Talk:List of World Series champions

Logos
The logos shouldn't be used in this manner - sugget you have a look at WP:LOGO and WP:FAIR.--Addhoc 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Red Sox 85 vs. 86
The Red Sox won the Series in 1918 and won their next one in 2004, 86 years later. The drought itself, however, was 85. That is, there were 85 seasons played during 1919-2003, the years in which the Red Sox did not win the Series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Red Sox are currently listed at an 86 year drought, so I updated White Sox's drought to the same basis -- 88 years. Before they were listed as 87 years -- which was mathematically inconsistent with how the Red Sox were listed (White Sox's last title was one year before the Red Sox's 1918 title, then they won the year after the Red Sox's 2004 title); that is, by the math it would appear the Red Sox and White Sox both won their last World Series the same year -- obviously wrong. The Red Sox drought is the most commonly referred to and is almost always listed as 86 years, but I agree with the above comment -- the drought itself is only 85 years. Not a big deal, but let's just keep the references consistent. --Itsgeneb (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct figures are 85 seasons for the Red Sox (not winning 1919 through 2003) and 87 for the White Sox (not winning 1918 through 2004). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge
The articles List of World Series champions and List of World Series winners are obvious content forks and should be merged and redirected. There is a lot more information on this article; there's not much information in the second list that doesn't already exist, so we can just squeeze over the extra relevant information from the final column into this modern WS table, and that's about all that needs to be done except for a redirect. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they do different things (chronology vs number of wins), so I'd prefer importing the table basically intact from the Winners list, and adding it as another table here. What's valuable about the early sections here are that they form a catalogue raisonné explaining the evolution of championships and reasons why (for example) the Providence Grays are the true first world champions. :-) (I live in Providence.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We're currently trying to work out a more efficient format for this list that has all of the information available. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Shakescene, we can't use colors in the table that way per WP:ACCESS. The color is being used as the sole means of information conveyence, and using a symbol to accompany in this case is aesthetically displeasing and doesn't help to set anything off because everything has color. Would you mind removing them? KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merge. All this article needs is a lead, references, and some stylistic tweaks, and it would be prime material for WP:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Sorry I hadn't noticed the comments earlier (because I hadn't yet put this on my Watchlist).
 * 2) After looking at the lists more closely, I now see how much they overlap, so many of my earlier comments don't really apply.
 * 3) I don't think any of the information is dependent solely on color. The pre-1900 list hadn't made it clear which league or association a team belonged to in inter-league competitions so I added abbreviations as well as colors. But  I certainly would have no objections to the AA & NL being in separate columns,  as the leagues are in the post-1900 tables, rather than within parentheses. (That would also help the horizontal alignment.) I guess we can just have different feelings about the aesthetics. I found it far easier to follow and distinguish the teams and leagues from column to column and year to year once they'd been colored. (The scheme matches the one in the table at World Series.) I thought about the colors but I hardly claim perfection; perhaps I could make them fainter?
 * 4) I'm not planning on doing significantly more with this before you've done your merge (and very likely not much afterwards, either.) Have a good week. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points
You've got "cancelled" in 1883 and "0-0" in 1891. I think the best thing would be to simply says "no Series". Likewise with 1904, which was not technically "boycotted", because there was no compulsion to play a World Series until 1905. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the 0-0 to no Series. The cancellation is different because they were scheduled to play and then the A's cancelled, as opposed to no Series being planned. All evidence I've seen says that the 1904 WS was a boycott, whether compulsory or not. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 23:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't boycott something that wasn't scheduled. Prior to 1905, the Series was an arrangement between the individual clubs. The Red Sox wanted to have a Series in 1904, the Giants did not. Therefore, there was no Series scheduled. I think the term "boycott" that has sprung up here essentially amounts to original research. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The second source doesn't use the word directly, but it's implied in the wording, and the first source specifically mentions a boycott by McGraw. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of that first item is probably also under the false impression that there was a Series scheduled. Whatever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

World Series article
This list needs to be prominently placed in the World Series article, somewhere up near the top. The first thing readers are likely to want to see from this page is who the winners have been, not a long lecture about its history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just changed the Further info (See|) note above the table at World Series to this page rather than an earlier one (since renamed). But that note, as you say, needs to go somewhere higher up. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

colouring
Is that really needed? I think the mass use of colour in a table generally makes it more cluttered and hard to read, and it is no different in this case. In the case of the "modern" table, the conference is indicated in a different column, so I see no reason why colour coding should be used too. I'm going to remove it for now, but I guess someone could readd it if they liked. -- Scorpion 0422  20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After adding the colours, I found a number of things vastly easier to follow over time (for example that the National League only lost one post-season event before 1903.) Colour also makes it easier to follow a single team like the Yankees, and to see where the expansion teams have appeared. Jumping between black and white AL and NL boxes just doesn't work for me. (The league boxes are in an awkward position, although I'm not quite sure what would serve their function better.)


