Talk:World Series

1904

This article, as with the list of World Series champions, leaves the reader with the impression that there was going to be a 1904 Series and that the Giants boycotted it. That's not quite true. The Series of 1903 was arranged between the ball clubs. The 1904 Giants announced weeks ahead that they did not intend to play a post-season Series against the AL champion (which, at the time of the announcement, looked like it could be the Yankees). No Series was scheduled for 1904, so reporting that the Giants caused the "cancellation" of the Series (as the list had it, and which I removed), is incorrect. Calling it a "boycott" is closer to the truth, but still there was no Series scheduled, so it's questionable. The Giants themselves were instrumental in establishing the Series as a required championship, operated by the National Commission rather than by the individual clubs. From that day forth, the major league office has run the post-season, rather than the clubs. Give the Giants credit for having the vision to force a better system than what had existed during the 1880s, and in 1903-04. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The World Series has been the annual championship series of the highest level of professional baseball in the United States and Canada since 1903

Frankly, the lead sentence should specify "since 1905" and the lead section should explain why not 1903. At the same time it shouldn't be necessary to give the Giants a lot of credit. --P64 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Local rivalries

I propose the following changes to the "Local rivalries" section:

• 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.

Isaac Lin (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am proceeding with these changes. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"first" World Series

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

76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's best to keep the pre-1903 stuff separate, as we do now, and as modern sources typically do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How can this be called a "World Series" when only Americans play the game?

"About" note

I do not believe it is necessary for the "About" statement to explain that MLB is a North American organization, as there is no risk of confusion with an annual championship series for another group called Major League Baseball. I propose removing this portion of the sentence. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

World Series is a very vague term; someone who knows little of baseball might, for example, be looking for the World Baseball Classic. And Japan, among other countries, has major leagues, so the meaning of "Major League Baseball" isn't instantly or universally apparent or intuitive. If we said something (as once I think we did) roughly like This article is about the annual contest between the American and National Leagues of baseball, then that wouldn't need further clarification for those who don't already know the subject. ¶ Back in 1903, anyway, Major League Baseball wasn't a capitalized term (and the New York Giants, who disdained in 1904 to play the representatives of "an inferior league", wouldn't then have granted Major League status to that inferior circuit.) Except incidentally, this hatnote isn't to tell those looking for the World Series that they've arrived at the right place; it's to tell those who are seeking something else that they haven't. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

After writing all that, I realized that the article also deals, although briefly, with the championships before the American League's formation in 1900-1, so referring to the AL and NL in the Hatnote might be misleading or confusing. Insofar as that's true, I'd prefer the present wording. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the other uses of the term "World Series", I don't believe there is any ambiguity in the use of the term "Major League Baseball" to differentiate this article from others. However, I am open to hearing the opinions of others. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The overly-wordy explanation was a consensus position to address the complaints of those who think MLB doesn't have the "right" to call it "World Series". Let's not start that battle again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article wondering what the World Series was, and what countries play in it. Looking through the article, I see reference to Major League Baseball (for which I have no point of reference - I don't know what it is or where it's played), National League and American League (which makes me think it's not really 'World' but 'America'), and then later on I see reference to it having 'returned to Canada in 1993' (although my skim didn't help me find anything about when it left or knowing anything about it being there in the first place - maybe I skimmed too much). I finally found what I was looking for in 'International participation', which wasn't that obvious despite the title, as it was near the end of the article. To myself, a Brit with no knowledge of the topic or the area, giving this form of context in the introduction would have been handy. That it's not to be confused with any other organisation called 'Major League Baseball' doesn't help the article, as without the context of what that is, I was none-the-wiser. I can understand that it's not possible to define everything, but it does seem to be common practice to give a geographical reference in the introductory section. And particularly as the name itself is contradictory to its coverage, it might help. Maybe, as an outsider, this opinion might help suggest that it be included. (Justin Fletcher) 86.9.150.154 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you rewrite the lead to make things clearer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pulling out last November from the article's history, I see this version of the "About" note:

This article is about the annual championship series of Major League Baseball, the highest-level professional baseball organization in the United States and Canada. For other uses, see World Series (disambiguation).

