Talk:World Series/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Feast and Famine

Does anyone else believe the Feast and Famine section is nothing more than a very long trivia (albeit specific trivia) section. I would think it would be best if it was cut down or just deleted altogether. Ednel 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

God forbid there should be facts in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against having facts in an article. I just don't see the purpose or usefulness of all these facts. This is information that only a extremely devoted baseball fan would know and/or care about. Ednel 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednel (talk • contribs)

(talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
[1] 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 [2]. -- comment by P64 on September 2006

Champions

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

[3] The word "champions" is once misleading regarding the 1890s. But unrevised for now, pending [4].

[4] 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)

I made a small edit for the sake of length. There was a sentence about the Toronto Blue Jays that had an additional phrase saying something like "The Blue Jays are from Toronto, Ontario, Canada." It's pretty obvious that if a team is called the "Toronto Blue Jays" that the nickname of the team is the Blue Jays and that they are from Toronto, so the additional phrase is unnecessary and I deleted it. Similar with a reference to the Montreal Expos a bit later. HowardW June 18, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 12:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You never know. The "New York Giants" are from New Jersey. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tables versus Trivia

I'm very sorry to challenge what might have been a consensus here, but I just added a table I've been working on from Major League Baseball that tries to compress the most important information into the smallest and easiest format. It just seemed to fit here. I understand from the discussion that many other tables have been compressed and sent to sub-articles or sub-lists, but

1. if over fifty trivia (to which I added a few of my own) † are still here, I think the basic sort of information that a naïve, uninformed outside reader would want should also be available in a readily-accessible form without going to another article or rooting through thickets of trivia,
2. some trivia items (e.g. expansion teams in the Series) can be pruned or even removed since the information is available on the table, and
3. the trivia become more of a useful (or at least interesting) commentary and analysis of the table's basic data; they inform each other.

Some of the trivia (including my own) still need to be merged or rearranged, perhaps into sub-topics. Perhaps someone with extraordinary skill, patience, diligence and interest can turn them into cohesive paragraphs for either this page or a sub-article. (And maybe a more-descriptive subhead than "Feast vs Famine" is needed.)

† I tried turning the bullets into # (numbers) with aesthetically-unsuccessful results, and the total came to 55. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2008 (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.[1]

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.[1]

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:

 [[Month + Day]], [[year]] at [[ballpark]] in [[city, state]]

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)

There is plenty of good information in the article. I would like to improve it, but I need something to work with. I wonder if you could provide your "Top 5 Most Questionable Statements" in the article, so I could at least get started with some improvements. Baseball Bugs 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of right side WS box - 'WorldSeriesRt'

I was going through the yearly WS pages, and found a few that didn't have the right-side WS box with the years 'WorldSeriesRt', notably 1919 and 1944. However, I also noticed that an entire block of years from about 1970 to 2005 have info-boxes on the top right side, and some of these have expanded info boxes, which causes formatting issues. Thus there is a question about usage and placement of the main 'WorldSeriesRt' chart.

Would anyone care to offer their opinion about if we should use the same formatted charts on all the yearly pages, and if so how/where? Entirelybs 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Notable notes.

I'm considering deleteing this entire section. There's very noticeable problems with it. The least it doesn't serve Wikipedia at all. It's all trivia and essentially worthless trivia. If you care about the expansion teams and how often they won the world series, it should be in the Expansion team article, this is just generally a large collection of meaningless stats. While there could be useful information it's more likely to be found in a reader's digest than any serious collection of articles.

World Series appearances by franchises could also be cut but at the least both should be heavily rewritten to avoid this information just being thrown at the reader. Many of the possibly useful information isn't explained.Kinglink 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Feast and Famine

I have removed this title as it has no obvious relation to the content that follows. The whole section is much more accurately classed as trivia - I realise Wikipedia aren't too keen on trivia sections in articles but referring to the trivia section with another title does not make it any less trivial. 130.246.132.26 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yankees wins and losses

Wins (26): 1923,27,28,32,36,37,38,39,41,43,47,49,50,51,52,53,56,58,61,62,77,78,96,98,99,2000

Losses (13): 1921,22,26,42,55,57,60,63,64,76,81,2001,03

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

World? series?