 * The colours seemed to work fine for the tables at World Series and Major League Baseball, but perhaps I can try something more subdued and less-distracting here. If you'd like to see some examples of possible shades, see (in addition to some much better sources in Wikipedia) User:Shakescene/palette and User:Shakescene/palette2, especially the "Shades of Red" section at the bottom of the latter. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As if you didn't have enough cooks stirring this broth, how about having all the NL clubs on the left, the AL clubs on the right, and just color the winner? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't like the idea when I first (independently) considered it, I'm beginning to warm to it more and more because it might solve more problems than it introduces. For a very rough example of what this sort of list might faintly resemble, see New York City mayoral elections. Since we don't want to make indicating the winner totally dependent on colouring (because of monochrome monitors, monochrome print-outs and monochrome eyes), we'd need some backup like underlining or bold-face or a symbol to make it clear. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two clear advantages are that you have an automatic list of pennant-winners (League champions), even in non-Series years, and that you can follow a particular team without crossing your eyes back and forth between columns. Also when the same pair of teams face off in successive years, or one team (e.g. the Yankees, like Fiorello La Guardia) wins a streak of pennants but alternates wins and losses in the Series, the result is much clearer. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I know some don't like this, but I don't see any harm in bolding the winner. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind it, but the MOS says no. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IAR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Won't be justifiable if this goes to FLC (an eventual goal). "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. … [It] does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule. … 'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." (excerpted from WP:IAR?) KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good reasons like "to make the list look better"? And why do the authors of the MOS have a problem with bolding the winners? Every rule has to have a justification. What is it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The MOS trumps aesthetics. From MOS:BOLD:
 * Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses:
 * Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses:


 * Table headers
 * Definition lists (example: Proof)
 * Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats
 * I don't know why they do it; they don't make it clear. However, there's no legitimate reason other than aesthetics to ignore this particular rule. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why they do it; they don't make it clear. However, there's no legitimate reason other than aesthetics to ignore this particular rule. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The certainly is a reason. As noted farther down, italics may not show up in certain browsers. However, maybe bolding doesn't show up either? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Likely not. As WP:ACCESS mentions, screen readers usually ignore text formatting altogether, whether it's bold, italics, strikethrough, etc. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the winner in ALL CAPS? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Haha. I feel like the MOS Nazi, but MOS:CAPS says no: "Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis". KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't think of any more suggestions. As the preacher said to Bart in Blazing Saddles, "Son, you're on your own!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not like we haven't dealt with this before; I'm sure it will work out. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's one more: Maybe put a smiley face after the winner, and a frowny face after the loser. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL. I don't think THAT'S prohibited, but I think it might be considered in poor taste! Might be a case for WP:BEANS... KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean others might start to do it? And what's bad about starting a trend? :) Poor taste? As in POV-pushing? I think it could easily be verified. The winners and their fans are happy, the losers aren't. Maybe more to the point, though, would be to put some dollar signs after the winner - and some cent signs after the loser, except most keyboards don't have a cent sign. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. You make the workday go faster... Wait... I'm at work... am I supposed to be doing this? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation column
Is it necessary to have a separate citation for each Series at the end of each line of the post-1903 table? There are dozens of complete tables, many of which are printed (and thus more permanent), but also republished on the Internet, and which come from disinterested sources.

Of course it's good to let people have a guide to each Series, but can't that be accomplished by referring to the index page for all such games at MLB/history, from which they can click to individual Series? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Let me add that I wrote the words above before noticing who'd added the reference column or when. My comments were in response to the references, not to their author, and certainly weren't meant as a riposte or tit-for-tat about the colours I'd added.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a reader, if I'm on a particular line, I think it's most likely that I would prefer to select a link to that specific Series. The layout at the moment gives us both the wikipedia article and the presumably official MLB writeup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there is one interesting level of detail missing, which is the play-by-play of the Series, i.e. what each batter did (or didn't, in one case:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically this although we could do without the editorial comments about whether the last pitch was in the strike zone or not. The umpire said strike, so it's a strike. The guy's up there to pinch-hit, he should be swingin'. And he did offer at it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that we're getting beyond what a single line can plausibly carry, the sequence of wins and home fields is also significant (like a team rallying after losing the first two games at home, or clinching the title on hostile turf.) I added the year an expansion team joined its league (except for the Brewers' shift to the NL in 1998); should we also add divisions from 1976? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was inspired by List of Super Bowl champions. Also, I would like to add a column for the managers of both teams, and there is no general reference (that I have found) that covers that. However, all of the citations do include that. -- Scorpion 0422  01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See the World Almanac and Book of Facts 2009, (New York), ISBN 978-1-60057-105-3, pages 914-917, which gives pennant winners since 1901 with managers, division winners since 1976 with managers, World Series winners since 1903 and Series MVP's (Most Valuable Players) since 1955. I'm not suggesting this as a substitute for more detailed or Internet citations, just as a single cheap (US$13, C$15), widely-available, widely-archived and widely-respected printed source to back up Internet links, which by their nature are more volatile. Ideally you want to provide both a link and a printed reference for different readers in different times and circumstances (e.g. give an article's page number, publication date and edition name in the printed New York Times when citing an NY Times link), but where a choice must be made, Wikipedia prefers the permanence of print. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing managers makes sense, as long as the screen doesn't get too busy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indicating tied series
In his edit summary, KillerVogel said he was removing italics from tied Series records because "there are more efficient ways" of showing this. What does he suggest? Without some indication, the record of National League wins and losses (and their challengers' wins and losses) looks very different from what it was (only one actual NL loss to the AA plus 3 or 4 tied Series). One could switch columns in those Series with just as much justice and give an equally misleading first impression. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the advantage of always listing the NL first team place first (i.e. second place teams in Temple Cup would be on the right) and then using coloration to indicate winner - if any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, but for a different method, it's easier to just pop an asterisk or a dagger in there because italics don't always show up on non-formatting-friendly browsers. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think accessibility (unlike uniformity or consistency for its own sake) is one of the legitimate purposes of a directive Manual of Style (see some of the long skirmishes just for the record that I and Septentrionalis waged independently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM). But to fit every conceivable device, we'd basically have to drop all formatting and just compose everything in Plaintext on Notepad. For example (and for the sake of example ignoring any aesthetic differences), I certainly don't want my colo[u]rs to exclude black-and-white monitors or colo[u]r-blind readers, so I try to include some other indicator, but if you drop all emphasis because it won't play everywhere, there are very few options left. Even daggers and asterisks don't show up very well everywhere because of clashing encoding conventions. I suppose I could ignore grammar and mathematical logic by putting something like "1=1" and "3=3(1)", but apart from weirdness, they wouldn't distinguish themselves very well from "4-2". —— Shakescene (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind using colour coding to indicate ties (or even wildcards), but I dislike using it on the majority of the table. -- Scorpion 0422  22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Final table
This is a sample of what my proposed version of the final table would look like. It is similar to List of Stanley Cup champions, except with a refs column and without a game winning goal column. My one issue with it is that I would prefer the "games" to be between the two teams, but it doesn't look right with the leage and managers columns, but that's pretty minor.

