Talk:World Series/Archive 4

Original research?
The section explaining the term "World Series" is intended as an explanation, not a justification. Whoever tagged that "original research" needs to raise some specific points here so that they can be properly addressed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An explanation made without citations is "original research". The FA Cup originally, and the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship and AFL Grand Final still, were/are played in the only countries where the relevant sports were popular; yet in no case did the organisers call them "world" championships. So the explanation given is not adequate for the United States. Conversely, the NFL championship was rarely called the world championship, even though US football is much less international. So the explanation is neither necessary nor sufficient. jnestorius(talk) 07:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Next thing you'll be telling us is that it's not actually called the World Series! The reason for that section was to explain the situation to those who griped that it "shouldn't" be called the World Series, as if that were wikipedia's decision to make. So the section is definitely necessary, but if it's insufficient, you need to raise specific objections, line-by-line if necessary, and we'll try to address them. And by the way, the NFL did indeed used to refer to its champions as the "world" champions, albeit of American football, which is safe since it's basically only played in America. In any case, the baseball championship has been called the "World's Championship Series" since the 1880s, and it may seem jingoistic, but it is what it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to compromise an article to placate cranks on the Talk page; respond to them on the Talk page. There are separate questions: Regarding the answers: jnestorius(talk) 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is it called the "World Series"?
 * 2) Is it justifiable to call it "World Series"?
 * 3) Is "World Series" meant literally or just a label preserved for historic/traditional reasons?
 * 1) The answer would appear to be: 1880s hype + 120 years of tradition/inertia.
 * 2) *The first bit should be in the history section. The reference says In 1884, the Providence Grays of the National League outplayed the New York Metropolitan Club of the American Association in a three game series for what was originally called "The Championship of the United States." Several newspapers penned the Grays as "World Champions" and the new title stuck.
 * 3) **It would be nice to cite an 1884 newspaper saying something like "The Grays are now the Champions of the United States; indeed one might well call them the Champions of the World."
 * 4) **"the new title stuck" is rather vague: did it stick instantly and unanimously? Looking at the contemporary match programs on baseball alamanac, 1911 is World's Championship Games, 1912 is World's Series, 1930 is for the Championship of the World, 1940 is World's Series, 1941 is World Series. It's worth distinguishing "World Series" the series of matches from "World Championship" the title at stake in the series.
 * 5) *The "New York World" urban myth is widespread enough to be mentioned and debunked.
 * 6) "The title of this championship may seem odd to some readers" is not a justification for answering this question, since it relates to the previous question. The justification would be something like "Some people have (jocularly or otherwise) questioned the appropriateness or accuracy of the name World Series"
 * 7) *I speculate that there should be some juicy examples of such questioning from U.S. journalists in the 1880s, or Latin Americans in the 1960s. There is the quote attributed to John Cleese: "When we [the UK] hold a World Championship for a particular sport, we invite teams from other countries to play, as well."
 * 8) *There are various arguments pro and contra that might be made. But only those that have actually been made by noteworthy sources should be given.
 * 9) The relevant information seems to be present in the article.


 * Excellent analysis, and it looks like it won't take too much effort to improve. I have to say that until this article, I've never actually heard anyone question the term "World Series". But I've never looked for anyone questioning it, either. We have to be careful about saying "some question..." because someone will post a "who?" tag. There may be a way to say that more directly, such as "the reason this event is called the world series is..." and that implies an answer to an unspoken question, which is kind of what you're saying anyway. The Cleese quote is good. The godfather of scholarly baseball historians was a guy named Harold Seymour. I'll see what his books have to say about it. Maybe not today, though. FYI, saying "ref-improve" is a better tag than "O.R." in this case, since there are some references, just not enough. Thanks for your help. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, some things never change. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to explain what that is supposed to mean. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Which teams play in the World Series?
Hello,

I don't have a clue about baseball and I visited here to learn about the World Series. The article does not make it clear how a team qualifies to play in the World Series. I believe this article could be improved with a short note at the start to explain this.

Lisztian (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article says, "The World Series is played between the champion clubs of the American League and the National League." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would hurt to just step back and try to look at the lede (introduction) from the point of view of an uninitiated non-North American. Or how would you answer in simple terms a four-year-old's question, "What is the World Series?"


 * (None of the following is to criticize other editors. I think I've made my own tiny contribution to tweaking the lede at some point. And I'm not proposing any specific re-edits below, just indicating some things that might be looked at afresh, as if the lede were blank and had to be—which I'm not advocating—written from scratch.)


 * For one thing, the lede doesn't say that the American and National Leagues are the top level of adult, professional baseball in the U.S. (Many sports championships around the world are played by students or other amateurs.) If my own impression, as a childhood immigrant myself, is correct, the actual learning process goes backward: people first hear about the World Series, and derive their later understanding of the National and American Leagues from those leagues' relationship to the Series. So explaining the Series as a battle between the two leagues might be a bit circular to one unfamiliar with both.


 * Although I've been too lazy to attempt my own editing of Major League Baseball, I have a similar problem there: it explains much important detail but might assume too much prior knowledge on the reader's part. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WBC vs. World Series
This whole section has been moved to a new sub-page, Talk:World Series/world title

Cleaned up trivia section
I have made an effort to clean up and sift through the trivia section and remove material which is of no possible interest. The section is quite a bit shorter, more readable, and largely free of items that aren't even real trivia items, like the note that detailed how the Red Sox have faced off against seven of the eight original NL teams. I have also added some items into the Modern World Series section detailing changes to the Series, namely the adoption of the DH, the shift to night games, and the use of the ASG to determine home field. Vidor (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people are agreed that the trivia section needed work; it had 56 randomly-arranged and sometimes-duplicative items before I sorted them into subsections last year (see the discussion section above.) But on first glance, I think you may have gone a little far. For example, I think it is interesting that the two Boston teams, the two Philadelphia teams and the two Los Angeles teams (unlike those from New York, Chicago and St Louis) have never met in a World Series, no matter where they were located — which might or might not support the idea that those cities' fan-base was indeed too small to support two strong teams simultaneously — while Boston (AL) has faced all of the other 7 National League teams of 1903 (only one team short of the Yankees). And I'd always wondered (until I worked out my own chart) about cross-state matchups in (e.g.) Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Texas and California. Others find significance in such facts as every team's now having reached the post-season, as either a pennant-winner, a division champ or a wild card. (Of course no item would have been posted if someone hadn't once thought it of interest.) Now that you've cut away the overgrowth, perhaps you can go over and see what can be replanted or at least discussed. (My first impulse was to be as bold as you, and revert all your deletions so we could start over afresh; but that seemed far too drastic.) —— Shakescene (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see how the Red Sox facing seven of eight teams is notable. The Yankees facing all eight, fine.  Nor does it seem worthwhile to write about the crosstown rivals that did NOT face each other in a World Series.  As for every team reaching the postseason, this is an article about the World Series, not the postseason in general.  Such information would fit better in a general article about postseason baseball (which I think does not exist on Wikipedia, although maybe it would be a good idea. Vidor (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
Tiresome bleating about the International Baseball Federation aside, the article has a much bigger problem. It has a huge, long trivia section. Wikipedia's pretty clear about not having long lists of facts in an article. How do we fix this? How do we make it better? I would assume that the section on prior attempts at a postseason baseball championship are relevant and useful. The sections on the actual history of the World Series--the strike, the fix, the DH, etc.--are useful. But the article looks ugly mainly due to line after line about how the Cubs and White Sox once played in an all-Chicago WS and whatnot. Maybe a full re-write of the article, on a chronological basis? A 1903-1909 section might mention how the Cubs haven't won a WS in 100 years since 1908. A 1940-49 section might mention how the 1947 World Series was the beginning to the "Subway Series" era in baseball. Vidor (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible methods of organization: 1) a straight history by decade 2) an article divided into sections on a historical basis...Dead Ball Era, Inter-war period, Post-WWII, Expansion, DH Era. Vidor (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people love these trivia, and the section answers many questions that even an extremely sporadic and casual follower of the game (like me) would have (e.g. did the Boston Braves ever play the Boston Red Sox?). The trouble is that the section has to be carefully watched because otherwise every visitor will add his or her favorite piece of trivia until the section becomes tiresome and unmanageable (I know because I sorted out 65 separate but unrelated trivia last year into something more coherent, which has since been drastically pruned.) There's a parallel problem with city articles where everyone believes his or her own school (or child's school) is significant enough to add to an expanding Christmas tree that becomes a long catalogue that's meaningless to outsiders. But as Baseball Bugs (I think) said when this question arose before, casual baseball talk is largely about trivia, and these trivia at least are ones that an untrained layman can understand (as compared to, say, superlative slugging or on-deck percentages). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They're boring and ugly and against Wikipedia policy. But, if one wrote out a longer history section one could make an effort to work some of that into the article.  The section that covers 1940-49 could mention that the whole 1944 Series was played in the same stadium.  Vidor (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up World Impact paragraph
Quite apart from the interminable debate above, I found I couldn't edit the following paragraph for style or clarity because (no doubt due to successive good-faith edits), the intended meaning was not readily apparent. Can anyone help (not in changing the meaning, but in clarifying it)?"According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or 'Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns', baseball scholars/historians explained that team players eventually would search world-wide for players to compete in 'World Games' or 'World Series'. While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who presently play baseball (although these games are only in North America now) it has remained 'World Series' as a result of those early competitions. In these late 1800 and early 1900 competitions (the early days of baseball), players and sports equipment promoter Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or America teams. These 'tours' didn't last long, yet it also gave the opportunity to promote baseball and sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules."