Would that clarify the meaning enough early in the article for Justin Fletcher? I do notice that the current hatnote and lead seem to have lost almost all of the geographical identifiers they used to have, on the assumption (which I don't share) that "everybody knows" or, worse, "everybody should know". Forty years ago, most Americans had no idea what the World Cup was. See also #"About" note, revisited, below. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a weaselly way around the debate over whether MLB is the highest level of baseball in the world. That's [possibly] debatable, but the fact it's the championship of the MLB organization is not debatable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As I discussed below, I support having an indication of the geographical area in which MLB operates in the lead. How about: "The World Series is the annual championship series of the world's highest-level professional baseball organization, Major League Baseball (which consists of franchises in the United States and Canada)." isaacl (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be OK except you need to say "which CURRENTLY consists of..." because otherwise it implies that it's the championship "of North America", which it ISN'T. It's the championship of the organization called Major League Baseball, which just happens to operate in North America. They could decide to add teams in Korea and Japan someday, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the sentence plainly says that the World Series is the championship series of Major League Baseball, I do not believe there is any implication that it is the championship of North America. I also believe that the word "currently" would be redundant; naturally this sentence is speaking of the present, and not the past, or future. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the history of the debates over the wording? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the recent ones. Did the specific wording proposed come under debate before, or something very similar? I did raise objections previously to the wording "The World Series is the annual championship series of Major League Baseball in North America," as there was some ambiguity in this statement (it seems to imply that MLB may run championship series elsewhere). But since my current proposal plainly says, in accordance with your suggestion, that the World Series is the annual championship of the world's highest-level baseball organization, Major League Baseball, and the following description of MLB is specifically tailored to describe the membership of MLB in a parenthetical remark, I believe it avoids ambiguity. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been debated for years, especially by those who don't think MLB has the "right" to call its championship the "World Series", as if wikipedia has any authority to override that official name. You'll also get debates from those who don't really know anything about the subject and thus dispute that MLB is the world's highest level of baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify your specific objections? I proposed the wording regarding "world's highest-level" based on your suggestion; are you now proposing that this not be included? I don't see how adding the word "currently" changes any implications of the proposed sentence regarding the issue of world's highest-level of baseball. With respect to the name "World Series", those against it will have to get the article title changed first, and I do not believe this will occur unless MLB renames the championship. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon re-reading your comment above, I think you are willing to go along with the previous wording? (When writing my recent proposal, I was thinking of your comment below where you suggested that any discussion of the MLB's level should include a reference to the world.) The previous lead sentence was the following: "The World Series has been the annual championship series of the highest level of professional baseball in the United States and Canada since 1903, concluding the postseason of Major League Baseball." Are you willing to support this lead sentence? isaacl (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because it implies that it's not necessarily the highest level in the world. From my standpoint, the lead is fine. The IP raised the objection. We need some input from that IP as to how it should read such that a viewer who doesn't know baseball would understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, to clarify then, are you are willing to support the lead sentence being as follows: "The World Series is the annual championship series of the world's highest-level professional baseball organization, Major League Baseball (which currently consists of franchises in the United States and Canada)." Or are you raising understandable concerns that this may just lead to further instability in the article? (I appreciate the desire to avoid problems; I was just a bit confused by your previous indications of support.) If that is the case, how about: "The World Series is the annual championship series of Major League Baseball (which currently consists of franchises in the United States and Canada)." isaacl (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to say that this (or MLB) is the world's highest level of professional baseball in the hatnote, which is just identifying and distinguishing the topic from others. In the lead section (opening paragraphs), however, some non-bombastic way of saying this would indeed be helpful.—— Shakescene (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So what about changing the lead sentence to "The World Series is the annual championship series of Major League Baseball (which currently consists of franchises in the United States and Canada)."? isaacl (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be changed. The World Series is the championship series of Major League Baseball. If the reader wants to understand the scope of Major League Baseball, the term is wiki-linked for the reader's further edification.Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would agree with Wkharrisjr on this. No need to rewrite a different article in the about not. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, my proposal is to change the lead sentence, not the About note, but I assume your agreement still stands in any case. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you are right I meant to say lead sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have concluded we should leave it the way it is. The gripe by 86.9.150.154 is that he didn't understand what it was about. He can link to Major League Baseball and find out what it's about. We don't necessarily have to re-explain, in the lead, what MLB is when there's already a link to it. I was just looking at Super Bowl, and it strikes me as being excessively wordy as well as redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Origianally named "New World Series"