Why is it world series because only the teams from U.S.A are a part of it? shouldn't they include japanese teams at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.30.171 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The USA's players were scattered across many teams. The USA is where the best players go, because that's where the money is. When the day comes that American-born ballplayers want to go play in Venezuela or the DR rather than in the USA, then you'll have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the article and you'll find the answer to that question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also the Baseball World Cup, which is a more global competition, and which the USA has won on occasion, including 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvsydney (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'world' don't play it.

a historical baseball scholar or seasoned/experienced baseball fan will tell you that long before the way we play modern baseball, teams searched world-wide for players to compete in "world games and series". while the effort failed and remained mostly in usa and canada, due to the diversity of nationalities that play (although in north america only) it has remained "world series". the entire world tunes in or attends the games. that's like arguing "super" for the super bowl. are they always that super? lol jk but yeah... just dropping knowledge. way back in the 1800s and early 1900's, (the earlier days of baseball), men like Spalding and others would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or america. please do not reply with hate messages, i'm just doing my part to add info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the opening paragraph that the oxymoronic name of the event is clear and possibly for whatever reason it IS called the world series, perhaps? I'm from Australia, I find it ever so amusing that the US has 'World' prefixing soooo many sporting events that're national only, and I'm REALLY curious as to how such names came about. But in general for encyclopedic purpose it really should be noted in the opener that it's NOT a WORLD series event, but an American national event, minimum, but I'd really love it if someone could expand on why, how, when, et cetera, it was named that and whether it was meant to be tongue in cheek humour. :P Jachin 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the lengthy paragraph on the matter, and you'll understand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at the broad ethnic base on this year's competitors: Latin American and Asian well-represented. The best players in the world come to the Major Leagues and play in the World Series. Thus the original reason for calling it the World Series still holds true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even if all players in all teams were from distinct countries, the game itself would be played by US teams, in US stadiums, watched by US audience and to general US audience (ok, get Canada and Japan and Venezuela to watch those too; from over 150 countries in the world, 4 hardly make it reasonable to call it "World" Series). And since Im at it, the "lenghty paragraph on the matter" hardly does any critique on the subject.189.60.113.209 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources that "critique" the use of the term "World Series", you might be able to include that. The purpose of that paragraph was to explain why it's called the World Series. Regardless of critique, the name of the event is not going to change anytime soon. The World Baseball Classic is your version of a "true World Series" or "baseball World Cup", and that's in part why it was created. But baseball is not soccer, and things work differently. And by the way, we have this argument every year about this time. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not as though the explanation paragraph is referenced by any "reliable sources".--Jeff79 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What specific issues do you have with that paragraph? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one, think that the "World" clarification should be at the beginning of the article. It should just inform that the "World Series" is an currently an American event. The billions of people outside America have never heard of the "World Series", and expecting them to crawl and scroll to understand the scope of the tournament is disingenuous. If, for instance, you look at Olympic Games, the very first sentence says "The Olympic Games are an international multi-sport event.". Furthermore, the opening sentences of the explanation of the "World" word is condescending: "The title of this championship may seem odd to some readers from countries where baseball is not a major sport (or even where it is), because the "World" Series is confined to the champions of two baseball leagues that currently operate only in the United States and Canada.". The use of "some readers" implies that people questioning the use are a minority, the use of "from countries where..." implies that it is an issue of geography (while it is not: it is odd for everybody) the use of "may" and "seems" implies that there is nothing odd in naming "World" a championship limited to America, and the use of "currently" implies that either the "World Series" is usually a real world championship (but just not for the recent years) or that it is currently opening to other countries (which it is not). That is "weasel-wording". 82.230.65.68 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always looked at the reason its called the "World Series" is because the MLB is the top baseball league in the world (a fact that cannot be disputed) and the team that wins the World Series are the world champs among private teams. Realistically the winner of the world series would squash the champions of any other league in the world. --71.36.136.161 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"the political situation"

The article said that

The notable exception [to having many high class players from the Caribbean etc] is Cuban nationals, due to the political situation between the USA and Cuba

I think that the reader cannot be expected to know what "the political situation" is; when I hear of the "political situation between USA and Cuba", I think of the embargo (about which we have an article) and the Cuban refugees. So I added a link to United States embargo against Cuba. User:Baseball Bugs reverted, with the comment

Removing anti-USA, POV-pushing. Cuba shares in the blame for this situation

It was not my aim to push any POV, I wanted to clarify the context of the "political situation". Whether or not Cuba shares in the blame for the embargo should be explained in the embargo article, not here. Please add your own explanation (ideally: properly sourced, something I did not do in my edit) to the article. Or a link to an article explaining which aspect of "the political situation" is meant. --The very model of a minor general 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be done better. But the embargo continues in large part because of the Cuban missile crisis, which happened on Castro's watch. Bringing up the embargo implies the situation is somehow all the fault of the USA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The embargo continues (in 2007) because of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962??? I am not an expert on US-Cuban relations, but this sounds (to me) doubtful. But why the embargo continues, or why it was imposed in the first place, is completely irrelevant here. Is the embargo relevant for the composition of US baseball teams? If yes, then it has to be be mentioned in the article. Are there other factors (perhaps Cuba's emigration laws, or Cuba's propaganda, or the missile crisis, etc)? If so, they should also be mentioned.