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This entire 764 word, eight paragraph section, which contains more than two dozen affirmative statements of "fact" and/or POV conclusions as to causes and effects, is (with the exception of some internal Wikilinks) completely devoid of any sourcing, references, and footnotes to support it. Without such sourcing to provide the required context as well as a basis for determining verifiability, it would seem to currently constitute little more than an unsigned "editorial" or original research "essay" in its present form which would tend to greatly diminish (or all but eliminate) its encyclopedic value. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC))


 * That paragraph is intended to explain why it's called the World Series. Not to justify it, just to explain it. Let's hear your non-editorial, alternative proposal. And feel free to try to keep it shorter. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All I want is help parsing the paragraph as it is, so that I can make the language clearer. The other dispute (over whether this section should exist and in what form) has taken up reams of space elsewhere on this talk page, and I don't need it to inundate this query, too. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first six of the eight paragraphs would probably be acceptable more or less as they are, but with the caveat that, per Wikipedia's verification policies, they definitely need extensive reliable third-party sourcing to support each of the many statements and conclusions therein. The final two paragraphs, however, appear to be pure editorializing and should, in my view, be dropped altogether. The only other thing that this section really needs to make clear, it seems to me, is that even though the word "world" is included in the title "World Series Championship," the series is not per se a "world" championship tournament. Its winners are play off champions of only the 30 professional baseball teams that, as member clubs of the National and American Leagues operated by Major League Baseball in the United States and Canada (Toronto, ON), are exclusively eligible to qualify and compete for the title "World Series Champions." However based on how I was treated when I tried to add this information to the article earlier, I think that for now I will leave the fixing of this section to others. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I don't have a problem with saying that it isn't technically a world championship tournament, although some of the winners and some of the media treat it as such. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...although I'd find a shorter way to say it than that. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph already states that the World Series is not technically a world championship tournament. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that something needs to be clarified about baseball only being played at a high level in america in the 1880's and 90's, as there was a fairly lively baseball scen in england until the late 1890's, as evidenced by the constuction of The Baseball Ground in Derby as the home of the Derby County Baseball Club, (later Derby County FC). Granted there was a large number of american players, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing at a 'high level'.--OffiMcSpin (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What brand of baseball are you talking about, American or British baseball? And was that amateur or professional? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well clearly it is American Baseball, as British baseball didn't come into existance until 1892 when the Welsh and English Rounders boards agreed to change the name of there sport. And the club alternated between periods of being professional and semi-pro.--OffiMcSpin (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want a really concise paragraph, you could say that it was originally called "World's Championship Series" in 1884, later shortened to "World's Series" and then "World Series". You could say that while it is not "officially" a world's championship, the major leagues and the American media sometimes use the term "World Champions" in describing the World Series winner. And if necessary, point out that the origin of the name had nothing whatsoever to do with the New York World newspaper. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That would seem to be a logical thing to do. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

¶ I removed the paragraph in question plus the section's final summary paragraph (below) until their precise meanings can be better deduced and articulated Additionally, although originally an American sport, the entire world still tunes in or attends these games. Therefore, it still involves and incorporates the "world" in one way or another; either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with foreign nations as well as present Olympic championships, or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".

Keep in mind, the context of the last paragraph ties in other points already previously mentioned within the article. You have to take it all into consideration, not just single out a specific paragraph. It doesn't alienate the meaning, merely gels it together. If unneeded, reword or reduce it. I think the below "book" I typed up should nip it in the bud. (hehe) See ya in a few months, or whenever I happen to get back to this page and scope out the "changes". I don't dwell on it too much, it's not the end of the world for me. Hey, there's that word again. World. (smile) Have fun! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My problems with the latter paragraph include unclear references to "it" and the easily-disputable characterization of baseball being "originally an American sport" (I've seen plausible arguments both for and against its origins in North America, Great Britain or even Roumania.) I think I understand the drift of the second sentence, but it's still rather ambiguous; if expressed more clearly, it might not be consistent with what was said earlier in this section. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the below paragraphs, if you viewed the documentary article it refers to, as well as the Spalding article (within Wiki), you will see it confirms what it's saying in this paragraph and certainly worth mentioning, as that is the true origin of why it includes "world" originally. That last paragraph simply ties the other previous points together (it originally said English sport which could be either N.A. or England, but was changed to American by someone) yet expresses it's a sport participated in and by the entire world in one way or another. Just my thoughts, I don't think we're gonna have to settle on a who's right or wrong. Just simply shorten it's text. The first paragraphs are how they were, the second bold set is how they could be. p.s. A general statement like the last paragraph needs no more sources/references as it's already been done previously. So eliminate it or add your own references instead. To remove it because it's not one of your edits isn't legitimate in my opinion nor discredits it. You can not disprove the one about the documentary (visit the site), if you watch it personally (as I have, not that that means anything) or check it's articles I mentioned, I think it will make more sense. Perhaps too wordy, but nonetheless, noteworthy. It's not that difficult to understand if you don't make it an unnecessary task. Smile and have a good day. Back to another article for me. Thanks! :)



According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars/historians explained that team players eventually would search world-wide for players to compete in "World Games" or "World Series". While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who presently play baseball (although these games are only in North America now) it has remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. In these late 1800 and early 1900 competitions (the early days of baseball), players and sports equipment promoter Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or America teams. These "tours" didn't last long, yet it also gave the opportunity to promote baseball and sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules.

Additionally, although originally an American sport, the entire world still tunes in or attends these games. Therefore, it still involves and incorporates the "world" in one way or another; either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with foreign nations as well as present Olympic championships, or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".



'According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns"'', baseball scholars explain how players searched world-wide for teams to compete in "World Games" or "World Series" during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Players such as Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or American teams. The "tours" didn't last long, yet it gave the opportunity to promote sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules. While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who still presently play the sport, it remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions.'''

(this could even be shortened a bit more but that about gets the point across. the wording may not be "perfect" but according to historians in this documentary, it's true.)

Additionally, the entire world tunes in or attends these games, which incorporates the series as a "world" event in one way or another.

(below section edited but left out... let me know if it makes any more sense this way or keep it all and tie it in together?)

;either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with other nations (including present Olympic championships) or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".

69.129.170.102 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional info: For what it's worth, I'm a native of Kansas City, home of the Negro League Museum and Buck O'Neil (featured in the documentary). While it's sometimes hard to prove/find the info via the Internet to back up statements, it doesn't make them incorrect (but I agree can be challenging to convey properly in an article). I say this because it's my hope that some of you are accepting of other editor's input and not monopolizing the entire article, considering the possiblity you may not know "everything" about a topic. Nonetheless in good faith, here are a few other references that may help though regarding the baseball and world series origin, etc.