Some Historians say that the original and official name of the so called "World Series," was actually called "The New World Series of baseball." It makes sense to me, since the MLB takes place in the "new world" and not the "whole world." What are your guys thoughts on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.117 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you can offer some citations so we can see who these historians are.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Never heard that tale before. "World's Championship Series" was the term originally. "New World Series" would be silly, as there was no baseball in the "Old World" at that time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Newly crowned WS champion teams are often refered to or introduced as for example, "the San Francisco Giants: The New World Series Champions". "New" as in "most recently crowned". In fact, just now heard this phrase on ESPN. Not necessarily saying this is a source of confusion for the IP, but thought it worth mentioning.Racerx11 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He said "some historians", so a specific citation would be helpful. Actually, both the TV announcer and the commissioner referred to the Giants as simply the "world champions", which is standard hype following the conclusion of the Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. However when I switched over to ESPN immediately after the game ended, they announced the Giants as "the new world series champions". A phrase Ive heard used in the past and thought worth noting given the topic here. Admittedly its unlikely this coincidental usage has anything to do with the issue raised, now that I think about it.Racerx11 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If it were in print, it would read, "...the new World Series champions." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this refers to the urban legend about the New York World newspaper, or The World newspaper of New York (as the case may be), and the legendary New York World's Series. --P64 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've always been fascinated (as a non-american) that its called the "World Series". So I did a bit of Googling (not the best research method, I admit) and found the link that I put after my adaptation of the lead... Seems like the 'Atlanta Journal-Constitution' may be on the right track, what do you folks think? Jabberwock359 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas Rangers

Isn't 2010 the first World Series appearance for the Texas Rangers? Chart shows "2" in the column for series appearances. 71.62.75.145 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been changed to "1" referring to the Washington Senators - which eventually became the Texas Rangers - appearance in '61.--JayJasper (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, the Senators didn't appear in the World Series in 1961. It's zero until Wednesday. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but I think someone was honestly but mistakenly confusing two Washington Senators:

1. the team which won the 1924 World Series with the great Walter Johnson, but left town in 1960 to become the Minnesota Twins, and
2. the team which succeeded them as the Washington Senators in 1961, only to leave in 1971 to become the Texas Rangers (baseball). The Rangers, as I recall, had never won a Division Series, let alone a pennant, before 2010, thus leading to whole section, until Oct. 22, 2010, called "Playoff futility") —— Shakescene (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you've got it. The old Senators won pennants in 1924, 1925 and 1933, winning the Series in 1924. They moved to Minnesota in 1961 and won pennants in 1965, 1987 and 1991, as well as various division titles and wild card appearances from 1969 onward, and the Series in 1987 and 1991. The new Senators won nothing, moved to Texas, had a few fruitless post-season appearances, and finally won their first pennant this year. What probably happened in this article is that some over-eager sort posted a "1" before they had set foot on the field, and then someone blindly added another 1 to it once they actually did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fourteen of the original sixteen teams

I don't believe it is notable that fourteen of the original sixteen teams have won a World Series since 1978. I propose removing this item from the section, "The original sixteen teams". Isaac Lin (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There are worse things in life....really.Juve2000 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I haven't reduced this to something more concrete, but until recently several of the original 16 teams had had droughts stretching back as far as 1917 to 1980 (e.g. Phillies, Red Sox, White Sox and until Monday, Giants). Now the Cubs and Indians stand alone in each league as teams that haven't won for over 60 years. There are many ways of saying this, but within an hour of the Giants' victory this was the simplest way I could think of expressing it. I'm certainly open to better formulations. [In Isaac's defense, I should say that many of us, including me, spent much time reducing the five dozen miscellaneous trivia into something coherent, so while individual items are of little importance ---literally trivial--- I can understand his desire to stop all the trivia re-accumulating to another unmanageable tangle.] —— Shakescene (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In essence, this is saying "There are only two teams left out of this group of sixteen that haven't won the World Series in a long time." Is this more notable than when there were only three? If the Cubs and Indians win, do we reset the item to "There is only one team that hasn't won since 1983"? I'm having trouble discerning the notable team pattern that would make this note fit into this section. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's better expressed in "Streaks and Droughts" or as something like "only two of the original teams have gone 60 years without a World Series title." (The positive statement is, I agree, rather weak; it's the contrast with the Indians & Cubs that's important.) Equally it might be somehow paired with the statement that only two expansion teams have gone without a pennant. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps saying only two teams from the original sixteen haven't won a World Series after expansion? Isaac Lin (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea; in fact, now only two have gone without World Series wins since not only the beginning of expansion, but since the first move from the original 10 cities of 1903 [11 if you refuse to accept the Mistake of '98 and still count Brooklyn as a separate city] — the Braves from Boston to Milwaukee in 1953, a year before the Giants' penultimate World Series title. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the entire subject is covered quite sufficiently in List of Major League Baseball franchise postseason droughts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes for table summarizing team appearances in World Series

