Talk:2009 World Baseball Classic/Archive 1

Delete
I proposed this for deletion because it hasn't happened yet, and won't for a while. -Mulder416 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree there is already an article for the 2014 World Cup. Kenallen (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Teams already seeded?
Shouldn't this page discuss the 8 teams that are already seeded thanks to their preformance in the 2006 WBC? --ThrashedParanoid&#9733; 23:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It currently does discuss that... however, as I noted on Talk:World Baseball Classic, there is no source for this "fact". I think it should be removed soon unless someone has an official source other than "organizers" that can be cited; I could not find any. We're treading close to Weasel word territory otherwise. Thanks for the input! --SuperNova |T|C| 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I indicated on the talk page for the WBC main article, I have now removed the statement regarding seedings for 2009. The statement, both here and there, may mislead readers into thinking it's decided, so unless it's verified that it has been, the statement has to go. Despite a message being posted there for four days, and here for almost as long, no citation has been provided, even after I added the (Citation needed) template to both articles. It should stay out of the article until we have an official, citable statement that says it's accurate. --SuperNova |T|C| 10:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Turning this page into a redirect
Chriscf has edited this page twice recently by deleting all text and turning it into a redirect; Hektor stepped in to revert the page back to its original article form.

Before further attempts at effectively deleting the article, I would humbly suggest that Chriscf and any others interested in changing the purpose of this article propose such changes here and attempt to reach consensus. Unilaterally removing all content from an article is not the appropriate way to handle the issue. --SuperNova |T|C| 08:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is simple - there is a lot of useful and interesting information in this article. I don't see why it should be erased and unavailable to wikipedia users. People can be interested in future sporting events of 2009 and later, when such information exists, I don't see why it shouldn't be available in wikipedia. Thanks. Hektor 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirects were inappropriate. That's my 2c.--DaveOinSF 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirects are perfectly appropriate. The content as it stands is unreferenced, and WP:V trumps "useful".  Because information exists is not licence to include it in Wikipedia.  Redirection is not deletion by any means, and I refuse to entertain discussion from anyone that refuses to accept this.  Unreferenced speculation is not acceptable in Wikipedia under any circumstances.  Chris cheese whine 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you refuse to entertain discussion with anyone who does not share your viewpoint, I wonder what you are trying to achieve on wikipedia. Your statement is the very negation of wikipedia. When you revert a redirect about the 2009 Universiade, for instance, you remove from wikipedia the link to the Official web site of the event, which is NOT speculation. All I see here is that you have removed a lot of useful information on many instances.Hektor 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bzzt, straw man. What I said was that I'm not entertaining discussion from anyone that will blindly revert the changes, branding them "sneaky vandalism" and "backdoor deletion".  future sport is not a licence to include one-line substubs of the form "X Y is Y X" or to speculate.  Articles about future events are inherently speculative, this should be kept to a minimum.  For instance, in the absence of any real, actual, information on many of the articles, there is no need for a separate entry for e.g. 2019 Cricket World Cup, since all we know is where it is, and that can easily go on the parent article (I believe it is already there).  Wikipedia does not compromise on its key values for the sake of utility.  Chris cheese whine  PS - may I direct your attention to a fact that you have clearly ignored: the entire content of the 2009/2011 Universiade articles (namely the year and venue) already exist on Universiade.  21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Diff. editor here...) No one really cares what reasoning you entertain or do not entertain. If you wish to propose redirecting this page, propose it here on the talk page, state your argument and try to achieve consensus.  You have not done so, nor does there appear to be any consensus to support such a redirection.  Simply redirecting because you have a certain viewpoint is inappropriate.  --DaveOinSF 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have more than adequately explained why articles on future events (sporting or otherwise) should be redirected rather than retained as main title articles. Nobody has yet come up with any reason with a foothold in policy to suggest why the article should remain as it is, especially as it is rife with speculation.  