What do you think "the political situation" means? Without a link or explanation this is a mystery.

The very model of a minor general 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:mack2 for adding a link to Cuba-United States relations. This seems to be uncontroversial. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it's more useful to have a neutral description of what's going on, than to leave it up to the 3 readers who don't know about it to try to figure it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

The "Feast and famine" section has been tagged as trivia. But the fact is, trivia is significant in baseball. Maybe the trivia belongs in an article for trivia, but we can't just say that it should be removed from the encyclopedia. 138.78.98.104 (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

15 vs. 14

There are 16 NL teams. 2 of them have never won a NL pennant: The Expos/Nats and the Brewers. The Brewers' lone pennant came when they were in the AL. That might be why someone counted 15 instead of 14. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Caucasian"

There were no organized black leagues at the time the term "World's Championship Series" first came into usage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, but that's not relevant; black players were never given an opportunity to compete for entry into the Series. I will agree that perhaps this was true in many other international sports; but I just feel it's one more qualification that should be made. NaySay (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The purpose of that section is to explain why it was called the World's Championship Series, not to justify it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article rated C-class?

Can it be that it's because it has too much biased, parochial information? Articles should be balanced representations of what's out there. Pushing away the fact that the Negro Leagues were excluded from the "World" Series is bad enough; but to then declare, as does this article, that because the best teams were in North America, "Thus it was understood that the winner of the major league championship was the best baseball team in the world," well, that's just plain wrong. Let's just say naive. We all love baseball; no one wants to tarnish the World Series--at least not any more than it has already done itself. But some little inkling of what was really going on in the "good old days" should not be negotiable. If you don't like my way of addressing it, fine, let's find a way that makes everyone a bit unhappy, but address it we should. NaySay (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "naive". The purpose of that section is to explain why it was called the World's Championship Series, not to justify it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

CH on why it's called the "World" Series

the always lovable atheist and neoconservative pro-regime-change-liberal-hawk, Cristopher Hitchens, claims that it's called the "world" series because a now defunct newspaper called "The New York World" used to sponsor the series.

True or False? i don't know but it might worth looking into at any rate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omvaN9KrfTw&feature=related

7:35-7:45

Seems unlikely to me because the first World Series, in 1903, was between the Boston Americans (Red Sox) and the Pittsburgh Pirates. I read Dan Shaugnessy's book about that series and while it mentions The Boston Globe (where Shaugnessy worked until he took a buyout this year) many times, I don't remember any mentions of The New York World.

I also own several copies of The World Almanac and Book of Facts when it was published by The New York World or its successors (the World-Telegram, the World-Telegram & The Sun and The World Journal Tribune). Had the World started or sponsored the World Series, I'm sure their almanac would not have been shy or behind-hand in declaring this.

• [And if you want to hide your IP address, just register a name, any name, and Wikipedia won't broadcast the IP.] —— Shakescene (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WORLD'S CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES. As in "Champions of the World", as in "the planet earth", which they still say even today at the close of the Series. Nothing to do with the New York World. Hitchens read that myth someplace, and it's just that, a myth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's the Snopes debunk of the New York World story: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the modern World Series began in 1903, but the first event billed that way was in 1884. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Classifying the trivia

There were 56 separate items under Facts, Feast & Famine, which is far too many for anyone to digest at once, especially since the order is pretty random. (I think that earlier subsection titles were suppressed so that fewer trivia could be lumped together under Feast & Famine, but that's just ballooned over time to unmanageable size.) A few can be compressed or even deleted because the table gives parallel information. But for the rest, what do others think should be new subsections? I think one for Cross-town and Cross-state Series would fit. Should there be another for streaks, or expansion teams, or pre-1960 teams? What's most reasonable and organizes the information best? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to start resorting the trivia with streaks & droughts, and then look at grouping what's left with subtitles like New York, expansion & pre-expansion and cross-town/cross-state meetings. Any opinions or thoughts? —— Shakescene (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City & Philadelphia

this was changed into a paragraph/article form but someone has to be too overly stubborn and keeps making changes and deleting other people's contributions. it's amazing how people want articles to be the way they want, and won't take the input of others. it's nonsense! (i won't read any messages sent to me on the subject, i don't need to be schooled, nor do i need excuses.) 69.129.170.102 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting what can't be supported. Your idea (since you're clearly the indefinitely-blocked User:Funwisconsinguy2007) that the team that has always been the Kansas City Royals and the team that has always been the Philadelphia Phillies ever shared the same name or the same city (even at different times) just isn't supported by any evidence that I've seen so far. The Phillies (disambiguation) and Kansas City Royals wikilinks offered in one edit summary or talk page don't back up that conclusion, either.