1839: Abner Doubleday is credited with inventing baseball in Cooperstown, New York.



''In 1888-1889, Spalding took a group of Major League players around the world to promote baseball and Spalding sporting goods. Playing across the western U.S., the tour made stops in Hawaii (although no game was played), New Zealand, Australia, Ceylon, Egypt, Italy, France, and England. The tour returned to grand receptions in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. The tour included future Hall of Famers Adrian "Cap" Anson and John Montgomery Ward. While the players were on the tour, the National League instituted new rules regarding player pay that led to a revolt of players, led by Ward, who started the Players' League the following season (1890). The league lasted one year, partially due to the competitive tactics of Spalding to limit its success.''



Teddy Roosevelt and other illustrious Americans had gathered to celebrate the conclusion of a successful six-month world tour, during which baseball all-stars played 53 games in 50 cities, in such novice baseball countries as Australia, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Egypt, Italy and France.

Like the "Sham Wow" guy says, I can't do this all day. (smile) I thank you in advance...Happy Summer! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Please see also comments in the Talk section above.(Centpacrr (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

(cur) (prev) 00:58, 22 May 2009 Isaacl (talk | contribs) (51,956 bytes) (→International impact and explanation of the term "World" Series: copy edit; also removed opinion that is unnecessary - "World Series" is the name used by MLB; no justification is required) (undo)  <- wasn't opinion, please don't attack editors! give benefit of the doubt and/or research yourself. we're not here to prove who is right and/or have it our way by monopolizing articles like others. 65.27.100.0 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you the one who posted this edit? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen of the world, what's your pleasure?
I retitled the new "International competitions" mini-section "Intercontinental competitions" because the World Series reaches beyond the U.S. (Toronto won in 1992 and 1993, and the Expos were eligible to play while in Montréal.) The three logical alternatives are: The substantial effects are identical, but passions may flare over the inferred nuances of each solution. So whaddya think? (If necessary, I'll start a straw poll, but I doubt its necessity.) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) restore the name "International competitions", but add the bi-national World Series
 * 2) rename it, as I did, "Intercontinental competitions"
 * 3) rename it "Other international competitions"


 * How about "global" competitions? And if you're going to talk about global tournaments such as the WBC and the Olympics, you need to take Baseball World Cup out of the footnotes and put it into that section. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A problem with this article is that it leaves the impression that "World's Championship Series" or "World's Championship" was only used for the 1884-1890 contests. As I demonstrated earlier, somewhere in this mega-megillah, that term continued to be used in the media in the early 1900s and has never stopped since. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That section (WBC vs World Series) was bigger than everything else combined (over 100 kB), so I moved it into a new sub-page Talk:World Series/world title. In fact the new sub-page was so big at birth that I was advised to break it up and archive part!
 * And I guess that "global" would exclude a simple US-Canadian series. (By the way, hearing a university concert last night at Meehan Auditorium, home of Brown University hockey, I saw both U.S. and Canadian flags hanging from the rafters; I'm not quite sure why, since Brown has no substantial Canadian campus that I know of and I think her hockey leagues, such as NCAA, Ivy and ECAC, are all-American.) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they just think Canada has a nifty flag. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest deleting the section, and just putting references in the "See also" section, since the other competitions don't have any relationship to the World Series. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting them next to the Baseball World Cup entry? That would be reasonable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would there be any value in someone creating a small template on the order of "International competitions in baseball, softball and rounders" to go near the top of the relevant pages, with perhaps a corresponding template for the foot of other less-closely-related pages (e.g. 1986 World Series)? (Among other things, a top-of-the-page template might make disambiguating hatnotes simpler and more useful.) And what's the current organization of corresponding categories? —— Shakescene (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That could be done, although there is a risk of "undue weight". Comparing the importance of the World Series to the Baseball World Cup and the World Baseball Classic, is roughly the same as comparing the Super Bowl to the Pro Bowl. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue entirely

 * "World Series" is a trade name (or brand name) of MLB, and as such refers solely to the annual two-team tournament between the playoff champions of the National and American Leagues. The winners are most certainly and properly entitled to be called "World Series Champions" because that is the title (and only title) for which they competed and won. It is not, however, also a "world's" championship title as these are competed for in team sports exclusively in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams sponsored by their sports' respective national federations and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate.


 * There is not now (nor has there ever been) such a thing as a championship title of any kind (world, national, state, professional, amateur, NCAA, high school, etc) in sports that has ever been awarded on the basis of "long standing media tradition" no matter how long or short a time such a "tradition" may have existed. Winners of the "World Series" are indisputably "World Series Champions" -- but are equally indisputably certainly not also "world's" champions by default or because of "media tradition." (Centpacrr (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Who's saying that? Where? We're not talking about who's champion of the world, only about how the World Series got that name (which necessarily involves how other people have considered the issue), and how best to arrange the various international tournaments. There's only one reference to "media" in the whole page as it reads today and all it says is, "In spite of its name, the World Series remains the championship of the North American major league baseball teams (though MLB, its players, and the media continue informally to refer to the World Series winner as world champions of baseball)." which is what you just said above. Please don't import that 100 kB wrangle over here when that's not the topic, as you seem to do with every new section. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I only commented here because the issue was raised again immediately above: "A problem with this article is that it leaves the impression that "World's Championship Series" or "World's Championship" was only used for the 1884-1890 contests. As I demonstrated earlier, somewhere in this mega-megillah, that term continued to be used in the media in the early 1900s and has never stopped since." . (The phrase "long standing media tradition" came from the same editor in the other thread.) It was my understanding that the purpose of the section under discussion as it previously existed was to make clear that the word "World" in WS was not meant to imply that it was also a "world's" championship as well. The language in the section that affirmatively made the difference clear is no longer there. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC))


 * The problem is that we've drifted away from the original issue, which is that various editors kept complaining that baseball somehow doesn't have the "right" to call its championship the "World" Series. So that section was written in order to explain WHY it's called that, not necessarily to JUSTIFY it. And it's not wikipedia's place to justify it anyway. MLB and the media are the ones that would need to justify it. Wikipedia's place is simply to report the facts. And whether it is "justifiably" the World's Championship Series or not, THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. If someone has a problem with what it's called, they need to take it to MLB and the media, NOT to this article's talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment responding to the above in the section immediately below. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Documentation of 19th-century series
The following paragraph just seems too detailed (or too argumentative) for the general reader. I don't want to lose any of the details, sources, authors or comparisons, but I'm not sure what can be best sent to the footnotes for specialist appreciation:"“The 19th century competitions are, however, not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball,[6] as it considers 19th century baseball to be a prologue to the modern baseball era. Until about 1960, some sources treated the 19th century Series on an equal basis with the post-19th century series, such as Ernest Lanigan's Baseball Cyclopedia from 1922, and Turkin and Thompson's Encyclopedia of Baseball series throughout the 1950s. The Sporting News Record Book, by contrast, which began publishing in the 1930s, only listed the modern Series, although the TSN record books did include regular-season achievements for all the 19th century leagues. Also, a paperback from 1961 called World Series Encyclopedia, edited by Don Schiffer, mentioned the 1880s and 1890s Series' in the introduction but otherwise left them out of the discussion.”" By the way, you can add an authoritative, but decidedly non-specialist source to the list, The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 1929, whose list of "Baseball's World Championships 1884-1928" on page 776 (directly following "Players who were eligible for 1928 World Series") starts with Providence's 3-0 victory over the Metropolitans. Yes, according to the almanac, my town, not Boston, beat New York for the very first world championship! However, my 1943 World Almanac (p. 677) lists "Baseball World Championships—1903-1942" —— Shakescene (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was part of the explanation of the evolution of the term "World Series", and the point was to make it clear that the 19th century games once were considered, at least by a subset of the media, to be notable events. It wasn't until the 1960s that pretty much all the media stopped referring to the 19th century Series. It would be interesting to see at what point the World Almanac stopped including the pre-1900 Series games (sometime between 1928 and 1943, obviously). Maybe that information could be in a separate section - but it's still about the media's view of the event. It's one thing to report how MLB sees things. But it's another to see the evolution of the event by the media, which is verifiable, and is significant, although Centpacrr keeps arguing that what the verifiable sources say about it somehow doesn't matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sidetrack no. 2 into world championships