Chris cheese whine 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2009 Universiade article included the event logo and the main venue stadium name. You have removed this information from wikipedia, just on your whim. This is just an example of your actions, whose only result is to reduce the amount of useful information in wikipedia. What I think : you have done mass redirects and you count on the fact that the process of challenging each of them individually through a discussion is cumbersome to see them stay.Hektor 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop this deliberate misrepresentation right now. My actions have not been as you describe, and neither are their consequences.  Since I have already explained myself several times here, I can only assume that you are not merely mistaken, but are now doing this deliberately.  Chris cheese whine 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give your reasons as to why you think THIS article should be redirected. Please do the same on EVERY article you believe should be redirected.--DaveOinSF 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already explained my reasons repeatedly and more than adequately. The burden of proof now falls to you.  Please provide your reasons (relevant to policy) stating why, for each and every case, why they should return to being substubs.  Chris cheese whine 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see anyplace on this page where you have stated your reasons for proposing redirection of 2009 World Baseball Classic. I see discussion of other pages and discussion of future events in general.  Please give your reasons why this page should be redirected.--DaveOinSF 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I shall assume you missed these:   .  Your turn.  Chris cheese whine 21:58, 4 January 2007
 * Like I said, nothing you have written argues to the proposal to redirect this page. They are arguments for having a policy, but each page is unique, and you have failed to make an argument about this page.--DaveOinSF 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, let me respond to your criticisms. If I am not mistaken, I believe you have two primary issues with this page: 1) Unreferenced content, in violation of WP:V; and 2) Lack of solid, non-speculative information. W/r/t #1, I believe a better job could perhaps be done of citing sources and I would be glad to work on it. The first "External link" verifies most of what this page includes, and I feel sure it was heavily referenced by an earlier editor (possibly me). Could there be more sources, with better attribution to them? No doubt. Someone (maybe me again) can do this soon, provided the article isn't redirected again. But the article, as it stands today, does include verifiable (and verified) information and attributes its source. As for issue #2, that's clearly a subjective determination, but I feel (and apparently others do as well) that there is merit to Wikipedia saying, "Here is a future event, occurring over a regular interval, and here is all the encyclopedic information we know about it." The great thing about the Wiki format is, when we know something new, we can add it, and the article will become more and more useful. Do we need an article for the 2019 Cricket whatever? Probably not... but this event, the one in question, is about 26 months away. Before long, teams will be getting set, sites will be announced, etc., and readers will want to know what the story is. There is no reason for this page not to exist other than a general bias against including any future sports events, which you seem to be evidencing. Please let me know of any issues you have with my answers to your arguments. --SuperNova |T|C| 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also another argument against these redirects of anything beyond 2009, it is that it blocks editing, in a way. Let's take the Universiade example. I know that these articles were stubby, just the official web site, the competition logo and any other information some wikipedians and I might have found, such as the stadium name. BUT, what I mean is, if a wikipedian in Belgrade, or in Harbin, has additionnal information about these 2009 Universiade, the probabilities that she/he puts them in wikipedia is much less if these articles are redirects than if they are stubs. The creation of a stub, from my standpoint, encourages addition of information. And we know that information exists, venues, scheduled events, plans for the Universiade, etc. Hektor 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New Yankee Stadium
Is there any talk about part of the WBC taking place in the Bronx (thereby opening the stadium with something other than a Yankee game)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.129.98.129 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Haven't seen anything about that anywhere. Seems rather unlikely given that they probably would want the tournament to be played in somewhere warm. -- Amazins490 (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't happen -- too darn cold to be playing baseball in an outdoor stadium that far north in March. Some years it's barely warm enough in April.  Schoop (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Who might play for country x
Hi. I would like to put in something along the lines of the below. But it would only make sense if people could do the same for another country or two as well, IMHO. Thoughts?