Currently I am using Firefox 3 with a visible area of 1000 pixels wide, and the Notes section flows awkwardly next to and below the table containing the summary of all team appearances in the World Series. Previously I had placed a {{clear}} template below the table so that the Notes section would appear below the table, to better accommodate different browser sizes, but someone removed it. I propose restoring the use of the {{clear}} template. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I created and arranged that key and Notes section on a similar screen (1024 x 768 pixels), and I use various browsers for Wikipedia, chiefly Firefox 3.6 and Google Chrome. I understand how what looks good in one configuration looks bad in another, because to me, List of World Series champions with the added pictures looks pretty awful. I'm not sure of what the effect of putting Clear below the table would be on my screen. I had put, I think, a clear after the end of Notes. Perhaps if I compressed the text of "Notes" it wouldn't flow under that way. Maybe the proportion of the font size to the table's dimensions vary between us. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with a wider screen, there is more space next to the table and the Notes section will fit. Putting the clear immediately above the Notes section would ensure that the Notes section is pushed down below any floating elements (just as the clear after the Notes section ensures the following section starts below any floating elements). Unless the Notes text is made much shorter, I believe there will be many situations where the text will extend past the bottom of the table. I think the section may as well start after the table; I don't believe the information interrupts the narrative of the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Y Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for order

I should have approached the talk page before posting this, but the process is a little slow. I posted guidelines at the top of the section containing the table that sorts teams by:

1. Number of World Series wins
2. Number of pennants
3. Year began play (newer teams get advantage because they have had less of an opportunity)
4. Most recent champion (which only has to be used for the Giants and Dodgers who both began play in 1883, but the Giants are the more recent champion)

If you believe that this should be altered, feel free to discuss it here. My edits were marked as vandalism and reverted (which might be the psychological effect of seeing a seemingly unreasonable edit by an IP address), which is why I am bringing this up. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)}

• I have restored an earlier version of the page. Pol430 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any word on what you think of the guideline? Should it be changed? --67.180.161.183(talk)_{17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)}

• I'm trying to figure out what the practical difference is between the two versions of the table. Either way, they're sortable by different columns, so there's no real need for the IP to mess with them. But what info are you claiming is "unsourced"? I'm not seeing it. But I'm old and half blind, so help me out here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Where would I ever hear from you again? --67.180.161.183(talk)_{17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)}

Right here. Actually, I was asking Pol430 that question, not you. Sorry for the confusion. But what changes did you make aside from rearranging the order? I'm not seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more than the order. It was arranged before by wins, then year, so teams that actually played more World Series but not as recent happened to go last. That seemed a little wrong to me. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{17:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)}