 * I think part of the problem here is not taking into account the historical nature and role of sports media in the United States -- especially in print media in the era from the late 19th Century on. Its practices and "traditions" have always been far different than in non-sports journalism in that accuracy, objectivity, and neutrality have been far less important (and often even rejected) characteristics of commercially successful sports coverage then have literary hyperbole, opinion, subjectivity, and the developing and maintaining of close symbiotic "partnerships" with the sports, games, leagues, teams, management, and players being written about. This issue is discussed at length in the of Sports and Media edited by Arthur A. Raney & Jennings Bryant (633 p. Routledge, 2006), in the chapters therein entitled A Historical Overview of Sports and Media in the United States and The Coverage of Sports in Print Media. The timeline A brief history of the name World Series'' is enlightening as well as it shows that the terms "World's Championship Series" and "World's Series" had been all but completely abandoned by baseball in favor of "World Series" by the mid 1930's. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Yet "World Champions" has seen frequent use in recent years at least. So when did they stop abandoning it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a straw man which was fully addressed earlier here and here. Also the promotional website of an interested party is not an independent source within the parameters of WP:IS and WP:NEU. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC))
 * There you go with that straw man thing again. Near as I can tell, the media have never fully stopped calling the Series winner the "World Champions". You can argue logic all day, but you can't get around that fact. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the "media" continue to use the phase "World Champions" should be determinative is your argument, not mine, and it is yet another straw man. The fact is that it is also irrelevant as the "media" and "long standing media tradition" are not the arbiters in the matter of determining the winners of "world's" championships in any team sports. Such titles are competed for exclusively in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams that are sponsored by their sports' respective national federations, and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate. Privately owned professional teams, such as the thirty clubs that make up MLB, are therefore simply not eligible to compete for or win such titles. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

A few points and questions, then. 1. Your sentence -- "Such titles are competed for exclusively in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams that are sponsored by their sports' respective national federations, and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate." -- seems to provide a definition of world championship that you wish to have reflected in the article. Do you have any references for such an implied definition? Is that sufficient, or merely necessary - in other words, are there other requirements as well, such as legitimacy? 2. Your use of World_Baseball_Classic as a link in that sentence is sneaky, by the way. Are you trying to argue that the WBC is more than an exhibition tourney during preseason training, and is, de jure, a legitimate world championship tournament? Right now, the article doesn't claim that the World Series winners are world champions, but it does say that they are often referred to as world champions by the media and themselves. Isn't that an accurate statement of reality? What's the point of fighting this back and forth, anyway? Sheesh. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Centpacrr continues to insist that the Baseball World's Champion has to fit his particular definition. And I'm not buying it. Hence the impasse. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Every team sport "World's Championship" or "World's Cup Championship" listed in the Wiki page List of world cups and world championships with the exception of two (the FIFA Club World Cup and Bandy World Cup which are specifically identified as being additional world's "club" championships in those two sports) are competed for and limited to "National" teams that meet the stated criteria of sponsorship by a national federation and the single nationality or nation origin of each team's player roster.


 * 2. The WBC player eligibility wikilink was included as an example of similar rules used to determine "nationality or national origin" for national teams in the other sports. I could have used ice hockey or any one of many other sports, but I selected the one I did because they are the first ones that I found that had a distinct Wikilink. I am not arguing (nor have I ever argued) that the WBC is the official "World's Championship of Baseball" or, for that matter, that there even is such a championship -- only that MLB's "World Series" tournament is manifestly not also for the "World's Championship of Baseball."


 * While the article does not currently specifically claim that the World Series winners are also World's Champions of Baseball, in its present form it can still leave that implication with readers who may not be be familiar with its status. This whole kerfuffle began when I attempted to add a one sentence footnote making that difference clear for which I was excoriated by another editor (I'm sure you can figure out who it was) who went so far as to get me blocked for 24 hours for "disruptive editing" (although I had never been blocked or even warned for anything before since registering as a Wikipedia user in 2006) over the matter, and who still continues to insist that these two championships are the same using "media tradition" as his sole authority. All I have ever wanted included in the WS article with regard to this issue is a difinitive sentence or footnote to make the difference between the two title clear along the line of:


 * "Despite the word "World" being part of the name of the tournament, the World Series is not a "world's championship" as that term is used in international team sports as qualification for and competition in the World Series is limited to the thirty member clubs of Major League Baseball." (Centpacrr (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC))


 * This sentence from the article isn't accurate or good enough, then?"In spite of its name, the World Series remains the championship of the North American major league baseball teams (though MLB, its players, and the media continue informally to refer to the World Series winner as world champions of baseball)." I could see adding the word "only" in there, admittedly. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would state it as follows:"While some informally refer to the winners of the 'World Series' also as 'world champions of baseball,' MLB's best-of-seven playoff is not a 'world's championship' as such titles in teams sports are only competed for among national teams made up of players representing their home countries whereas participation in the World Series is limited to the two League playoff champions of Major League Baseball located in the United States and Canada."(Centpacrr (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC))


 * And why do we have to explain what a world championship is here, especially in such detail that approaches original research and synthesis from another Wikipedia article? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To make difference between the two titles -- and reason why they are different -- clear and unambiguous. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Centpacrr's language (“MLB's best-of-seven playoff is not a "world's championship" as such titles in teams sports are only competed for among national teams made up of players representing their home countries”) would be prescriptive; and—though there are readers who mistakenly come to Wikipedia looking for the certainty of Holy Writ or a Code of Laws— that's just not Wikipedia's job. As has been said for months, repeatedly but apparently without effect, over acres of talk pages, all we can say is what others have considered and may consider to be the world's championship; since it's in dispute, we can't even say whether one exists. Some consider the Academy Awards to be the top prize in film, and others the Palme d'Or at Cannes; Wikipedia can't say what criteria should apply, or even whether there is a "top prize" in film, even though many would love to be able to clinch an argument about such a status with "Wikipedia says..." or "According to Wikipedia..." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So then how about a more neutral:"While some informally refer to World Series winning clubs also as 'world champions of baseball,' the MLB playoff is not a 'world's championship' tournament open to competition by groups of national teams made up of players eligible to represent their home countries but is instead limited exclusively to the two League playoff champions of Major League Baseball located only in the United States and Canada." (Centpacrr (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, for one thing, that's just not universally true: there are many ways to pick the finalists in a world competition, not just single champions of entire nations. Chess is an example where the talent is so concentrated in one or two countries that the finals are often between compatriots. And the lead already says the World Series is a contest between teams in North America. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It already says that, pretty much. Meanwhile, I made a few changes. I don't think it's wikipedia's place to be apologists for either MLB or anyone else, nor to overkill the point that it's not an "official" championship as reckoned by people who want "official" world championships to conform to a certain protocol. Keep in mind that all of this machination is simply to address the original complaint, that "the world don't play it". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My sentence does not attempt to address all possible forms of "world's championships" in all fields. It simply says that as a championship the WS is not the particular type of international team sport world's tournament (i.e. one involving squads representing many individual nations) in which the sport of baseball fits, but is instead -- and despite having the word "World" in its name -- a playoff tournament limited to two teams in a single privately operated domestic professional sports organization (MLB) for which national teams are not eligible to participate. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Proposed rewording
(approximate) — why be bold when you can discuss first? "“The 19th century competitions are, however, not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball, as the organization considers 19th century baseball to be a prologue to the modern baseball era. Until about 1960, some sources treated the 19th century Series on an equal basis with the post-19th century series. Beginning about 1930, however, many authorities would start beginning the (world) championship series of baseball in 1903, separated from their discussions of earlier contests. (For example, the 1929 World Almanac and Book of Facts lists 'Baseball's World Championships 1884-1928' in a single table, but the 1943 edition lists 'Baseball World Championships—1903-1942'. )”" —— Shakescene (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another book may be of interest, The World Series and Highlights of Baseball, by Lamont Buchanan, 1951. It discusses the Series through 1950, and includes illustrations from 19th Century play. I think it's worthwhile to report the trend toward ignoring the 19th Century Series, although it's risky to draw conclusions from it. My assumption would be that it has to do with the advent of television and of trying to be "modern". But I have not seen any source that discusses the reasons for it, so the best we can do is report what's verifiable, namely that by 1960, the 19th Century games were essentially off the radar. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