I'm also considering removing the rows that note cancelled serieses, which would allow for sortability to be added. Those can be noted in prose form. -- Scorpion 0422  22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no ideal solutions, but the basics seems a little bit hidden for those readers who just want the basics (e.g. Boston beat Pittsburgh in 1903, 5 games to 3). If we used Bugs' idea of dividing the table by leagues, and if we could somehow find a satisfactory way of overcoming the difficulty about sufficient emphasis, then we could not only (1) remove two columns that add to the confusion, but (2) keep teams and managers in a more useful place for sorting (i.e. you could sort all the Series played by team or by manager). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the league column would be infinitely more useful if the table was sortable, that way, users could easily seperate the NL and AL winners. Otherwise, it might be worth merging them with the team column, per the Stanley Cup list (although it should be noted that in that case, the conference names changed several times, and in some years, there were no conferences). -- Scorpion 0422  15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look over my shoulder, if you feel like it, as I try to see how combining different approaches might work at User:Shakescene/sandbox11. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

another format
Here are the first 8 Series in the format I'm experimenting with. Managers are sortable by last names first (e.g., "Dean, Daffy" before "Dean, Dizzy" before "DiMaggio, Dom" before "DiMaggio, Joe" before "DiMaggio, Vince" before "Drysdale, Don").

I do not like that. It is unnecessarily complex and cluttered and the symmetry is rather tacky. I think having all the winners on one side makes the most sense, because it would help with the sortability. If the point of having columns go by league rather than by winner is to eliminate the League columns, why is there still a "W" column which notes leagues? If you're going to do that, you might as well use the olf format. Also, if you're going to make the manager names sortable, use the sortname template. -- Scorpion 0422  01:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't really like it. iMatthew : Chat  01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the questions: If you put all the winners on the left, then you can only sort the years a manager won or else all the years a manager lost, not all the years he managed in a Series. Similarly, you can't pull up the Yankees and see when they won or lost in a single sort. (I wish I'd known about sortname because when I went to Help:Sorting with this specific question in mind, it didn't mention it.) The symmetry is not for its own sake, but so that you can see the most important things in one place. The alternative (in my view) is to stick the managers to the right of everything else. The AL and NL are following the discussion above between myself, KV5 and Baseball Bugs about how to make something clear when no emphasis or color is visible (e.g. on a black-and-white monitor). I'd originally just put a W besides the winning team, but I thought in that case, I might as well put the winning league.
 * Those were my reasons, because I think the current effort is also a bit cluttered and hard to catch at a glance, and very hard to use if you're looking for patterns. I'm not saying this in a belligerent or defensive way, but because it's so very difficult to balance all the considerations against each other. And we all know how laborious it is working with 104 times half a dozen different data. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has already been covered, but the article should be reformatted to put the List alongside or below the photos. At first, the large gap made me think that the list was missing. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to do the necessary editing. Nigelrg (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Managers of pennant-winners before 1903
My 1929 World Almanac lists the last names of the managers with the NL & AL pennant winners since their start. Is it worth adding them, too? [My formatting below, not theirs]

NL


 * 1876 Chicago - Spalding
 * 1877-9 Boston - H. Wright
 * 1880's Chicago - Anson [Cap]
 * 1884 Providence - Bancroft
 * 1887 Detroit - Watkins
 * 1888-9 New York - Mutrie
 * 1890 Brooklyn - McGunnigle
 * 1890's Boston - Selee
 * 1894-6 Baltimore - Hanlon
 * 1899-1900 Brooklyn - Hanlon
 * 1901-3 Pittsburgh - Clarke

AL


 * 1900 Chicago - Comiskey [Charles]
 * 1901 Chicago - Griffith
 * 1902 Philadelphia - Mack [Connie]

P.S. to Bugs: my 1966 World Almanac (still published by the The New York World-Telegram & Sun just before they were swallowed up never to return in The New York World Journal Tribune) has several "World Series" section and table headings, but also on page 814, "Baseball World Championships, 1903-1965".

—— Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I put in all the information I could glean from my 1929 World Almanac, but it still needs amplification and probably lots of correction. For one thing, the World Almanac lists NL season leaders and their managers since 1876, but not those of the American Association, nor the second-place NL teams, who won the Temple Cup, for example, three times out of four. I'm sure I could dig them out of the Baseball Almanac or The Sporting News almanac on line, but with an election coming up, etc., I haven't had the time. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A good place to start is Retrosheet. Check the 1882 season, for example: The team rosters include the managers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wish I'd seen your note before filling in the gaps with reconstructions from the Baseball Almanac and Wikipedia pages. Going back to put in useful specific references will be a nightmare, but this might be a good shortcut (although tons of good baseball historical research is on line from amateurs and doesn't look as Reliable in Wikipedian terms as a printed almanac, Ken Burns or The Sporting News; remember all that back-and-forth about on-line ball park sources for Yankee Stadium stats?) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
Is it possible to cite sources regarding the 1876 and 1899 series? I can't find them in any conventional references. The 1899 series is especially mysterious. The series isn't mentioned in the article text. Brooklyn was the regular-season pennant winner, but Philadelphia was the third-place team and it isn't clear why the series was significant. -- Mojavemac (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those series must have been exhibitions of some kind. I had never heard of that 1876 series before, and in any case, the Chicago club is always given as the league champion for 1876. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Year listed for expansion teams.
I'm not following why it's necessary to list when expansion teams came into the league under the "league" column. How is that relevant? If there are no real objections, I'm leaning towards removing it. Shamedog18 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer removal; I don't find any usefulness to it. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One question on some readers' minds is how long it took for an expansion team to reach and/or win the Series (e.g. the Mets, Marlins and Rockies). I'm not totally happy with what this does to the formatting, but on the other side of the ledger, (1) a long column of unrelieved, uncolored "AL";"AL";"AL";"NL","AL","NL";"AL" is somewhat relieved by the variety; and more importantly (2) you can, if you wish, use the sort function to see which Series were won (or lost) by the AL's and NL's post-1960 teams, in order of their joining — and conversely, segregate out those won or lost by 1903 teams. I'm certainly open myself to fiddling with the style by dropping or replacing the comma or by using small type, superscripts or subscripts. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant information on how long it took expansion teams to win could be included in the lower table which is more conducive to text. As is, the years in the league column look ugly. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just think it clutters up the chart. The chart is supposed to list World Series Champions and runners-up. I don't understand the need for all these details. I don't doubt that there are people who wonder how long it took expansion teams to reach a World Series, but I don't see how that is relevant to the chart. Shamedog18 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref column
Would there be any objection to converting the refs in the "Ref" column in the table to inline ext links? It seems inefficient to have the reflist at the end of the article bloated so much... The World Series Overview page could be used instead as a single ref for the entire table, which would clean things up a lot. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I highly object to this. External links are different from references, and this isn't nearly as bad as it could be in terms of reference size. See List of Gold Glove Award winners at outfield for further info. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about de-citing any content here. That's what the single ref is meant to cover. It's just the next higher level page on mlb.com, with a summary of all results, instead of a separate page for each. It has direct links to all the sub-pages referenced in the table, and it's pretty nicely organized. I don't see how it damages the article. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this list is eventually to be featured quality, reviewers would likely request (demand?) separate refs for each. Scorpion0422, who has done much of the work updating this list and who is an FL director, was the one who fixed the references to their current format, I believe. The eventual goal for this is FL, so the format should remain. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here, but general refs should only be used when the reference given directly cites the info. So, I concur with Scorpion and KV5. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to apologize about butting in -- it's on an article talk page, after all. Fair enough about the refs. It seems to me, though, that the policy could stand to allow for some discretion regarding using higher-level pages as general references instead of multiple individual citations to sub-pages, at least in cases where navigation from the higher level to the appropriate sub-pages is trivial and self-evident... That's a debate for a different place, though. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the quirks of the FL process, I just want a good list for its own sake and the readers'. Where the Featured List rules lead to bad results, they are what should change, not the list itself. I just don't like the whole extra column in an already-crowded table when referring to the master page at MLB is just as good, much clearer to the reader, much less redundant, and doesn't lead to that long 104 line sequence in the Reference section, which buries other important references that don't come from MLB.com. There's a similar situation at List of tallest buildings in New York City, where every building line gets one reference each from the same two sources, but at least there are two sources to differentiate. Here it's all the same thing anyway. (And of course I mean no disparagement to Scorpion's hard work on this.) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether it's "cluttered" is not the issue here. Inline citations are preferred to general references in nearly all cases. Referring to a "master page" is not just as good, because it does not verify all of the information in the table. That is what a general reference is for. They are not meant as a catch-all for extraneous or otherwise unreferenced information. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed til mid-November 2009?
Needless to say, there seems to have been more traffic on this page once the regular baseball season closed. And also many edits by IP's (unregistered editors identified only by their Internet Protocol address) trying to change text and table entries for the Yankees, Phillies and other teams. Not to condemn all IP's, because some of them have been correcting the errors of others. But should we ask for semi-protection until mid-November for this and closely-related pages (e.g. Major League Baseball, World Series, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. They might turn it out down at WP:RFPP due to (1) the length of the list and (2) the usual gripe that we're trying to "pre-empt" vandalism, which makes no sense to me but that's the attitude they take. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Split
Just a note, I have split off the pre-World Series champions from this list, as they are inherently not World Series champions. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So where did you put them? I don't think this is a good idea, as before 1930, the "world's championship" was considered to include titles going back to 1884, 1876, 1871 or before. See discussions at Talk:World Series and Talk:Major League Baseball.—— Shakescene (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are currently at List of pre-World Series baseball champions, feel free to move that list wherever that was just an initial name idea. Modern sources universally regard the modern World Series as starting in 1903. The 2003 Series was lauded as the 100th annversary, eg. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all about marketing. The 1903 World's Championship Series was arranged by the clubs, just as the 1880s events were. 1905 is the first "true" World Series, under modern rules, but MLB sees it differently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I don't understand the "Pennant winners in non-Series years" section. Those, with the possible excepion of 1904, should also be in the List of pre-World Series baseball champions.  Also, there were no recognized division champions, let alone pennant winners, in 1994, and the 1900 White Sox were not considered a Major League team. Rlendog (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. The American League of 1900 was considered a minor league, and it was subservient to the National League. The AL decided to go to war with the NL and declare itself a major league for 1901. AL 1900 should not be in the list unless it has an "asterisk". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to the pennant winners section, I'd happily see that gone it was added by someone else. But ultimately the MLB definition of the World Series (1903 onwards) is what should matter. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added that section after the split partly as a bridge to the pre-WS champions page (there wasn't a loud, sharp break at 1903) and partly to fill in gaps and answer questions that readers (using my own non-expert self as a sample) will inevitably have. Besides telling us who won the Series, this list also serves as a guide to who led (or won) each league since the AL was founded. (At the moment the pennant-winner lists give way to separate ALCS and NLCS pages after 1968, so this is the only place to see them all at once.)  But I'm happy to delete 1900 and its footnote, since that would solve several problems and objections. Maybe I can think of a better heading, too, if "pennant" is inappropriate or misleading. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's better with it gone. Anything that isn't the World Series doesn't really belong, other than perhaps the briefest mention in the lead, in a List of World Series champions. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Champions by city?
I had an idea for this page and wanted to see if anyone had any objections, input, etc. I wanted to make a list of WS champions by city. For instance, the Braves franchise has 3 WS wins, but one each in three different cities: Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. I think this would be an interesting and worthwhile list. I've found that in general baseball fans are aware that the Giants have won several championships, but a lot are unaware that they've yet to win since moving to San Francisco. Richjenkins talkcontribs 5:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That info was available previously in the championships by franchise table, but was removed in preparation for FLC. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the problem? (Many more readers would be interested in where the championships were won than in FLC.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They were becoming a spawning ground for random IPs inserting "my team did that" or "this team won this" or "the Foos suck because they didn't win". Also, it's consistent with one of the other champions list in one of the other sport awards featured topics, which this will eventually be a part of. I'm not sure which. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see that, so the information should be in a relatively-tightly-controlled format or place, rather than in a stand-alone table. Both printed and on-line sources decide both ways whether to count the Giants, Dodgers, Braves, Athletics, Browns/Orioles, Senators/Rangers, Senators/Twins, Pilots/Brewers and (theoretically) Expos/Nationals in one place or several; I've seen it done both ways (e.g. at MLB.com, in The World Almanac and in the now-merged List of World Series winners). Because the franchise table (essentially duplicating the one at World Series) is sortable, it's hard to add separate columns or lines for (e.g.) St. Louis and Baltimore or for Brooklyn and L.A. I think the information is useful and wanted, but I'm not sure what the best way of presenting it might be. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem has been fixed in a much easier way, piped links. If a team was, for example, the Milwaukee Braves when they won in 1957 they are listed as the Milwaukee Braves. But come 1995 as the Atlanta Braves they are listed as the Atlanta Braves. This style has 2 advantages. First it addresses your concern, as now you can just sort by winner's column and see "Oh, the New York Giants have 5 WS wins, the San Francisco Giants have 0" or whatever. Plus, beyond that, it deals with the touchy and unresolved question of moved/renamed franchises. See Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals whilst both Washington Senators teams are simply transcluded within their respective new names (Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers (baseball)). This way if someone decides to create a New York Giants article the visible text doesn't change, you just remove the piping. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Colors in the tables
Just a note in case anyone's wondering, the colors were removed in response to a featured list candidacy. If you have any questions about the colors and why they were removed, ask at the FLC while it's still open. Please don't re-insert the colors, as it might hold up the nomination. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Series-ending
I think there should be lists, perhaps on a separate page or two pages, to list how each World Series ended.

