -- and whether "List of World Series" is a good title, or whether it should be changed.. Also, are there issues with retaining editing history here? I'm not sure, to be honest. -- ArglebargleIV 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Admittedly, I've spent limited time thinking about it but I think it might be best to keep textual history in World Series while keeping List of World Series as simple and listy as possible. The story is here while the gory reference details are there. I'm not married to the idea though. I would like to see the list of earlier World Series table'ized as well if anyone wants to get to it before I do.
2. As far as edit history, I'm not sure what you mean.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I started removing the lists of series from this article and replacing them with references to the List of World Series article -- more cleanup and work still needs to be done, but I thought I'd give it a start. And I'm not sure whet precisely I meant by edit history either. -- ArglebargleIV 15:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"World" Series vs. World Series

I see at least one other heading in the article where so-called "scare quotes" were used. I wonder why that one user was picking on the one I wrote? It seemed like a perfectly legitimate use of quotes, to convey the message that some folks question the "World" part (like I just illustrated). Wahkeenah 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The other use of the quotes refers to the term "World Series" is correct usage, but may not comply with Wikidom's suggested guidelines. I am not going to argue that point. Your use was the most obvious, and it was ungrammatical. I refer to them as "air quotes". If you can imagine a conversation where a person uses their fingers to denote quote marks, this use is usually for emphasis and not the naming of a term. This is ungrammatical use. Your configuration was that sort. Amerindianarts 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest posting "air quotes" in a place where they are called for, such as the way I used them? Meanwhile, I'm assuming you're OK with the revisions I made. Wahkeenah 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. One exception which may be Wiki guidelines towards using quote marks in the title, but that may be a judgment call and I don't have the time nor want to go into it. As for your other question, the difference is if the term is used to denote the term's definition, or use, as opposed to actually using the term as content:

1. Using "World" Series is ambiguous as to form or content, especially when followed by "world series". In the later instance the term is referred to as to how the term is defined and used, and is correct use as to the term's form. The former as a quote within a title does not. It is hard to tell what you mean.
2. As a term "world series" means (or is used to)... (correct)
3. The use of the term "world" in the phrase "world series" means (or is used to)... (also correct)
4. The use of the term world in the phrase "world series" means (or is used to)... (still considered correct)
5. Teams from both the National and American leagues compete in the "world series".. (incorrect)

I'm not playing or mickey mousing around with you. I am just relaying what an MLA quideline or research paper guideline would require. Air quotes are colloquial and informal, and not appropriate to encyclopedic content. You may have meant to denote the term's use in "World" Series, but the usage is vague and can be restated better. Amerindianarts 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the whole issue of the negativity in the use of the term "World" in the title "World Series" and inferences that it is not really a World Series is a bunch of horse pucky. At one time it truly was a world series because nobody else in the world played baseball. Now, to go into the history of the term in order to be politically correct, as one recent user has insisted, is ignorant. The phrase "World Series" is a trademark. Amerindianarts 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Or horsing around either, presumably. d:) I'll read your detailed analysis when I'm a little more awake. I don't disagree that we're probably overkilling this issue in the article. However, I think it's fair to present the history of the term itself, as well as the event, for the casual international reader (or even an American who is not into sports but wants to learn) so that it is crystal clear where the name came from. As you might imagine, this debate mirrors, to some extent, a past debate on the Major League Baseball page. The pinnacle of baseball happens to be in the American major leagues, and it's largely because of money, not because it's American, as such. If the Japanese leagues start paying A-Rod level salaries, that balance could change. Wahkeenah 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• And let's not forget yet another "title". Ring Lardner, who covered baseball as both a sportswriter and novelist, nonetheless mocked the pretentiousness he saw in the event as early as the late 1910s, referring to it as "World's Serious". Wahkeenah 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the situation and time in history, how true were Lardner's comments? Institutions change, so Lardner may have speculated, but there was at that time no basis for the implications of his statement. If the balance does change, then the title can be reconsidered, but could Lardner actually have anticipated a Japanese league with A-rod potential? Do you think that he conceived that the American champions would be playing a world series against non-Americans. Perhaps, but given its point in history it belongs with the rest of the horse pucky.Amerindianarts 04:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lardner was being funny. He was known for his sarcastic humor. Wahkeenah 10:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have much patience for the people who get picky about the name "World Series". It is what it is. However, Section 1 and Section 5 of the article are largely redundant. I think I'm going to delete Section 1 (Explanation of the term) entirely, as the article really shouldn't START with the quibbling over "World" Series, and let Section 5 ("International Impact") deal with this topic. Vidor 11:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• The "hubris" comment is not necessary. America bashing in a WS page is just plain wrong.
  • The IP address is just jealous because we have Baseball and Football, and all they have is soccer. Baseball Bugs 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh for god's sake grow up. 64.236.80.62 16:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You need to get a sense of humor. Baseball Bugs 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fall Classic

Redirects here, randomly used once in the article, no explanation given on the term (despite the fact it is somewhat obvious to MLB fans) User:Sabar 07:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I added a line in the intro, mentioning this expression. Wahkeenah 14:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