• The Phillies (who have never been in Kansas City) were never Athletics or Royals; the Athletics were never Phillies or Royals; the Royals (who have never been in Philadelphia) were never Athletics or Phillies. And the Phillies have never played the Athletics (in any city). So it's very hard to see what point you're trying to make.

Of course, I could still be very wrong, but nothing I've seen so far has yet suggested that to me. So it's very likely that this assertion won't remain here very long in the absence of better evidence, since another editor (perhaps me, perhaps someone else) will soon remove it. (As for other items, they're being moved around in an attempt to collect related items in groups with less duplication but without deleting valid facts.)

As for this declaration, it speaks for itself:

it's amazing how people...won't take the input of others. it's nonsense! (i won't read any messages sent to me on the subject, i don't need to be schooled, nor do i need excuses.)

—— Shakescene (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to what is currently number 38, about the Phillies beating the other Kansas City team. It's cute, but totally irrelevant, as there is only one connection between the A's and the Royals: The Royals were created in 1969 as a way of fending off lawsuits from Kansas City after the A's left town following the 1967 season. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, suppose the Brewers met the Orioles in the Series. It's a somewhat interesting coincidence that the Orioles began in Milwaukee. But suppose the Brewers met the Red Sox in the Series. Someone might point out that the Red Sox never faced the Braves in the Series, but the Braves once played in Milwaukee and the Brewers are currently in Milwaukee. This turns semi-legitimate Series trivia into "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs, it's 38. And I don't really mind the first sentence, which I left in (or perhaps rewrote so it could be left in). What FWG'07 & I are disputing are the following two sentences (previously added by him in various forms before I deleted them), which at the moment I can only ascribe to complete confusion between the two 1903-55 Phila teams:

"It was the first and only appearance together for both teams who used to share the same name. (The A's originated in Philadelphia, moved to Kansas City and now remains in Oakland.)"

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's obviously a false statement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it another way: The A's were in Philadelphia 1901-1954, Kansas City 1955-1967, and Oakland 1968 to date. The Royals are an expansion team for Kansas City 1969 to date. There is no primal connection whatsoever between the Royals and Phillies, and only a political connection, so to speak, between the Royals and A's. You got any questions, see me. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And it's hard to contort into the cross-town/cross-state World Series category, since the A's and Royals were both American League teams. Same problem comes up looking (outside League Championship or Division Series) at Phillies vs Pittsburgh (NL) and Washington Senators/Twins vs Washington Senators/Rangers (AL). As before switching leagues in 1998, Seattle Pilots/Brewers (AL) vs Seattle Mariners (AL), and after switching leagues, Milwaukee Brewers (NL) vs Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves (NL). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Had the Cardinals ever played the K.C. Athletics it would have been a cross-state Series as was Cards-Royals in 1985. To me there are two areas of interest: current proximity, and original cities. That is, if the Braves were to face the Red Sox, that would be of interest because of the Boston connection. Just as Yankees-Dodgers or Yankees-Giants is of interest. Then there's Yankees-Mets, or any all-California Series, for example. Obviously, if you add DS and LCS to it, you get a different dynamic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The A's and Cardinals faced each other in 1930-31, each winning once. But that was of course the Philadelphia A's. I'm thinking of starting a satellite sub-page on Cross-town/cross-state (subway, I-70, etc.) Series, and that kind of fact/coincidence might fit there (as it does on a hand-drawn chart of my own), but it wouldn't fit here. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That falls into the franchise vs. franchise category, which I think is already covered, or if not, it should be. A's vs. Giants is another one like that - they played several times when both were in their original cities, and also when in the Bay Area, in 1989. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Very petty argument guys, #38 shouldn't even be mentioned then. It's not a relevant comment about anything. Perhaps FWG's comment was worded wrong, but to completely delete or alter it, is not appropriate without a resolution first. Please learn about disputes before taking such actions. I think his point was to tie in the first sentence with the A's being in KC and Philly as well. Meaning, the A's used to be in Philly and used to be in K.C. and now is in Oakland. Make his comment better, but don't just dismiss it because you don't like it. What point is #38? Tie it in with another statement, alone it's like any other fact. Big deal! Very very trivial. This is a juvenile action, I think someone is just trying to win an edit war. Be honest with yourself and others, and this article/site will be more productive. You don't have to like what I'm saying but it's true. Connect points, just saying "Philly never played the K.C. A's but did the Royals", is meaningless. You win, but is that really what you want to achieve by underminding and humiliating people's comments. And a ban on here isn't a reason to dismiss someone's contribution (you don't know the context of why that's the case), be mature, unbias and give the benefit of the doubt. By all means, use proper guidelines for such changes. I'm sure no one knows more than someone who lived and breathed K.C. during that time while growing up there and studying the history. Don't use your edit powers to abuse the system. 68.252.29.46 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your complaint has been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact I think that's one good argument for keeping just the first sentence (which is why I didn't delete it). It's a bridge (even if a bit wobbly) between the statement (now 37) about the Phillies never having played the (Philadelphia) Athletics and the one (now 39) about the Royals beating the Cardinals in the I-70 Series (and those two facts cover the kind of point you were suggesting). Flow, coherence and continuity are what this section needs more of. Once it reads more like ordinary prose without a daunting number of disconnected items, then eliminating the awkward but useful numbers I inserted and using ordinary paragraph style would make sense. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That statement alone has no substance, it's just like bragging about facts that someone knows which anyone can find via another reliable source other than Wikipedia. I think what this is all about, is someone wanting the page to be the way they want. If you were making your point valid, it would make more sense to merge #38 with #51 then. You can't possibly attempt to connect all of those items in the format it's currently in (numbered). But it's not even worth arguing and reporting to admin as you have... 68.252.29.46 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done yet? Don't agree with all the changes, but at least you finally decided on something for more than a few days. Got it your way, but some of the other input was equally warranted. NO biggie, but appears someone violated the "fanatic" rule. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(Resorting to what I'd consider extreme trivia, someone pointed out that the Phillies were officially the "Blue Jays" for several years in the 1940s, though the name never caught on. So, when they played the Toronto Blue Jays in a series, there had been a shared nickname. WHPratt (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt. Excuse the interruption. Now, back to our discussion.)