World Almanacs question for Centpacrr
On my talk page you said something about having a fairly complete World Almanac collection from the 20s into the 50s. If you've got the time and can put your hands on them easily, I'm curious to know what was the first year they de-listed the 19th Century Series and/or the last year they listed them, in their World Series winners table. That's a side issue to the "World's Championship" question. It's more to do with the trend, noted in the previous section, of how various media, one by one, began ignoring the 19th Century contests. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also want to re-mention the book Glory Fades Away, an early-1990s book that goes into considerable depth of discussion on the 19th Century World Series and Temple Cup Series. Here's an Amazon listing for it: Extra credit goes to whoever can identify the ballpark that the cover illustration illustrates. Hint: It's a colorized photo from the home park of one of the teams that participated in at least one of those 19th Century matchups. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find full online PDFs of many of both the early World Almanacs and many other Almanacs you are looking for here (Centpacrr (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you! I'll look at that when I get on my work PC, as my old home PC doesn't deal with Google Books very well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, most of the Google Books almanacs seem to be those in the U.S. public domain, i.e. before 1923, which is just before the gradual change we want to pin down. So we may want to ask for help from Centpacrr's personal collection (if it's any help, I can reciprocate with my set of Almanacs of American Politics going back to the first one in 1972.) And the original question was not when did they stop or start calling it a world('s) championship (leading to this endless sidetrack), but when did they stop considering 19th-century championships as part of the continuum? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I would like to know the answers to both questions - because they both figure into the topic of how the media covers this event. The Almanac stopped including the 19th century stuff with the Series results, but they continued to call it the world championship. So I'm curious to know when they stopped calling it the world championship. The point being that the media, overall have never totally stopped calling it the world championship. It's just that they don't do it so much anymore, proportional to simply calling it the World Series championship, treating "World Series" more like a brand than anything. But their continued (though sporadic) use of "World Champions" betrays at least the implication of its name, whether or not they know its origin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage
OK, I keep getting new epiphanies on this by looking at it from slightly different angles, and I think I might have a solution to this ongoing stalemate. See what you think: I think we're arguing the wrong argument. We're arguing over whether it's a world championship or not. I think it's fairly clear that it's not an "official" world championship, it's merely "claimed" by MLB and by media, to a certain extent. So I think the subject should really be (1) where the term "World Series" came from ("World's Championship Series") along with (2) the media and MLB's occasional claim to the "World's Champs" title. I say "occasional" because you can find frequent references to "World's Champions", but as time has gone on, "World Series champions" has become much more predominant as a term. "World Champs" has never gone away, but its percentage of use has dropped considerably since the early 1900s or even into the 1930s. I also think this ties in with the coverage of the 1880s-1890s Series, as part of the media evolution of the coverage of this event. A couple of questions about World Almanac remain: (1) what year did they stop covering the pre-1900 Series; and (2) what year did they stop calling it the world championship? I think that evolution makes for much more interesting (and verifiable) reading than the debate about whether it's "right" to call it the World Series or not, which is not wikipedia's place to judge anyway. And it would also thoroughly explain it to the original complainants from a couple of years ago or so, which triggered writing that section in the first place. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never had a problem with MLB using the name "World Series" or calling the winning team "World Series Champions." My issue has always (and only) been with conflating that with it being a "world's championship of baseball" as well simply because the word "world" appears in both. In the former "World" is a noun which is a part of the proper name of the tournament; in the latter it is an adjective modifying the type of "championship" being referred to. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * There's a point you keep overlooking: Whether you have a problem with it is not relevant. What's relevant is that the sources call it what they call it. It's unofficial, it's by custom and usage over a long period of time, but that doesn't change what it's called. And "World Series" is short for "World's Championship Series". It is not wikipedia's place to lecture the public at length on why MLB doesn't have the "right" to call its champions the "world champions". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of those points earlier in detail so I guess then that we will just have to just agree to disagree. While "World's Series" (possessive) as used up through the 1930's may have been a contraction for the original 19th century moniker "World's Championship Series," the current form "World Series" (non-possessive) -- as it has been called now for more than seven decades -- is not. It is just a name in which "world" is a noun and no longer an adjective. A position that the term "world champions" should mean something completely different when applied to baseball then is does in any other sport -- especially when this is based on a "media tradition" derived from long ago era of sports journalism hyperbole -- is both illogical and misleading no matter what organization(s) may continue promote such usage. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * The current new language now in the lead on this issue (not written or added by me) seems sufficient to me to make the difference clear."'The term 'World Series' is derived from 'World's Championship Series', a term which first appeared in the 1880s and continued into the early 1900s. This was eventually shortened to 'World's Series' and then 'World Series'. The Series has never been formally sanctioned as a world's championship event. The winner of the World Series is still occasionally, though unofficially, referred to as the 'World Champions' by media and by MLB.'" (Centpacrr (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC))


 * I changed the language slightly to read “While no authority outside North America has officially classified it as a world's championship event, its winners are still sometimes (though informally) called the "world's champions" or "world champions" by baseball players, owners and writers within the United States and Canada.” because the passive construction that the Series “has never been officially sanctioned as a world's championship event” implies that there's some ghostly power out there which has such power to grant such a title and that such a title might in fact exist. I tried to limit the language to something that is at least in theory easier to verify or rebut. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By saying that "While no authority outside North America has officially classified it as a world's championship event..." seems to me to be ambiguous as it leaves the implication that it is somehow recognized inside North America as an official World's Championship which is not the case. There is in fact a "ghostly power" in each sport that is authorized to sanction its world's championships which is that sport's IOC recognized international federation (the IBAF in the case of baseball). For that reason I think it is better the way it was before. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Technically, no authority anywhere has "officially" classified the Series as a world's championship. It's merely "claimed", through custom and tradition, and not very strongly claimed at that, from what I can tell. It's just something they say as part of the celebration, like when Frank Thomas told all (or half) of Chicago, "We're world's champions, baby!" Or when the Phillies put it on their website. In theory, the IBAF could say, "Hold on thar!", and then Selig could say, "Ya know, we don't have to let the major leaguers participate in the WBC", and that would be the end of that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Centpacrr, while I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on the wording question -- just because the IBAF is a recognized body by the IOC doesn't mean that it's necessarily authorized to do anything other than be the representative of baseball in the IOC. The IOC doesn't have the authority to grant world championship sanctioning that you claim. Same for FIFA, incidentally. Its power to hold world championships for soccer doesn't flow from the IOC or any other body -- its power comes from the fact that nearly everybody is willing to let it have the power, and recognizes the authority. The IOC could tell FIFA to pound sand, and it wouldn't affect the recognized legitimacy of the World Cup tournament as a world championship for national teams one single bit. Not too many people are willing to give the IBAF that power -- the IOC doesn't even want to give the IBAF a slot for baseball and softball in the Olympics! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently the reason the IOC is ending baseball as a medal sport is because MLB won't free up its players to participate. It does for the WBC, but only because it's during spring training and hence (hopefully) has minimal interference with the games that matter, which are the MLB regular season. All of this tells you plenty about where the priorities are. MLB is the head of the dog, and the IBAF is the tail that wags obediently. If MLB ever decided to "officially" declare the World Series as the world championship, no one else would have any say in the matter. Money talks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is still what is so different and unique about baseball that would make it acceptable to the rest of the world's sporting communities to be the ONLY team sport that would have competition for its world's championship title (if there is to be one) limited by fiat to the thirty member clubs of a single privately owned and operated commercial business (MLB) with self limited membership and which (with the exception of Toronto) is also located entirely in just one country thereby automatically and permanently excluding teams from any of the world's other 194 independent nations from competition? (Centpacrr (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