The trivia section is huge - anyone want to trim it down a bit? --WikiSlasher 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would not be surprised if a fair amount of it restates stuff that's already in the individual Series articles. Wahkeenah 03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No doubt. That's the recurring problem that keeps this article from being real good. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I cut out the "Down to the wire" section and put some of it in the Trivia section. Tomorrow I'll edit some more. I like trivia as a general rule, but we don't really need to know what day of the week Game 7 has been scheduled for over the years. Vidor 12:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further editing. Collapsed the "down to the wire" and "deficits overcome" fields into trivia notes, and deleted a few of the stupider 'trivia' notes--the Red Sox coming back from a 3-0 hole in the 2004 AL Championship Series is not WORLD SERIES trivia. Vidor 09:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Still more editing. Deleted all the first/last/only trivia bits that applied to one Series only--this one was the first one played at night, that one was the only one played in November, etc, etc, etc. The Trivia section is still quite long, however. All the trivia bits I deleted were duplicated in the individual Series articles. Vidor 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Phillies

Whether you count the pre-1900 championship events or not, the Phillies never won anything from their inception until 1915 when they won their first league title, and then 1980 when they won their first World Series. Baseball Bugs 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But the sentence refers to WORLD SERIES drought. If the Phils had won the 1902 NL Pennant, they still would have had a WS drought from 1903 to 1980 becasue THERE WAS NO WORLD SERIES in 1902!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not arguing the premise of 97 year pennant drought. I am stating that that is different from a WS drought; and thus should not stated as such

This drought stuff is all pretty much "original research", so the best option is to leave out the drought stuff except for the longest, which is the Cubs. Baseball Bugs 18:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bugs, I admire the work you do regarding basbeall entries. The Phils going until 1915 without winning the NL Pennant is noteworthy. As is them not winning a WS until 1980. My problem is that I think that semantics matter on Wiki. And it is unfair to label any team--especially MY TEAM--with a record of futility that is inflated. The fact that the Phils will lose their 10,000th game somewhere around my birthday is enough pain to endure! I sincerely thank you for the dialogue.

Some tinkering...

To evers-ing to chance-ing... I've made a number of changes, initially focused on the reasonable complaint that the trivia section was too long. I've broken it into semi-logical groupings, and a more critical eye can look at each one and judge whether some of it could be cut as being perhaps "too trivial". Not all of it, though; and it can't be easily incorporated into the text, as much of it makes reference to multiple Series. I also did some re-wording and re-positioning of certain things. That's a constant battle with this article... how do you make a century-old annual event digestible for the reader, and not overwhelming? Baseball Bugs 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

2007

Having read the "crystal ball" guideline, it is not altogether clear about the World Series, in that it is never certain whether Game 7 will occur until Game 6 has actually been played. However, the Series is a scheduled event with its own individual game schedule. So it seems to me that it's fair to state that Game 7, "if necessary", is scheduled for such-and-such date, because that scheduling is a fact. Baseball Bugs 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the November 1st statement is not true; Game 7 would actually be played on October 28. Bwburke94 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the World Series schedule? Baseball Bugs 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one. It's a news article but the sly fox is reliable. I hope we can reach an agreement. VoltronForce 08:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

Changed: The New York Yankees have played in 39 of the 102 Series played through 2006, or 38% of all the Series, more than twice the number of the next best team. They have also won 26 World Series championships, more than any other franchise and more than the combined number of titles won by the next three most successful clubs. The St. Louis Cardinals have won ten championships, the most for any National League team.

To: The New York Yankees have played in 39 of the 102 Series played through 2006 and have won 26 World Series championships, which is the most for any Major League franchise. The St. Louis Cardinals have won ten championships, which is the second most all time and the most for any National League team.

This is an introduction to what the World Series is; not an in depth statistical analysis of how dominant the Yankees have been. It certainly seems worth noting in the intro, but there's no reason to break down the statistics. Just state them and move on.

Agreed?

Using the year on date formats

This is specifically about the 100+ yearly World Series pages. What I found when reviewing different pages were 4-5 different styles for the date + stadium + city combination line underneath the 'game #' header. So, I changed them all to what I thought was the most used and logical format:

 ], ] at ] in ]

On some I simply had to add wikilinks, on others I added in the year. However, some have questioned the need for a change, and reverted back (such as the 1946 World Series), asking why we need a year at all, since the page is about an annual event specific to that year.

Question 1: Should the year be used in the date format underneath the game # header?
Question 2: Should all World Series yearly pages be the same?
Question 3: Is the format syntax I used adequate, or should another one be agreed upon?

Thanks Entirelybs 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake World Series poster

What is the point of having the fake 1903 World Series poster? If it has a wrong team name and city spelling, it seems to me that there is no historical significance and that it actually detracts from the article. Someone casually skimming through who glances at it would be under the impression that it is real. I think it should be removed. --Keithn 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The caption makes it clear it was a fake. Note the timing of the upload, late October 2004. My guess is that it was a mock-up made for Red Sox fans around that time, maybe a newspaper thing or maybe a handout at Fenway. Baseball Bugs 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So do you want to tell me what a fake poster contributes to this article? Reread what I wrote, that was my question. --Keithn 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It serves as a decoration, and that's about it. Baseball Bugs 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This article is full of POVs, original research, personal opinions and all such cruft. Tons and tons have been written according to editor's whims and fancies without any reference or citation. Actually I wanted to put fact tags for all unverified claims but there are too many of them. This article needs a complete re-write or at least valid references for all claims. Till then, tags remain. Gnanapiti 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you're too lazy to actually point anything out. Until you change that approach, the tag goes. Baseball Bugs 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Baseball articles
• Top-importance Baseball articles
• WikiProject Baseball articles