The two lists would be one for World Series ended on a defensive play (who got the final out), and another for World Series ended on an offensive play (who got a walk-off hit).

Series ended on offensive play
The reason why I thought of this is because of Joe Carter. In 1992, he recorded the final out, being the end of a groundout by Otis Nixon. In 1993, he hit the famous walk-off homer off Mitch Williams to end that series. I wanted to see if anybody else have ever both recorded the final out in one series and clinched another with a walk-off hit.

What do you think? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be difficult to source for older series. And honestly, it seems pretty trivial. Not very encyclopedic of a topic. It definitely doesn't belong on this page. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  16:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually all the information is in Baseball Reference. They have complete play-by-play for every game for every modern World Series. As for triviality, perhaps. But if they rule that episodic summaries for TV series is worthy of inclusion at least on the website, I don't see why not. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because every series ends on a play, and the vast vast majority are wholly non-notable. If you want to note the World Series to end via the walk-off in the lead, that's one thing I guess. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This topic seems to have lost steam. However, and FWIW, the last out of the 2008 World Series was recorded by Carlos Ruiz, not Brad Lidge, since the catcher, not the pitcher, gets credit for the putout when the batter strikes out.Zddoodah (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"first" World Series
Can the stats for the 1884-1890 series be placed into this article ? (such as a second table, or an appendix section)

76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not appropriate, as modern sources do not regard the 1882-1890 Series as belonging. Check the article List of pre-World Series baseball champions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See List of pre-World Series baseball champions which goes back to the 1850's. Perhaps there's a better location for this link within the World Series article. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in a hatnote right at the top; I can't think of a better location... &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, too. (I must have been very sleepy and unobservant when writing my previous comment.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A more controversial view is that the 1903 Series was essentially an extension of the 19th century approach to the championship, i.e. it was arranged by the clubs rather than a governing authority; and that the first World Series as we know it was 1905. But it's not regarded that way by MLB, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Although I should add, for the original poster, that these lists (going back to 1857) both used to be on a single page until separated. See here. If you want to advocate re-merging these two lists, you're certainly free to start that discussion. When merged the history was more comprehensive, but also a bit more confusing. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to keep them separate. It's really an apples-and-pears situation, if not apples-and-oranges. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.96.17.220, 2 November 2010
the 2010 champs, the San Francisco Giants, won the series 4-1, not 4-2.