A few answers and a few questions. Possibly because few other sports have such a high percentage of the top professional talent concentrated in one league and system? How and why do the opinions of "the rest of the world's sporting communities" matter in this? Nobody is claiming that the World Series winners are world champions by fiat (although one could make an argument that the World Series winners are de facto the best baseball team in the world at that moment). I really don't know why you keep bringing that point up. What some here are objecting to is your proposed language that not only says that the WS winners aren't world champions (which is fine), but goes into details about what you think a world championship is, emphasizes the parochial nature of the WS, and practically sneers at the sheer commercialness of it all. Just as a side point, why couldn't the winner of an hypothetical international club championship tournament (perhaps held after the end of the World Series, Mexican Series, Japan Series, and whatever the other Asian league championships are called) be considered world champions? Why must your view of a world championship be limited to competition between nations? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will address each of your points here one by one:


 * 1) Re: the "high percentage of the top professional talent concentrated in one league and system"
 * You need look no farther than the National Hockey League and National Basketball Association both of which are currently in their post season playoffs and arguably each also has the highest percentage of their sports' world's top professional talent in their leagues. The NHL (which also has a higher percentage of non-North American players on its teams' rosters than MLB) has been crowning an annual playoff champion since its founding in 1917 but no Stanley Cup winner has ever referred to or considered itself to be the "world's champions of hockey." That title has been competed for an won annually since 1920 in the Ice Hockey World Championships sanctioned by the International Ice Hockey Federation which was won this year by Russia. While the NBA originally (1947) referred to its playoff finals as the "NBA World Championship Series" it abandoned that claim in 1986 when it changed the name to the far more accurate NBA Finals. Basketball's world title has been awarded quadrennially since 1950 in the FIBA World Championship sanctioned by the International Basketball Federation with the current champion being Spain.


 * 2) Re: Why the opinions of "the rest of the world's sporting communities" matter.


 * This seems rather obvious to me. It matters because by definition of the word "world," to be a "world's championships" each tournament would have to be conducted by the consent and in the name of the members of the "world's sporting communities" as a whole, not just by that of a single country.


 * 3) Re: "Nobody is claiming that the World Series winners are world champions by fiat,"


 * This was included in response to the contention above by User:Baseball Bugs that "MLB is the head of the dog, and the IBAF is the tail that wags obediently. If MLB ever decided to "officially" declare the World Series as the world championship, no one else would have any say in the matter. Money talks." I understand this to mean that he believes that MLB has the absolute right to declare the WS a "world's championship" on its own volition, i.e. "by fiat."


 * 4) Re: Going into details about what I think "a world championship is" (as opposed to the playoff championship of a commercial sports league).


 * The Wikipedia page List of world cups and world championships lists 100 internationally sanctioned men's and women's "World's" and/or "World Cup" championships in various team sports. All but two of these (the FIFA Club World Cup and Bandy World Cup which are specifically identified as being additional world's "club" championships in those two sports) are competed in exclusively by national teams that are sponsored by their sports' respective national federations, and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate. On the other hand, none restricts competition exclusively to the member clubs of a single privately owned and operated commercial sports business with self limited membership.


 * (Centpacrr (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Centpacrr asks what would make the Series "acceptable to the rest of the world's sporting communities". OK, here's the deal: Soccer is the world's game. Baseball is America's game, that happens to be played in some other countries. As an American, I'm going to go out on the Republican-sounding limb here and say, Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was basically the attitude of British (Association) football fans before England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland entered the FIFA World Cup in 1950. In a famous match of 1947, Great Britain (& Northern Ireland) beat the Rest of Europe 6-1. (See United Kingdom national football team, as well as United Kingdom national football team.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The significance of what the rest of the world thinks is reflected in this discussion. The article is right in identifying why the event is called the World Series. And I agree that it's not the article's job to argue whether it's a valid name or not. It IS the name. But what clearly is of note is the fact that the name is seen as controversial, especially outside the United States. Anyone who has lived outside the US and discussed this matter there will have heard views along the lines of "typical American arrogance", etc. Whether this is fair is not the point. What's significant is that it is an issue. The problem I have is finding appropriate citations for it.


 * And here's some admittedly quite unencyclopaedic, original research for you. In my own case and many of my own generation of Australians (60ish now) it wasn't the media (the title of this section) that first drew the World Series to my attention. It was American WWII movies we saw on TV as kids. To test that someone wasn't a spy, the US heroes would typically try to trick him with "Who won last year's World Series?" with the implication that all good friends of the USA would know this obvious fact. Of course we had no idea, and saw it as "typical American arrogance", even though we and the USA were on the same side in the war. So, it's been a controversial title for a long time. I say that the controversy belongs in the article, while the argument doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add to that, and to avoid any possible offence, my personal view now is that the proportion of arrogant Americans is probably very similar to the proportion of arrogant Australians. I visited the US last year and had a wonderful time. And I do like baseball. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IBAF: As I mentioned on the WikiProject Baseball talk page, teams compete internationally after having agreed upon a common set of rules, which can include agreeing on naming the winner of a given tournament the world champion, or agreeing upon a point ranking system to declare a champion, or anything else. Without any agreement in place, there is no undisputed world champion. IBAF is just the current framework under which the terms for global baseball competitions are negotiated. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting "international participation" section
Blah blah blah. Look, here's the deal. It's called the "World Series". No justification is necessary or required. It just is. The explanation of the term's history is all that's required, or appropriate, since Wikipedia's place is not to argue for one or the other POV. And that's all the article should contain.

In fact, in accordance with my comment above, I am going to delete the entire section about "international participation". The World Series is not an international tournament and has never pretended to be an international tournament, and information (poorly sourced information about that) about international tournaments such as the WBC and the defunct Olympic baseball competition is not relevant to the article. Nor is there any justification to have information about international tournaments and not have information about the championships of other professial leagues such as Nippon Baseball. Such information about international play, if it is deemed necessary, should go in the Baseball article or possibly in an entirely new article. Vidor (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the increasing diversity of national origin for participants in the World Series is notable, and so a brief section describing this, or incorporating this information into the other sections (similar to what you plan to do with the various bits of trivia, which will be a great step for improving this article) is appropriate. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization
I propose, as I wrote above, reorganizing and rewriting the entire History article in order to integrate as much of the trivia as possible into the text. The section about precursors to the World Series will remain the same. Here is my idea for how to break down the History section:


 * Beginnings (1903-1918)
 * Between the Wars (1919-1941)
 * World War II and the Yankee Dynasty (1942-1964)
 * Expansion and the DH (1965-1995)
 * Recent history (1996-present)

I will start work tomorrow. I will include as much of the "trivia" as I can into the History section. Vidor (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your approach, but I just have to disagree. People, including me, do look for trivia as trivia and are not going to read through history for them. E.g. typical bar-room arguments such as did the Braves ever play the Red Sox? or what were the Subway Series? or how unusual is it for an expansion team to win a pennant or a Series? [the very questions that prompted me to construct a paper World Series chart for myself ten years ago.] People who have such questions may not be interested in Ban Johnson or the dead-ball era, and often prefer to see the answers in one place. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that trivia is so diverse that putting all the little bits of miscellaneous data together in one place makes it harder to find the specific fact being sought when it is in the middle of a huge pile of other unrelated info. Braves vs. Red Sox? Put it in their articles. Subway Series? It has an article of its own. Expansion team in playoffs? Well, there were many expansion phases, so it's hard to answer in one place anyway; the info can go in articles about each phase. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are valid points in my view, but I must side with User:Shakescene's approach here. In many ways trivia is an essential part of the "life's blood" of sports in general and baseball in particular. If one is looking for a particular bit of trivia "in the middle of a huge pile of other unrelated info," it is very easy to find with a simple word search of the page (or by a Google search if looking web wide.) I'll freely admit that as the author of a published sports trivia book on ice hockey (The Hockey Trivia Book, Leisure Press, 1983) I have a definite point of view on this subject, but I also believe that it is well founded based on my experiences as a life long sports "tivialist." (Centpacrr (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC))


