This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Pitchers (11)
|
Catchers (2)
|
Infielders (7)
|
Outfielders (4)
Designated hitter (1) |
Pitchers (11)
|
Catchers (2)
|
Infielders (6)
|
Outfielders (6)
|
† - Did not appear in 2006 World Series
"This will potentially be the final World Series televised by FOX." Umm...for eternity or just for the next couple of years? BIG Tuna 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page marked as needing sources? It is about a future event. Seems like a waste of time, as does marking it as a stub. There's not a lot more information to add here, folks, nor a lot of reliable sources discussing future events. Reggaedelgado 01:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've recently changed the structure of that page (it's not really a disambig, isn't it?). I've added a bracket too. -- Howard the Duck 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone put the 25-man rosters for both teams here in the discussion page like was done for the rounds of the playoffs? Darwin's Bulldog 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity (since I am not a baseball expert by any means), why have a column for the "Home" team and one for the "Visitor"? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to show all of Detroit's scores in one column and all of St. Louis's in another? – Shoaler ( talk) 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect statement in the article about this being only the second matchup of classic 16 teams who haven't moved...the 82 series between St. Louis and Milwaukee was another such matchup. Vamsilly 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)vamsilly
all fixed Dool325 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone should mention, at least in the trivia section, how this world series had the worst ratings ever. There were many news stories about it, and the fact that dancing with the stars had more viewers. 128.252.188.235 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Not actually true. Because it went 5, it cumulatively had higher ratings than last year's Chicago sweep of Houston. Vamsilly 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)vamsilly
I believe in game 1 Inge was charged with obstruction rather than interference. The difference is that interference would have been intentional, while obstruction is unintentional. I remember the announcers making the distinction and stating that it was the latter rather than the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.146.170 ( talk • contribs).
Why is this on the front page? It's hardly something that interests anyone outside of the U.S. is it? Can we now put the F.A. Cup Final on there then?
Here is the trivia section. This needs to be written up as prose and incorporated into the main article per WP:AVTRIV.---==Trivia==
This article contains a
list of miscellaneous information. (June 2007) |
L0b0t 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not advocating deletion of the info. The information however interesting has to be written up as prose and incorporated into the body of the article. Not as a bulleted list in a contra-policy trivia section. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia not the sports page of the newspaper. L0b0t 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
looky here in '95 . . . trivia
looky here in '94 . . . triv...oops, no Series that year.
looky here in '93 . . . trivia
looky here in '92 . . . trivia
looky here in '91 . . . trivia
looky here in '90 . . . trivia
I'm tired of piping these links, so if you don't mind:
'Nuff said. Or perhaps not. Here's a tidbit from that last WS "Trivia" section linked above:
I don't think you can top (or is it bottom?) that for trivia. There's a simple reason that over a quarter of a century of trivia sections (and probably more) have piled up in these World Series articles: Writing well is hard work. It's just too easy to simply drop minutiae onto these pages and file them under "Trivia" and let somebody else do the hard work of integrating them . . . later.
Part of my motivation for dredging up all those links above is that I've noticed an inconsistency of style and layout, and some confusing or redundant info in all the WS articles going back to 1903. It's like the same car built by different contractors at different times with different materials. I find it a bit troubling because it's a sign of limited effort, limited means for anybody to have developed a plan for what could be a real highlight of WP (can you say "Fall Classic Portal"?). I found it fairly easy to take the '06 trivia about La Russa and Leyland and create a separate section under the "Background" section, and it seems to have held up since Friday night. But it took some time to sift through it and move the info.
Cutting to the chase: All this WS "Trivia" is classifiable. The better it's organized, the less it will seem like trivia, so if a handful of "labels" could be cooked up for categories of info formerly known as trivia, the overall style of these articles will seem to read better. That ought to settle the trivia issue.
Postscript: For instance, a 4-1 WS where one contender splits "on the road" and then comes home and sweeps to win 3 more and clinch is fairly rare from what I've looked up so far. What the Cards have done against Detroit in 2006 matches what NY (NL) accomplished in 1969 (except the Mets dropped Game 1 instead of 2 to Baltimore). I'm still working my way thru past Fall Classics to see when else this happened, so I can add this info to the '06 article in an appropriate place, but not as an addition to the dreaded Trivia section. A heading that might be appropriate for this info each and every year: Long series, short series. 4 or 5 games would classified as a short series, 6 or 7 classified as long. Easy to spot trends in this area and develop copy to fill a section like this. Was a short or long series predicted each year; by who; was a trend broken, were the prognosticators wrong, did a noted BB writer point this out so it doesn't smack of the dreaded Original Research? Now really 'nuff said. Schweiwikist (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those out. They will will be listed here [1]. Please understand, no one is advocating deleting the INFORMATION, just incorporating that information, prose style, into the body of the article. It is the trivia SECTION that is a no no, not the trivia itself. L0b0t 12:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it called the "World Series" when it is almost exclusively played by U.S.A. teams?
Does anyone outside of the U.S.A. even play baseball? Quite a few countries play cricket, which is kind of similar I guess, but I always thought baseball was an exclusively American sport.
Sounds to me like the organisers are trying to exaggerate the championship's significance slightly. Canderra 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the 29 the USA, there is a MLB team (and several minor league teams) in Canada. Also there are affiliates in latin areas such as Mexico and Dominican Republic (i.e. winter league baseball). Hmm, North Ameican Baseball Series perhaps? Nick81aku 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Baseball is very popular in Latin Countries and in Japan and Korea. Some of the best players in MLB are from other countries, a sharp contrast to American Football, which truly is not very popular outside of the US/Canada and nearly all players were born here. See World Series for more information on the origin of the name. I don't really think we Wikipedia editors can do much about the inaccuracy though. -- W.marsh 00:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
As the above editor indicates, the article explains why it is called the "World" Series, and has been called such since the 1880s. It is what it is. Commissioner Selig congratulated the "World Champion St. Louis Cardinals" on Friday night. Wahkeenah 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the EPL, also called the Premiership? Is it truly the premier football league in the world? Names are just names people. BTW-- the champion in Japanese baseball is also called "World Champions" and there is a Caribbean World Series as well. No one is trying to up the importance of anything or make a political point by naming the MLB championship the World Series. Ramsquire 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Many of the Series articles have quotes sections. I don't see any point in isolating them to another wikipedia section, or maybe more to the point, in isolating just this one. You would have to do it for all of them... in effect, creating separate articles in wikiquotes to be linked to by the individual Series articles. Is it really worth the effort? Wahkeenah 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Seems pretty clear to me. L0b0t 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We're working on it. Though I find it shameful that you would consider working torwards a well-written, concise article "useless busy-work", I realize there is a place for everyone at the Wiki table. Cheers. L0b0t 14:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Puzzling to me that we're not allowed to have trivia or quote sections, two things that both make the article more interesting, but we can have a listing of who sang the National Anthem. Really, who cares? Will anyone object if I delete this? Vidor 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a real reason to have an inning analysis of the fifth game? Retropunk 20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Are the mentioned here? They should be, they were notoriously poor. Quadzilla99 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
header 1 | header 2 | header 3 |
---|---|---|
row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |
row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |
Image:World Series - Game 3 Scoreboard.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:MLB-WS 7361.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And making the article worse. Vidor ( talk) 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)