Israel has applied to participate in the next World Baseball Classic. Jewish-American established major league baseball players (such as Brad Ausmus, Mike Lieberthal, Kevin Youkilis, Ian Kinsler, Ryan Braun, Shawn Green, David Newhan, Jason Marquis, Jason Hirsh, John Grabow, Scott Schoeneweis, Mike Koplove,  and Scott Feldman) would be eligible for the team. Also eligible would be recently retired Gabe Kapler as well as players such as Adam Greenberg, Adam Stern, Brian Horwitz, Sam Fuld, Craig Breslow, Justin Wayne, Tony Cogan, Frank Charles, and Matt Ford, and retired players Andrew Lorraine and Brian Rose.--Epeefleche 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absent comment, I'll move it to the article page.--Epeefleche 11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

While this list of Jewish baseball players is great, according to WBC rules, they have to have a direct connection (I believe three generations) to Israel to be eligible to represent the country. Therefore, most of these players are not eligible to play for Israel even if they are Jewish. Thanks!Mr Genre (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not seen that. Would be interested in seeing a citation to a source.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, here is a citation that suggest the opposite of what you state above -- pointing to Israel's Law of Return. http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=21367 --Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized about Israel's "Law of Return," which would indeed, as that article mentioned, allow any Jewish players to play for Israel in the upcoming WBC. The original eligibility rule I mentioned is on the WBC's official site here: http://ww2.worldbaseballclassic.com/2006/about/index.jsp?sid=wbc Just scroll down to the "Players" section of the FAQ. It's the first question. My only further question is about the "Law of Return." I was reading it over on a couple different sites (including Wiki) and I can't determine if you gain citizenship by simply being Jewish, or if you actually have to "return" to Israel before you are granted true citizenship. So obviously all these players are eligible for that citizenship, but I still believe their citizenship is in question. If you could clear up my misconception, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Mr Genre (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I should probably also note, that until they actually post the rules, I've only got the 2006 ones to reference. For all we know, they may change eligibility requirements for the 2009 tourney!Mr Genre (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dolphin Stadium capacity
The capacity listed here is 38,560, but Dolphin Stadium can actually hold more than that in it's baseball setup. For the World Series in 2003, the stadium held 65,975. What should we put as it's capacity? -- Rab bethan  09:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying Rounds
Why no qualifying rounds? Shouldn't Nicaragua be given a chance? Kenallen (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe they are opening it up for further nations in the next WBC. Remember this is still a new competition, MLB are probably just trying to ensure it will run smoothly and successfully for the first couple. —Borgardetalk 04:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei / Republic Of China
There was a change made recently that changed Chinese Taipei to Republic Of China, with note saying that since baseball is no longer an Olympic sport, they'll use the regular Republic Of China flag. Unless I'm mistaken, the team representing that location has been under the banner - and the actual flag - of Chinese Taipei for some time, and used the flag in any international events its participated in, whether Olympic or not.

Given that the actual WBC page still shows the flag with the Olympic rings on it, I think it would be fair to keep the team listed as Chinese Taipei, unless someone can provide a source to say otherwise.  Afaber012  (Talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Taiwan can not join any international sports without approval from China but they can join any sporting events under Chinese Taipei.--Korsentry 11:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Exhibition/Warm-up games?
Should exhibition/warm-up games be included in this article? Each team (excepting for the Asian pool initially) is due to play 2-3 exhibition games against MLB teams to warm-up for the event. Should something on these games be included? 72.27.86.80 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Toronto pool schedule is different
Can somebody correct the brackets for the Toronto pool to reflect the different schedule there--reversing games 3 and 4, with the Saturday winners playing on Sunday. Spark240 (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and did that.

Is the USA really being given home-team status against Canada, in Toronto? Spark240 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I put the teams in the brackets, I went off what the MLB/WBC site had. It didn't explicitly state home and away, but listed teams in the games vertically. Given the other three hosts were listed in the bottom position of their openning games - and assuming it is meant to represent "home" & "away" teams - it seems more likely for 3 hosts to be the home team, rather than just the 1. It's possible it was a somewhat random arrangement of the teams at the time without that extra meaning, or it was a mistake and should actually be reversed. It's probably something we'll need to check closer to the start of the tournament. Afaber012 (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In international tournaments the host country is not always the "home team". Like in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Germany wasn't regarded as the home team for all of their matches. – Howard  the   Duck  07:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the WBC site, for the first games, the higher seeded team was given "home team" status. That corresponded to the host in every bracket except Canada.  Schoop (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
With this being the 2nd edition of the WBC, is it time to develop a unique infobox code that will summarize the keys (attendance, teams, champion [once determined], MVP, etc.) for the 2006, 2009, and subsequent editions? Such unique boxes are out there for the major soccer and basketball events.Count de Des Moines (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Live updates
Is it really advisable to have continuous live updates? My sense is "no." MrArticleOne (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with MrArticleOne. It should not be updated during each game, but after completion of each game. --Belle Equipe (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point McArticleOne, however I would say not to do it after every inning someone scores, but if you're already editing it for another reason say, to fix an error in a previous game, it wouldn't hurt to edit a live game. It saves some time when it goes final. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