That is kind of a funny coincidence. Then there's the 1975 Series, when both teams wore red stockings and derived their nicknames, one way or another, from the original Cincinnati Red Stockings. And don't forget the 1944 Series, when the Browns played the Cardinals, formerly the Browns - and the 1906 Series, when the White Sox played the Cubs, formerly the White Stockings. And the 1995 Series, in which the Atlanta Braves, formerly the Boston Braves, played the Cleveland Indians, whose name was inspired by the "Miracle Braves" of 1914. Hey, we've almost come up with a new category of meaningless trivia here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting coincidence is that the St. Louis Browns became the Baltimore Orioles in the 1950s, in a rare case of a team changing nickname as well as city. Forty years later, the NFL Cleveland Browns became the Baltimore Ravens, forced to change name as well as location. Although "Baltimore Browns" has alliteration on its side, it's been avoided twice. WHPratt (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt

Whether teams retain or drop their nicknames, it's typically for marketing reasons. The Ravens name change was part of the deal, but I'm sure they were glad to re-identify themselves. The Browns wanted to dump connections with losing. "Baltimore Orioles" was a name connected with winning, at both minor and major league levels. There was to be a new team in Washington (a situation similar to the Browns and Ravens), so "Minnesota Twins" was a natural, since politically they couldn't go with either Millers or Saints. Meanwhile, the new Senators were losers just like the old ones, and it made perfect sense to switch to "Rangers" when they moved to Texas. "Pilots" was similarly dumped as it had no connection to Milwaukee, and they took the risk of adopting the old minor league team name of Brewers. That's in contrast with the Braves, who wanted to distinguish themselves from the old minor league Brewers. The Dodgers, Giants, and Athletics had winning traditions, so they kept their names, also distinguishing themselves from their old minor league counterparts of Angels, Seals and Oaks, even though those clubs were successful also. That left the door open for the major league version of the Angels. Otherwise, explansion teams tended to adopt nicknames that distinguished themselves from the minor league clubs: Astros instead of Buffaloes; Royals instead of Blues (with hints of "Monarchs"); Pilots and Mariners (similar idea) instead of Rainiers, or Indians which was already in use; Expos instead of Royals, which K.C. had grabbed anyway; Blue Jays instead of Maple Leafs, which by then was strongly associated with hockey; Diamondbacks instead of whatever. The Mets couldn't use Dodgers or Giants, so they reverted to a long-abandoned nickname. The Padres stuck with the old minor league nickname, apparently lacking imagination. Likewise with the Florida Marlins. The Expos supposedly couldn't use the name Senators because of copyrights, but that gave them a good excuse not to adopt a name thought to be connected with losing, and they went with an even older D.C. nickname, "Nationals". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)