 * But after editing the Local rivalries subsection, and looking over the others, I can certainly agree that there's ample room for tightening and clarification. Sometimes, the point isn't clear to non-fanatics, and sometime it wouldn't interest them if it were. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say, since search tools can be used to find info from a web site, there is no need to group everything into one ginormous list on a single page — facts can be logically placed within the most relevant location. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Most people don't know how (or may not wish) to use "search functions" to find such information, and many of the questions don't lend themselves to usable search terms. And if I'm interested (which I am) in comparing cross-town and cross-state rivalries, I don't want to jump around different decades and paragraphs to reconstruct the comparison for myself. —— Shakesce.ne (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which illustrates why organizing information into relevant articles and sections is useful, in order to make it easier to find. The section on rivalries, for example, is much easier to sort through now than before. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't gotten around to this yet. Maybe tomorrow. Vidor (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What articles and discussions have been moved or merged?
When I look at my watchlist, I see a bewildering range of moves and merges by User:Graham87. I'm not surprised by the number, because I know that a careful move or merger needs to take a number of steps to keep histories and discussions intact. (A huge amount of extra work, much of it still to be done in terms of checking redirects, was caused by a clumsy and premature move of New Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium (1923).) However, since they haven't been mentioned here before, I would like to know what the general thrust of these moves is, and what were the reasons for them. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was doing a history merge so that all the edits to the World Series article could be in one place. Regarding the discussions, I moved some old discussions that were at Talk:World Series (baseball to Talk:World Series/Archive 1, and renumbered the other archives accordingly, moving archive 2 to archive 3 and archive 1 to archive 2. No links or redirects need to be fixed as a result of these moves. Graham 87 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the title "World Series"
I've heard that the title comes from the name of the organization that used to sponsor the series a long time ago (i.e., the word "World" was not meant to refer to the Earth, but rather to the organization, something like a newspaper called the "World Post," I believe). Is there any truth to this? Thanks. --JohnJSal (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just a myth. This was discussed previously; see this page on Snopes for a detailed explanation. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --JohnJSal (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Game-by-game section
As the Cubs have been mathematically eliminated from the possibility of participating postseason play in 2009, I have updated the information about their drought to reflect this fact.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:21, 24 September 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, List of World Series champions, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC) needs full edit protection from evryone exept moderators —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.196.97 (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, you can't say who had home field edge prior to 1924, for any Series that didn't go the limit. Maybe "N/A" would be applicable in those cases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Results of championships after home field advantage decided by All-Star game
I don't believe it is a scalable approach to list the results of every series and its length for championships from 2003 onward. If the results after the change in home field advantage is deemed notable, perhaps some other technique could be employed to summarize the notable info? (Probably better would be to refer to a reliable source that discusses the home field advantage.) Isaac Lin (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply listing the NL wins vs. AL wins would probably help, along with the fact that there have been no Game 7's since 2002, which was before the rule was adopted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the occurrence of a Game 7 is not the only way that home field advantage comes into play, particularly with the 2-3-2 pattern used during the World Series. To avoid going down too many what-if paths, maybe just listing how many times a team has won with home advantage (which of course at the moment just equals the number of AL wins). Isaac Lin (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, the theory that you get a jump-start by playing the first two at home. But it didn't do the Yankees any good in 2003, nor the Tigers in 2006, nor the Rays in 2008. But maybe a column could be added to the list of winners indicating whether they had home-field edge or not. That gets to be a problem before 1924, and also during some of the war years. In fact, prior to 1924, the location of Game 7 was determine by coin toss prior to Game 6. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, you can't say who had home field edge prior to 1924, for any Series that didn't go the limit. Maybe "N/A" would be applicable in those cases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who had home-field advantage in 1921, 1922 and 1944? The landlord team? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, the Cardinals did in 1944, as they had Games 1-2-6, and 7 wasn't needed. In 1921, a best-5-of-9, they alternated, starting with the Giants as the home team in Game 1. In 1922, it was back to best-4-of-7, and they again alternated, again starting with the Giants as the home team, and even after the tied game. But neither of those games went the limit, so Game 9 or Game 7 hosts remain undetermined. I don't know if the Giants won a pre-Series toss both times, or if they simply exercised their privilege as landlords. In 1942, the Cardinals had also had Games 1-2-6-7, except it was over in 5. In 1943, the first 3 were in St. Louis and the final 4 scheduled for New York, but the Yankees turned the tables and won it in 5. 1945 was another wartime year, and they had 3 in Detroit (the Cubs taking 2 of them) and 4 in Chicago (the Cubs losing 3 of them). In 1946 it was back to 2-3-2, with the NL having 1-2-6-7. As far as true home field advantage, I think that's overrated. In 1915 and 1916, the Red Sox played their home games in the unfamiliar Braves Field, and they won every game there, on their way to Series wins. Home field doesn't mean all that much. The better team tends to win. The Yanks this year took 2 of 3 at home, and 2 of 3 in Philly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about playoff stats, but an extensive Baseball Prospectus study has shown that a home field winning percentage of about 54% has held throughout the history of baseball. Isaac Lin (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be up to a statistician to tell us if a number so close to the mean is really statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was a young'un, there seemed to be a lot of 7-game Series, which is becoming relatively rare now, maybe due to the extra layers of playoffs and what it does to a pitching staff. But in any case, I always thought the team with the middle 3 games had the advantage, since they could get some momentum going. By now I've pretty well become convinced that it comes down to which team has the better pitching. The Phils' two wins came with Cliff Lee on the mound. You aren't likely to win a Series with only one steady starter and with a shaky bullpen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author at Baseball Prospectus, who is quite adept with statistical analysis, did conclude that the value was significant. It is after all over a century's worth of data being examined, so the sample size is very large. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting followup would have been to correlate apparent home field advantage with the records of the clubs involved. A team that's playing above .500 might be expected to better, in general, when facing a team that's below .500, no matter whose field they're playing on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a subscription, you can read the series for more info: here's Part one, from which you can follow the links to the next parts. Over the last 11 years, other than the Rockies, all the teams had roughly the same home field advantage. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