It doesn't seem like it was actually that way. The order after the total championships seemed kind of random. To me, it does make logical sense to initially group them by total wins and then in descending order of most recent win. But then when the user clicks one of the sort columns, I don't know what would happen, as I don't work with those kinds of tables often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your version of the table, it seems to me that it would make more sense to have the most recent win, which is the second column, also be the second sort (descending). Also, I don't understand your comment about 1883. The original 8 National League teams have a variety of inaugural years (Chicago/Atlanta 1876, Cincinnati/Pittsburgh/St. Louis 1882, Los Angeles/Philadelphia/San Francisco 1883). The original 8 American League teams all start with 1901, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I had the year be a factor is primarily for expansion teams. I shouldn't have brought up the Giants and Dodgers, I just realized that it has to be used for a few other teams. The Florida Marlins should have a higher position than the Toronto Blue Jays, even though they have played and won the same number of championships, because the Blue Jays were established in the 70's, but the Marlins were only established in 1993(!), winning their second title in only ten years of existence. Another example is the Diamondbacks. It only took them three years to win a title, so they should get all the credit. Hope this clears things up. If it just makes it more confusing, ignore this message. Oh, and on another note, an IP saying "fixing up the orders" and seemingly randomly rearranging teams to his liking can be a little suspicious, so i don't blame anyone for marking it as vandalism. I should have been clearer. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{05:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)}

Sorry, I had not seen the comment at the top of the table and based on my trying to reverse-engineer the sort order, I had thought the primary sort key was number of championships, the secondary sort key the most recent Series win, and the tertiary sort key the most recent Series appearance. I made some edits in the past to follow this order. In order to make the sort order more evident, I propose that the second column of the table be made the number of appearances, the third column the date of the last Series win, and that the sort order be changed so that the table is sorted by the first column, the second column, the third column, and then the fourth column (i.e. championships, appearances, last Series win, last Series appearance). Isaac Lin (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But shouldn't a team that has played a ton of World Series and only won one be better than a team that has only played one and won one? Just getting to the series takes skill. I don't know if we should be glorifying teams by skill on an encyclopedia article, but why not. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{05:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)}

I don't think a precise ranking is achievable in any case (too many outside variables), so I'm primarily concerned that the order is not completely arbitrary, and that the sorting is evident from looking at the table. Sorting by the columns after swapping the appearances and last win columns fits both those criteria. Following your specific example, since wins is the first sort key and appearances the second, with two teams having the same number of wins, the team with the higher number of appearances will be listed first. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. What is your point? --67.180.161.183(talk)_{22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)}

I was just responding to your message, where you asked about distinguishing between two teams that have one World Series, one who has played in many Series, and one that has played in one. My proposed change to the sort order does not change the first and second sort keys, so they would continue to sort in the order I believe you are suggesting: first the team with more Series appearances, followed by the one with one appearance.

Do you have any feedback on my proposal to swap the second and third columns (Series wins and Series appearances), and then to sort the table based on Series wins, Series appearances, year of last Series win, and year of last Series appearance? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that expansion teams should have an edge for the reason above (or I think it's above)-- it's a bigger deal for expansion teams to win than regular old teams. They have had fewer years to serve as a window for winning. If the Yankees were an expansion team, they would have far fewer wins because they wouldn't have as much of a chance. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)}

There are many factors: it's easier to win a division now than a league in the past, the wildcard makes it easier for a weaker team to win it all, there is greater parity today than before, and so forth. Thus I don't believe the goal should be to produce a table that tries to rank all the teams. To avoid an obscure sort order, I suggest that the order should be clear from the columns in the table. So if year of inception is one of the keys, I think it would be best if this was one of the columns in the table. But I do not favour this and would prefer the sort order I proposed. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a opinion on making the sort order of the table readily evident and solely based on columns that appear in the table? isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Team †	Titles	Last	Series	Last
New York Yankees (AL)	27	2009	40	2009
St. Louis Cardinals (NL)	10	2006	17	2006
[Philadelphia/Kansas City] Oakland Athletics (AL)	9	1989	14	1990
Boston Red Sox [Americans] (AL)	7	2007	11	2007
[New York] San Francisco Giants (NL)	6	1954	18	2010
[Brooklyn] Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) ‡	6	1988	18	1988
Cincinnati Reds (NL)	5	1990	9	1990
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL)	5	1979	7	1979
Detroit Tigers (AL)	4	1984	10	2006
Chicago White Sox (AL)	3	2005	5	2005
[Boston/Milwaukee] Atlanta Braves (NL)	3	1995	9	1999
[Washington Senators] Minnesota Twins (AL)	3	1991	6	1991
[St. Louis Browns] Baltimore Orioles (AL)	3	1983	7	1983
Philadelphia Phillies (NL)	2	2008	7	2009
Cleveland Indians (AL)	2	1948	5	1997
Chicago Cubs (NL)	2	1908	10	1945
Florida Marlins (NL,1993) *	2	2003	2	2003
Toronto Blue Jays (AL,1977) *	2	1993	2	1993
New York Mets (NL,1962) *	2	1986	4	2000
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (AL, 1961) * [Los Angeles/California/Anaheim Angels]	1	2002	1	2002
Arizona Diamondbacks (NL, 1998) *	1	2001	1	2001
Kansas City Royals (AL, 1969) *	1	1985	2	1985
San Diego Padres (NL, 1969) *	0		2	1998
[Washington Senators] Texas Rangers (AL,1961) *	0		1	2010
Tampa Bay Rays [Devil Rays] (AL,1998) *	0		1	2008
Colorado Rockies (NL,1993) *	0		1	2007
Houston Astros [Colt .45's] (NL,1962) *	0		1	2005
[Seattle Pilots] Milwaukee Brewers (AL 1969; NL 1998) *	0		1	1982
[Montreal Expos] Washington Nationals (NL,1969) *	0		0
Seattle Mariners (AL,1977) *	0		0