radio?
what about radio coverage? Kingturtle (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is ok if all radio stations around the world which broadcast WBC games are listed. Otherwise, it can be domestic information. --Belle Equipe (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Rosters
Are the pages for the rosters of each team? I clicked "United States," and I landed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_baseball_team, which is the national team, but not the team playing in the WBC. (Note the absence of any MLB players.) Is that a bad link, or are there no pages for the specific rosters yet?
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic rosters Borgarde (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Prelims Are Confusing
Can a box be put over the tourney boxes indicating which game is which? Spinach Monster (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Brackets
Is it possible to have the label for Dominican Republic shortened to something like "Dominican Rep."? It doesn't fit on one line with the full name, which throws off the appearance of the bracket. An abbreviation like "Dominican Rep." is unambiguous and could not be construed as referring to any other country. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that bottom team is meant to be the "home team" but on the final matches of the different pools, the winner of W1 vs. W2 should be at the top. – Howard  the   Duck  11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; I do not think the bracket is really the place to be fussing about being sure to show which team was the home team due to top/bottom line. I have no problem with making a point of putting the home team on the bottom when the pairing is arbitrary (i.e., Games 1-3 (or 1, 2 and 4 in Pool C)), but when it follows along the bracket, they should just feed onto the line that corresponds with where they came from. I know nowhere but Wikipedia where people fuss so much about putting the home team on a particular line in the bracket. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless someone comes up with a better "'home team' always at the bottom" argument I'd be switching them later. – Howard  the   Duck  15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just say that it might look confusing to someone who comes across it, so then they're going to "fix it" by reversing it. Tampabay721 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to be confused by. If you're knowledgeable enough to know, a priori, who the designated "home team" was, you aren't going to be confused by seeing a team feed onto the line it belongs on, because you know a review of the box score is the proper place to know who the home team was. And if you don't know who the designated home team was, it's more likely to be confusing when you see a team feeding onto a line other than the one they appear to logically go onto. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I viewed the official website's bracket and it was so confusing I suggest if you guys really insist on the illogical "home team always at the bottom" philosophy we just modify the existing bracket this way by putting the preliminary games at the lower bracket and the loser's bracket at the top, in that way, the W1 vs. W2 winner gets to be at the bottom. But there has to be a new version of Template:4Team2ElimBracket in order for that to happen.
 * Or, we can just place the W1 vs. W2 winner at the top where it is supposed to be. For example, in the 2007 WS, the Red Sox had the home-diamond advantage even though they were represented at the bracket to be on top of the Rockies. – Howard  the   Duck  06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'd note that only Tampabay721 is arguing that; I agree with you, Howard. I do think the bracket could profitably be redesigned; I would reverse the vertical spacing of the two loser's bracket boxes, and it'd be interesting to see whether the loser's bracket side could be horizontally offset from the winner's bracket. But that's a whole other series of issues. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the official brackets, they do use 4 columns to space it out better, and dotted lines for the loser bracket paths. I like both of those elements, but that would take a template redesign. As for the designated home team, why can't we just put a symbol and note marking the home team for each game? That would be the only solution because the brackets need to follow a certain path and format. If not, then box scores below will have to be the only place to show home teams. --Mtjaws (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would support some form of distinction for the home team, especially in baseball where the home team has marked advantages such as batting last. But in international tournaments such as this, we really do not need one since there is really no home team advantage aside for the hosts.
 * For modifying the brackets, I like it as it is, most double elimination tourney brackets have the losers bracket at the bottom. I just let out that idea if you people really insist to have the home team at the bottom convention here.
 * As for broken lines, see an example here but I still think we do not need that here since the losers are at the bottom. – Howard  the   Duck  07:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, I liked this graphic better, which is almost similar to what we have here. I would rather not change the current template though as it is fine at it is. I am just peeved by the way the teams are ordered at the final pool games.
 * Also, I think it would have been better if we are able to label which one is game 1, 2, etc. – Howard  the   Duck  07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: does anyone think the games that had extra innings to finish be marked differently? We mark OT/AET/PSO games on other sports and I figured we should do the same here. Dunno about games that ended earlier due to the mercy rule, though. Maybe I'd keep them the same. – Howard  the   Duck  15:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an asterisk or some other notation would be fine. Probably two different symbols to distiguish between extra innings and mercy rule. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking of ways to do this. In soccer, if the match went into extra time w/o penalty shootouts, "(aet)" would've been added. If there are penalty shootouts, "(pso)" or "(pen)" would've been added plus the shootout score in parenthesis. In sports that use "OT" either add "(OT)" or asterisk/s. The problem here is that the concept of extra innings is different. I suggest add "F/#" with "#" linked to Extra innings; for mercy rule, the same but link it to Mercy rule. Examples: "(F/11)" or "(F/7)". – Howard  the   Duck  14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

End of Pool scoring
How do we get the score of the final pool games to show up? Steveweiser (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a problem I saw coming while I was messing around with the brackets the other night, because this is not your standard double elimination tournament, although it seems someone has fixed the Pool A bracket already. For future reference, in order to get the final game's score for each bracket, the final score of the last round need to look like this:

RD3-score01a=1 | RD3-score01b=AW RD3-score02a=0 | RD3-score02b=AR


 * AW stands for Pool A Winner, and AR stands for Pool A Runner-Up, I assume. Notice the difference between this and the other scores from the previous rounds in each respective bracket. After RD3-score01 (and likewise for score02) there needs to be an a before the equal sign. Next should be the same, except with a b for the second space with the respective pool letter/number (B, C, D, 1, or 2, now that A is complete) preceding the W or R for either team. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Final Standings
I removed China from position 12 on the chart. Please do not add any teams to the final standings chart until all teams eliminated with a 1-2 record are known. The RA/9 tiebreaker is needed in order to place them in the proper positions. Schoop (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They can be moved around when a new team is eliminated. Its simple stuff. Birdy (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't put in information that we know will have to be updated in a day, though. We'll have all the correct information after Mexico plays the loser of Cuba/Australia on the 11th.  The chart can wait until then.  Schoop (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why wait? This is an information encilopedia. Anyone can figure out that there is another team that still has to play.....Birdy (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have an issue with putting information that isn't "final" into a table marked "final standings." The brackets are marked properly, so anyone can see that China has been eliminated, but the mark at 12th place overall is not known until all he first-round eliminations are known.  Schoop (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good point. We can remove them from the "final" table as you did before.  Good talk...Birdy (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, if we've reached a consensus, I removed China from the table, and positions 9-12 on the table will remain blank until the Pool B game on the 11th (MEX vs. CUB/AUS) is completed. Schoop (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the Dominicans have locked up ninth place overall unless MEX/AUS goes scoreless into the 58th inning tonight. (Yes, I did the math.) So, I'm going to put DOM there. I'm removing China and Italy from the table for now. First off, the RA/9 for ITA in the table now is wrong. It should be 6.84. Second, If AUS wins tonight, the final order is likely ITA-CHN-MEX. If MEX wins, it's likely AUS-ITA-CHN. Schoop (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ridicolous anyway, because there are no official final standings like that, this is only an invention by wikipedia authors.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem to understand why I was corrected for the calculation of the Tiebreaker in the Final Standings. Here's my calculation:

52 divided by 47 equals X X times 9 equals 9.96
 * Mexico allowed 52 runs in 47 innings

5 divided by 29 equals X X times 9 equals 1.55
 * Dominican Republic allowed 5 runs in 29 innings

10 divided by 52 equals X X times 9 equals 1.73
 * Puerto Rico allowed 10 runs in 52 innings

FAB!AN (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fabian's math is wrong. Dominican Republic did not play 29 innings; they played 28⅔ innings. I suspect the other discrepancies can be reconciled similarly (for example, I believe PR played 51⅓ innings. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, somebody has to show me where they came up with these final standings or this has to go. – Howard  the   Duck  08:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no such final standings, ousted teams aren't ranked according to runs allowed per inning.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anaxagoras is wrong. There are final standings, and the teams were ordered in precisely the order reflected on this standings page by the IBAF in awarding World Ranking points. I cannot vouch for the math or choice of tiebreakers, but somebody was doing something right because it matched before the IBAF announcement was made. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
Should there be a quotes section like there is for each round of the MLB playoffs, even if it ends up being a fairly small section? I ask because of the call of the Netherlands' win against the Dominican Republic to advance to the 2nd round, heard at the very end of this video. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, can anyone translate the Korean radio call when Choo made the HR, and the Japanese radio call when Ichiro made the RBI? – Howard  the   Duck  15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's also worth mentioning the and 🇯🇵 made appearances in the final. Dunno what happened to those flags... – Howard  the   Duck  15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have tagged the following articles for merger discussions:
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Finals‎
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Pool 1
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Pool 2
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Pool A
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Pool B
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Pool C
 * 2009 World Baseball Classic - Pool D

There are several ways we could do this. None of the subarticles have much more detail than is already covered at this article. The first round subarticles (A - D) include a boxscore for each game. That's six games for each pool. We could merge those here without the boxscores, or merge them together as 2009 World Baseball Classic first round. We could then also merge Pool 1 and 2 as 2009 World Baseball Classic second round. The Finals article has just three games and the boxscores can easily be added to this article. The same could also be done with the 2006 set of articles.  Grsz 11  20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Leave the articles unmerged.
 * Oppose.  Grsz 11  20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Merge Pool A - Pool D as 2009 World Baseball Classic first round, and Pool 1 and 2 as 2009 World Baseball Classic second round. Merge Finals to this article.
 * Support.  Grsz 11  20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, a sensible rationalisation Mattlore (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, --NullSpace (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support but I'd rather title them as 2009 World Baseball Classic - Round 1 and 2009 World Baseball Classic - Round 2. – Howard  the   Duck  08:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Merge all articles to this article.
 * Oppose.  Grsz 11  20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged
I performed this merges per the discussion here.  Grsz 11  18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin Stadium
Is officially now "Sun Life Stadium" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.178.49 (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)