An aspect of "home-field advantage" that is unique to MLB is the DH rule (used in the AL park). It was not a conclusive factor this year, as there were only 6 games, i.e., 3 games in each league's park, and the DH didn't help NY in Game 1, but it clearly played a role in the decisive Game 6, with the MVP performance of DH Matsui. (The NL team's DH is a pinch-hitter who batted perhaps once every two or three games during the season [i.e., 80 to 100 at-bats], while the AL team's DH batted three or four times every game the whole season [i.e., 500+ AB's].) Eagle4000 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For What It's Worth (cue Buffalo Springfield) to others, here are all the 7-game series (out of 7) since 1903, courtesy of the sort button at List of World Series champions (obviously Bugs has his harefeet on a much-more-detailed listing with the hosts of each game in each series). The 7-game series seem fairly evenly distributed from 1945 to 1987, but only four of the 21 subsequent series have gone the distance, so Bugs' memory is probably serving him right. On the other hand, Game 7 is only one of the advantages of having home-field advantage. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Bloat
Seems like there is a lot of information in the article that is not directly relevent to the World Seris, such as a detailed discussion of the 1994 Strike and cross-town rivals that have never met in the World Series. This information should probably be moved to specific articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Any objections?Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You should probably talk over the individual items first, as most of them have been considered before. With the cross-town rivals, it's tricky answering all the likely questions from ordinary non-expert readers like me (e.g. have teams from Boston ever contested a Series?) without letting too much extraneous detail creep in (like Baltimore-Philadelphia or 2 mentions of LA-LA). The 1994 strike did disrupt the Series, and needs to be explained, but again I don't know how much detail is needed. On the other hand, the length of the article has stopped me reading the whole thing through at one sitting, so some trimming and rearrangement could be helpful. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did trim 2,400 bytes from the local rivalries section; perhaps someone could start a new article on Baseball rivalries to accommodate a broader picture (the Red Sox – Yankees rivalry already has its own page). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found out there's a Baseball Rivalries redirect to List of Major League Baseball rivalries, which is more of a directory than a discussion, but might be expanded a little to cover those series. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes
Isaac Lin (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the initial paragraph for the "Local rivalries" section, I believe the parenthetical remark "(and for their fans to compare them)" is not required, as it is implicit as part of two teams playing against each other. I also believe that "officially-recorded competition" is unnecessarily verbose and that "official competition" is sufficient.
 * Regarding the section heading "Cross-town and trans-Bay Series", I believe that "trans-Bay" is overly-specific, and really "cross-town" ought to be sufficient, where town is more broadly interpreted as metropolitan area. With an eye towards arguments from literal-minded editors, I propose using a broader term such as "Metropolitan area Series".
 * Given that the section is entitled "Local rivalries", it seems overly broad to have a subsection called "trans-Canada" rivalries. I propose renaming the section to "Regional rivalries".
 * Given that the section is about local rivalries in the context of the World Series, and that another article exists to cover MLB rivalries in general, I believe a mention of the Pearson Cup is not appropriate in this article (many of the two-team cities have had competitions in the past, and I do not believe they should all be mentioned in this article).
 * Thanks for your comments. Let me explain my own thinking:
 * While I'm sure there's a more graceful way of including it, I was trying to tie the second sentence to the first, about fans within a single city rooting for different teams.
 * "Regional rivalries", I'm afraid, would just re-open those discussions of New York-Philadelphia, Philadelphia-Baltimore and Baltimore-Washington series, indeed any rivalry between adjoining states, and those treatments do indeed belong in the List of MLB rivalries. Maybe the Bay Bridge Series, like the yet-to-be-played trans-L.A. series, has to go into the cross-state section, although they both fit better into the cross-town section.
 * I see no harm in brief mentions of some of the cross-town exhibition series, not mentioned in the List of MLB rivalries because that list is a directory page. In the case of the Pearson Cup, moreover, I see a much stronger case, because it was the closest thing to a national series in Canada.
 * I think that for the Blue Jays and Expos, the rivalry between Toronto and Montréal as cities was more important than that between the provinces of Ontario and Québec, or between Anglophones and Francophones (see Toronto-Montreal rivalry), but I could be wrong and welcome clarification from those who know Canadian baseball better. It's difficult to think of a good title that isn't obscure to Americans and doesn't open the floodgates I mentioned above. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your comments:
 * I don't believe any additional link is required between the two sentences: a rivalry exists between the two teams, and prior to 1997, they would only meet if they both reached the World Series.
 * I think the San Francisco-Oakland and the Dodgers-Angels rivalries fit within the existing cross-town / metropolitan area section. (To avoid confusing this point with my suggestion for renaming the cross-state section, I will defer comments on a Regional rivalries section.)
 * If a rivalry is significant, it ought to have its own page where any competition can be described. As this section is describing rivals who have encountered each other during a World Series, I believe it dilutes the topic to mention other competitions.
 * The Toronto-Montreal rivalry is indeed one between cities, and doesn't really fit under Local rivalries (it is in a sense a central Canada rivalry, but the rivalry is primarily one between the two largest Canadian cities). As it is in fact a crack in the floodgates for rivalries covering any distance, the only way to avoid this is to either remove it entirely, or remove it from the Local rivalries section and create a new section, say Canadian rivalries.
 * Isaac Lin (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I welcome any additional comments from anyone; it would be nice to reach an agreement on these changes. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my own thinking: while I was pondering some way of resolving some of the difficulties (e.g. trans-Canada as a "local rivalry"), I was hoping that some third- or fourth-party comments might suggest something new or at least offer a hint as to which way other editors might be leaning (and—by imperfect extropolation—how outside readers might tend to react). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Having just been invited to offer comments, I would say that -- for the sake of consistency -- the Toronto-Montreal rivalry should not be listed, as it too is not a "local" rivalry, but instead is a rivalry between cities not in the same state/province. It should instead be listed at List of MLB rivalries. If you decide to keep it and list it under "Canadian (inter-provincial)" rivalries, I would like to suggest adding a corresponding section for "Interstate" rivalries. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering which year it was that Toronto and Montreal faced each other in the World Series. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Forty years after the famous SEPTA Series between the Phillies and the Philadelphia Athletics, and sixty years after the MTA Series between the Red Sox and Braves. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeh. I keep forgetting about those pesky parallel universes. Like the one where it's the Cubs that have 27 World Series championships. And a couple of Super Bowl wins as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in a Euclidean system, our universe would be just as parallel to theirs as theirs is to ours. And no doubt in their universe, it's only in our "Pesky" (to them) parallel universe that the Yankees get to win 27, Ebbets Field is demolished, Route 66 vanishes and I-70 is built. How would this relate to the Pesky Pole? (Or as the Weird Sisters would say "fair is foul, and foul is fair...") Perhaps, I'm indulging in too much faulty parallelism? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although technically in a "Pesky" parallel universe, it would be the Red Sox with all the victories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some specific proposals would help with obtaining feedback? I propose the following changes to the "Local rivalries" section: Isaac Lin (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the initial paragraph, remove the parenthetical remark to improve conciseness and avoid redundancy; it is implied by the fact that teams did not face each other during the regular season prior to interleague play.
 * In the initial paragraph, reword "officially-recorded competition" with "official competition"; the "-recorded" suffix does not alter the meaning in a significant manner.
 * Change heading "Cross-town and trans-Bay Series" to just "Cross-town Series", which is sufficiently descriptive to include the case of San Francisco playing Oakland.
 * Change heading "Other cross-state and trans-Canada rivalries" to just "Other cross-state rivalries", and delete the paragraph on Toronto and Montreal, as they are not a local rivalry, and did not meet in the World Series. Keeping it within the "Local rivalries" section invites other non-local rivalries to be included.
 * Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I was trying to think this through from the other end, so I'll reply to Isaac's specific points later. One problem, I think, is that local rivalries are dealt with too cursorily in the List of Major League Baseball rivalries because it's a list (often of stubs or red-links), but on the other hand the subject of rivalries is more general than those that relate specifically to the World Series (e.g. Red Sox-Yankees, Giants-Dodgers or Toronto-Montreal). The most appropriate place for many of these rivalries might be at Major League Baseball which presently has no such section; and given the space that the MLB article gives to (for example) uniforms, steroids and media, it would be hard to argue that such a section wouldn't belong. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not expand List of Major League Baseball rivalries with additional information (or any corresponding articles pointed to from that article)? Isaac Lin (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A thought just struck me about the Expos-Blue Jays rivalry (or at least hoped-for rivalry) and the Pearson Cup. [I wanted to include some mention, regardless of formal categories, because it's a question that naturally intrigued me (together with questions like did the Braves & Red Sox, or Phillies & A's, or Indians & Reds ever play a Series), and one that would likewise either frustrate other readers or entice them into repeatedly inserting it.] Perhaps it could be somehow worked into World Series both negatively (the Blue Jays' two Series were against U.S. teams) and positively (with the Pearson Cup being an example of MLB playoffs outside the U.S.) If desired, passing mention could also be made of the Expos' leading position before the 1994 strike/lockout. And this would avoid tempting others to insert Baltimore-Philadelphia and similar purely-interstate rivalries. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to put discussion of a non-World Series rivalry onto the rivalry page or a page specific to the Jays-Expos competition. In this particular case, as the Expos have never been in a World Series, it's pretty clear Toronto and Montreal have never competed against each other for the championship. It would be misleading to call the first incarnation of the Pearson Cup an MLB playoff, and the teams used minor league pitchers, so although I do believe the players and managers took it somewhat seriously, it wasn't really showcasing the two full MLB rosters. When interleague play started, bragging rights for a Pearson Cup winner was assumed by the team that won the most games, but I think it was primarily something for the media to mention (I don't think the trophy was resurrected nor any marketing built up around the specific concept of a Pearson Cup). Isaac Lin (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to background colours for table cells
I reverted the change made to the background colours in the table cells, as I believe the change decreased legibility. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I'm pretty sure I would even had I not devised the original colour scheme (which built upon the already-existing and widespread Republican-Democratic colour scheme without intending to make any political implications). That doesn't mean that my colours are perfect or couldn't be improved, but they avoid the red-green colour blindness problem, and reflect the official colours of the two leagues. WP:Accessibility does recommend teal as an alternative to green in stop-go schemes that might cause problems for the red-green colour-blind, and that might have been one aim of the most recent changes, but that consideration doesn't apply here. I think most of us find the novel scheme very hard to read for blue-linked teams, and it would be even less legible if your default colour for previously-visited links is purple or brown. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)