¶ I'm too sleepy to read through the above discussion now (though of course I will when I'm more awake), but while I didn't create that table, I did most of the original formatting, including the sort arrows (a non-sortable version is at Major League Baseball). My criteria for the initial sort-order (before the reader uses the arrows) were (1) No. of Series won; (2) if same number of Series won, then most recent first; (3) if no Series won, then number of pennants; (4) if no Series won and same number of pennants, then most recent pennant first [two teams that have never won a Series can't have won pennants in the same year, since one would have beaten the other in the Fall Classic]; (5) for the pennantless Nationals (1969) and Mariners (1977), the older one first. (6*) The one irregularity I wanted to introduce was among the teams that had won 2 Series (none of the original 16 teams has won fewer than two Series, and no expansion team more than two): listing the most recent Series winner among the expansion teams AFTER the Chicago Cubs (last won 1908) [and thus the other 15, more-successful, of the original 1903 teams], so that the relative absolute records of the non-expansion (1903) and expansion (post-1960) teams were readily apparent before sorting. Some of this logic should be apparent in the table at Major League Baseball#Postseason, which, following its original creator's style, shows actual rank order for clusters of teams (1st, 2nd, ... 23rd).

It might be very well worthwhile to add a table to a page like List of World Series champions that shows the proportion (percentage) of Series and pennants to seasons played, but on this page, if you don't add two more columns (e.g. .080 and .107) to show them, the reader can't see that order and won't be able to click anything to revert to that order (short of refreshing the whole page). My rough and ready system gives more credit for a recent win than for a long drought, but doesn't attempt to show Series and pennant wins in proportion to seasons played. Here (slightly-updated) is an old version of the table that follows my logic. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that we should return to your original order? What do you think of my proposal to order the table by Series wins, Series appearances, date of last Series win, and date of last Series appearance, re-ordering the columns to match? I primarily would like the sort order to be simple, obvious and, to that end, based on information in the table (with a possible exception for teams who have never won a pennant; given the small number of teams this affects, I think it is overkill to introduce another column to act as a sort key). Hopefully this will avoid people introducing their own arbitrary shufflings. isaacl (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Isaacl's suggestion doesn't seem like a bad idea. Of course, I don't think anything will change at all on the list if we went with it because few teams have the exact same number of pennants and wins, but it might help in the future. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)}

Thanks for the reply. Since no objections have been raised, I plan to proceed with my proposal. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

International participation

I rearranged the second paragraph and restated some things, while correcting 10 years service to 9. Unfortunately my only reference is wikipedia "posting system".

I doubt that so-called international participation does give international "flavor" to the World Series. Anyway, I consider the teams not the players to be the Series participants. These terms are stretched here, maybe not to the breaking point.