71.96.17.220 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Giants have now tied the Dodgers for most Series appearances by a National League team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.8.145 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for these stats? Thanks, Stickee (talk)  09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both assertions are correct. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Verbage suggestion for most Series appearances by NL team

Currently:
 * For the National League, the Dodgers have appeared in the Series the most at 18 times (9 each in Brooklyn and Los Angeles), but have won the Series only 6 times (once in Brooklyn, five times in Los Angeles).

Suggestion:
 * For the National League, long-time rivals the Dodgers and the Giants have each appeared in the Series 18 times and have identical records of 6-12. (The Dodgers won one Series while in Brooklyn, and five in Los Angeles; conversely, the Giants won five while in New York, and one in San Francisco).

Thanks for your efforts maintaining this page!

Dmeanea (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to mention the rivalry in the lead, but I'll utilize some of this verbiage in implementing the changes later. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Series appearance by franchise
In this section I propose that any teams with the same number of World Series appearances by listed alphabetically. Alphabetically is one of the most common means of categorization. The problem with categorizing ties by most recent World Series appearance is that it isn't instantly recognizable in the way that alphabetically is. I suspect a person could stare at the chronological list for a minute and still not get what the order is based on (I know I didn't). And the problem with adding another header explaining that ties are chronological is that you then have a main header and sub-header to explain the situation. It just seems needlessly complex. Alphabetically is more natural and makes things more simplistic.Ultimahero (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why there was a note inserted which explains the sorting, which was reverted without any prior discussion. This is a list of champions or, if you care to look at it as such, as list of championships. This means that the most logical sorting, after sorting by number of appearances as the section header states, is by championship date because that is the subject of the article. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, the note was added AFTER I made my edits. I edited, it was reverted, and THEN THE NOTE WAS ADDED. Still, the fact that there must be a note at all proves my point: Chronology is not the most natural way for a list to be organized. The fact that there must be a second not to explain how ties are arranged proves that it is a confusing means. Alphabetizing is the most natural way to arrange ties. No further explanation would be needed. It's much more natural and will not clog up the page with multiple headers.Ultimahero (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's whatever. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

? I do not understand what you mean by this, sir.Ultimahero (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of teams missing from this list (e.g. Texas Rangers). 65.216.107.80 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles
The listing of World Series appearances and the overall series record for the Baltimore Orioles is incorrect. The list indicates that the Orioles appeared 7 times and that their record in World Series contests is 3-4. In fact, they appeared 6 times and their record is 3-3. They won the World Series in 1966, 1970 and 1983, but lost in 1969, 1971 and 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.75.203 (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And they appeared one time as the St. Louis Browns, losing once, making their record 3-4. This is records by franchise, not by team. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true, however,the record for teams appearing in WS should then include St Louis Browns,and it does not. Jim loving (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Jim Loving

1904
1904 The Red Sox technically won the 1904 World Series by default, as the Giants refused to play them. This is not counted as a victory for the Sox, however, and when i edited the series appearances by franchise section, i never changed the amount of series the sox appeared in, or won, because they did not appear in the 1904 W.S. However, the Guants refused to play which means, they forfeited. The asterisk i put next to the Sox and at the bottom of the section did not say the Sox won, but that the Giants forfeited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Per WP:V & WP:NOR, you will need to provide reliable sources to verify that the Red Sox "technically" won the World Series. Note it does not say this in the 1904 World Series article.--JayJasper (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Chapter 2, page 23, paragraph 1 of The Curse of The Bambino. Its a book. And this is what he had to say. "A year later Boston won its second American League flag, but the National League champion New York Giants refuse to play a World Series. The Sporting News declared the Pilgrims 'World Champions by default.'" Is the Sporting News reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia practice is to not add original research to articles. No reason to stop that practice in this case. MLB considers the series to have never been played or attempted. The Giants were under no legal obligation to play the Sox, and therefore they did not forfeit anything.-- JOJ Hutton  23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)-- JOJ  Hutton  23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a reliable source. You can check the archives of the Sporting News, or you can read the book "The Curse of the Bambino". I never said the Giants were legally obligated to play, nor did I change the Red Sox appeaances in the Series. I pointed out that back then, people considered the Sox, champions by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sporting News declaring something don't make it so. There was no obligation to play a World Series until 1905 when the Brush rules were drawn up. And no reliable source, including the Sporting News' own record books while they were still being published, declares the Red Sox of 1904 as world champions "by default" or by any other way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. If TSN actually did call them the "Pilgrims", that would be a news flash, as that alleged nickname was almost never used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota Twins World Series
Sir:

Really appreciate all of the hard work you have done on Wikipedia. You have the Minnesota Twins playing in 6 World Series, winning 3 and losing 3. Minnesota has actually played in 3 World Series, winning 2 and losing 1. The Twins lost in 1965 and won in 1987 and 1991.

Respectfully,

Jim Welke jamesw1437 @ yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.253.6 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Prior to being the Twins the same franchise were the Washington Senators. The Sens won in 1924, lost in 33 and 25. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This situation can be confusing for casual readers. It's reasonably obvious that the Giants used to be in New York and are now in San Francisco. But the connection between the Nats and the Twins is not at all obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

World Series teams list by wins not appearances.
The list of of teams is listed by appearances and not wins. This could be seen as confusing to users because it seems biased towards teams like the Giants who have not won as many championships as other teams (example the Cardinals). This list should have its default order World Series by wins because users are more likely to be searching for what teams have one the most. 5/4/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC96:91B0:2896:6CDE:6187:6D24 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not merely misleading to say the "San Francisco Giants" appeared in the World Series nineteen times, as the article currently does; it's a factual error. The San Francisco Giants absolutely have not appeared in nineteen World Series. TheScotch (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It refers to the franchise, as the universal style and general rule of reality. The same way a Giants player might set a team record, everyone would refer to it as a "San Francisco Giants record" even if the record being broken dated back to the NY Giants era. Teams move cities, but so long as they remain the same franchise they retain the history they carry. However, it would be incredibly awkward to refer to every team by every city. Imagine writing the Philadelphia / Kansas City / Oakland Athletics every time they came up. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Founded" date in the list of appearances table (PLEASE DISCUSS)
Martymar1970 has brought an excellent issue before my eyes. The Baltimore Orioles are currently listed as 'founded' in 1894, which is the correct date if you trace their roots back to their original Western League roots (the WL Brewers who became the Browns who eventually became the O's). However, several other teams are not similarly listed. The Tigers have an identical history, and an even clearer lineage to the WL (they've been the Detroit Tigers all along), yet are listed as 1901 (their AL start date). Ditto for the White Sox, Twins, Indians, and Red Sox (other originally WL teams that became current AL teams).

Meanwhile, the picture gets blurrier looking beyond the WL. The Chicago Cubs briefly discuss their pre-NL history on their page, and while they were joined the NL in 1876 are listed here and on their page as founded in 1871 (their earlier pre-NL founding). Ditto for the Braves. To state it quickly: What is our standard for the officially listed 'founding' date of a team? Its earliest founding date, traceable to that franchise? Its date of joining it's current league? Something in between (since, e.g., nobody would say the Astros were founded in 2013)? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would go with the original founding date of that franchise, so the Braves and Cubs started in the NA... I believe most of the National League teams are consistent.. it's the American League teams (the White Sox, Tigers) that need to be fixed. Spanneraol (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another possibility would be to exclude their time as a Minor league franchise and treat the "founding" date as the date the team was founded as a Major league franchise. This would maintain consistency with Major League Baseball records, but have no affect on a team like the Houston Astros. martymar1970  —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I know others sports go by the date the team was started/incorporated originally. So including any previous leagues it was in. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Presenting the Baltimore Orioles as being "founded" in 1894 here is incredibly misleading, since the Baltimore Orioles won the National League pennant in 1894, but of course it was a totally different franchise, and this franchise was not a Major League franchise at the time. If there is going to be a column showing when the team started, it should be showing when the team started as a Major League team, not a minor league antecedent.  That would mean 1901 for all the original AL teams.  I could see treating the National Association teams slightly differently, since there is some argument that the NA was a a Major League.  But all the other teams should be shown as beginning at the time they joined the Major Leagues.  And if that requires a change in the heading (although I don't think it does) then the heading should be changed. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Another approach, which would make sense in the context of this article, especially since it does not deal with the 19th century World Series, would be to show the "1st year eligible for the World Series," which would be 1903 for all the "original" 16 teams. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On this page specifically that would make sense. But on infoboxes for team pages I would most definitely go with when the team started playing no matter what league they were in since the page is about the team itself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2013
The series is not over, yet the 2013 winner is already entered.

Tierney.joe (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Expansion / Wild Card footnotes in table
Why exactly do expansion teams & wild card teams get a special [W] & [X] footnote? Do teams founded after 1960 have a special advantage or disadvantage in winning World Series? I think not. Seems totally random, might as well footnote teams with names based on animals, or west coast teams. Wild Card is slightly more relevant, maybe, but I think a footnote is the wrong way to go about it. Instead, perhaps a new column that could be added with something like "Regular Season finish" that would read something like "AL pennant" (pre-1969), "NL East champion" (1970-present), "Wild Card" (1995-2011), and "Wild Card 1" (2012-present). SnowFire (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I put in the original footnotes way back when (together with some league shading that slightly differed for expansion teams) just to let the reader make his or her own judgements about oft-asked questions. Not all of those aids have survived, although I might think of restoring them. ¶ But so far no World Series has put two expansion teams against each other; there might be several reasons, including the obvious one that a post-1960 team would have fewer opportunities than teams that have been eligible since 1903. Similarly, ever since the wild card was introduced together with the two central divisions (ALC and NLC), people have been interested in how often a team that came second in its division could still win a pennant or a World Series. And, just as whether or when two expansion teams could face each other in a Series, could two wild-card teams do the same? On the other hand, your interesting point about letting readers compare the winners of each post-1969 division does suggest that maybe an additional footnote (or a different system of footnotes where W = Western Division rather than Wild Card) could be useful. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

1919
We need to note that note that one was stolen.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.124.242 (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Running tally" of club's record in main "Winners" table
User:2605:A000:CA80:9700:F5D0:28FB:FCDF:E339 recently added parentheticals to each winning/losing team for every entry in the main table, providing a running tally of that club's overall WS performance to that point (# of wins along with win-loss record). I have removed that, as (1) the information isn't particularly relevant to the data being presented (who won and who lost); (2) it can be otherwise determined from the existing table if you want it; and, most importantly, (3) including such information really clogged up the table (the parentheticals were, at times, as long as the team names themselves). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on related page
Hi. You are invited to comment on this RFC. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

external link re ranking of WS winners
I just came across an article that might be good as an external link. Although it is only one group's ranking, it would provide much food for thought for baseball fans who go on this Wikipedia page. Would it be okay to add? Eagle4000 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ranking every World Series winners in history. FanSided.com. November 3, 2015. Retrieved 2016-11-07.

Washington Senators
I see they are listed with both the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers. Was this some sort of split of the original club like the Minnesota North Stars to Dallas AND San Jose? IF so, why doesn't the Rangers World Series record reflect the Senators as well? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsplanet (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * They are considered two separate franchises. The original AL Senators moved to Minnesota for the 1961 season, and were replaced by a new team, the expansion Senators, in 1961. The second Senators moved to Arlington for the 1972 season. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of World Series champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223202250/http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F01-09-2009%2F0004952249&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F01-09-2009%2F0004952249&EDATE=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Appearances by club section
Has there been any discussion about adding a related column -- average years between wins (and/or appearances)? I don't think that information is anywhere on Wikipedia, and the communally agreed usefulness of the stat is kind of implied by the fact that the founding date is already included in the current chart.

23.228.141.13 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The 2018 series is not yet over
It hasn't even started.

Please stop listing Boston as the winner.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apropos, not what you're discussing,, but oddly enough, at no point does the article actually say when the match is played; the nearest it gets is calling it a "Fall Classic", which of course itimitates winter. Odd! ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , Huh? I don't follow the relevance of the fact that the article doesn't say when the match is played. The point is, it hasn't yet been played, and someone has been trying to identify Boston as the winner and Los Angeles as the loser. I've watched every minute of every Boston game this season, and certainly hope that turns out to be the case but it's quite premature to identify the winner before the series starts. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , (However, to your point, it is mildly interesting that it doesn't identify when the series takes place. Perhaps a little inappropriate US centrism, assuming that everyone knows, which is not a good assumption, coupled with the fact that the event is always in the fall but the dates have changed over time, drifting later in the year as the season got longer.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Appearances by Franchise
Can an additional column be added to that section for "Avg. Years Between Appearances" or "Avg. Years Between Wins," or both? The Marlins' success is remarkable but I think it gets buried because their Series win count is comparable to teams that have been around a century or more. -- 136.33.163.174 (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Results table cleanup
I propose removing the "Ref." column in the Results table, which has an enormous number of citations to one reference, Baseball-Reference.com, and instead just insert the reference once after the end of the table. The reasons to do this are (a) it clutters the References section with many references to the same source, (b) the cited source doesn't include all the information given (such as winning/losing managers), and (c) editors seem prone to adding new entries with "Retrieved" dates that are prior to the events in question (which is obviously erroneous). If nobody objects, I'll make that change sometime soon. -- HLachman (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ (for above-mentioned reasons; and over a month with no objections). -- HLachman (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request
Article states 115 Series have been played. Should be 116 now. Mdgramling (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021
The Tampa Bay Rays won the world series in 2020. This article says they made it to the World Series, but never won it. 73.193.60.93 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Because the Rays lost the 2020 World Series to the Dodgers. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheating Astros 2017
It seems there should be a [C] or [*] #ref_Cheating added to the Legend table for the 2017 Houston Astros. Citations could be e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 or even an internal reference 6. -- 172.92.177.175 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. MLB didn't invalidate the title so we shouldn't either. Spanneraol (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For historical purposes it should be mentioned the Astros won the 2017 World Series with the help of advanced sign stealing methods and is acknowledged throughout MLB. 50.168.13.94 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See my reply at the end of the next section, and the user who posted before me. Nothing more needs to be said. BilCat (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Importance of Scandals and Outside Sources
I'm requesting an interesting subject be added to the list. Not to illegitimize but in the best interest of knowledge. For example I noticed that nothing was mentioned of the Black Sox scandal even though that was an important event in MLB history, or the 2017 Houston Astros, which has been recognized by MLB. But as the MLB said, they (The Reds and Astros) are still legitimate championships, but in talking about historical context it would be in the best interest of documenting these events so they won't be lost to time. I would also like to see how many World Series were affected by outside sources. Recent example being the 2020 season being shortened due to the pandemic. It's not to illegitimize the Los Angeles Dodgers or the Tampa Bay Rays; however, it would still be important to note the challenges MLB had to face during that season. It's to preserve that outlier for future study. It's an important event not only in the sporting world but also in history. I'm writing this as not only a baseball fan, sports fan, but also a fan of history.

To give an idea on how to format this, my suggestion would be to put a marker next to a team if they were involved in a scandal, and a marker next to a year that was affected by outside sources.

Example: 1919	Cincinnati Reds (1, 1–0)	Pat Moran	5–3[V]	Chicago White Sox(*) (3, 2–1)	Kid Gleason 2020(*)	Los Angeles Dodgers (21, 7–14)	Dave Roberts	4–2	Tampa Bay Rays (2, 0–2)	Kevin Cash

Sources:   <2020 Pandemic>

Again, this is NOT TO ILLEGITIMIZE A TITLE, it is to document historical events. (Especially the Black Sox Scandal)

Bryonic (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Bryan
 * The Dodgers were not affected by a scandal.. the pandemic affected the entire league equally... they were all on the same playing field... other seasons were reduced by strikes... In any event, the Astros scandal and the black sox scandal are mentioned in other places, on the season articles for those teams, on those specific world series articles etc... this article is just a list of champions and not the proper place for such a discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No asterisks. Absolutely not. It's a myth that there were ever asterisks in MLB record books. MLB recognizes the Reds as 1919 WS champions, the Astros as 2017 WS champions, the Dodgers as 2020 WS champions, without qualification. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with both objections, especially as this is just a list article, and not full prose. Historical analysis and documentation are better in prose in more appropriate articles, where such analysis can be properly discussed as reported in reliable published sources. Simply adding an asterisk or short comment in the table really wouldn't add anything useful for research that can't already be found elsewhere. BilCat (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

World Series
Cincinnati Reds are 1-0 verses the Boston Red Sox 1975 208.38.246.111 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)