One editor added a note that players for San Francisco and Texas in the 2010 World Series were natives(?) of six countries including Puerto Rico. Another editor deleted that as original research (WP:OR). I doubt that counting from a team roster is proscribed OR. The tabular summary of World Series history by team is composed by similar research, I suppose. --P64 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. See WP:Original research#Routine calculations. I wondered about that deletion, too. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A fair amount of that kind of verbiage goes back 2 or 3 years and was to placate edit warriors who claimed MLB doesn't have the right to call its event the World Series. If it were to come up again, I think a more aggressive approach would be called for. Its common name is the World Series, whether non-Americans like it or not, and dat's dat. However, it certainly seems useful to explain why it's called the World Series, and hopefully by now the article has that question well-covered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"About" note, revisited

This was discussed previously but maybe it's time to re-establish consensus, given recent activity. As I wrote last time, based on the other uses of the term "World Series", I do not believe that the term Major League Baseball is ambiguous. In addition, the first sentence of the article is very clear in explaining the article's context. Any new discussion points? isaacl (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that, for those who don't follow baseball and those outside North America, we should say "Major League Baseball in North America". People who know what Major League Baseball is probably don't need to be told what the World Series is (although the reverse isn't necessarily true); the hatnote's for those who don't know or are unsure what World Series is being discussed (cf., for example, the Little League World Series, which involves a major set of baseball leagues but covers the whole world). A secondary point is that identifying location as soon as possible heads off as soon as possible the periodic cries about how the World Series isn't a world series, the U.S. ain't the whole world, etc. The wikilink to MLB, while necessary, isn't adequate to these particular purposes because [unless they're old Wikipedia hands who've installed WP:Popups], few ordinary readers want to go through the hassle of opening a new page for this limited reason only to come back to this one. What's true for you and me at other sites where we don't have popuups (e.g. the little ID links for names mentioned in New York Times articles) has apparently been shown to hold for ordinary Wikipedia readers. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not studied every other sport, so I don't know; but I wonder if any other sport's championship was specifically called "The World's [Championship] Series" prior to the 1880s? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some editors object to "North America" as only the United States and Canada have MLB clubs. "This article is about the annual championship series of Major League Baseball in North America" is somewhat ambiguous with "Major League Baseball" being an organizational name (as opposed to a generic term for the highest professional level of baseball in North America), as it implies that there is another annual MLB championship series from which the World Series must be distinguished. The clearest disambiguation I can think of is "This article is about the annual championship of Major League Baseball, the highest-level professional baseball organization in the United States and Canada." But as I noted, this information is readily available in the article's first sentence; no need to visit a separate page to understand the context of the article. isaacl (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

MLB is the highest-level professional baseball organization in the world. It just happens to be located in 30 cities in the US and Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Do you have a view on requiring any disambiguation of the term Major League Baseball? isaacl (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Before committing to anything, please note the intros to Stanley Cup Finals and Super Bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there are always other similar examples, but I'm trying to get some agreement on this article. If a consensus can be reached on not requiring disambiguation, then we can dispense with a discussion on how to word a disambiguation. Any views on keeping the current note as is, or modifying it? isaacl (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to say anything about its level, then you have to say in the world, not in North America or whatever. And given that, you're better off leaving it out altogether, unless you want to foment a perpetual edit war with those who don't like the fact it's called the World Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you are in favour of leaving the hat note as it currently stands? isaacl (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it should simply say Major League Baseball, and leave out anything about what the "highest" level of anything is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Bugs - leave out everything but "Major League Baseball". Other wise the hatnote may become the victim of TLDNR syndrome, and defeat its own purpose. - BilCat (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The current hat note is as follows: "This article is about the annual championship series of Major League Baseball. For other uses, see World Series (disambiguation)." When you say "No", do you actually mean you do want the hat note to remain as it is? isaacl (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The current hat note is fine, and the lead should be changed, but someone else can do that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so do we have consensus or not? (Since no one commented on What's up, Doc?’s February 2nd comment, I assumed no one objected to the change.) I would like the change the first sentence of the lede to a less cumbersome "The World Series is the annual championship series of Major League Baseball." This is concise and accurate; discussion of the the meaning of "World Series" is discussed in the rest of the article.Wkharrisjr 13:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't agree with changing the lead; part of my reasoning on shortening the disambiguation note was that a full explanation was available in the lead sentence. I believe it is appropriate to provide some context on the scope of the World Series, including an indication of the area where MLB operates. isaacl (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one else has disagreed, I'm going to change the Lead back to what Wkharrisjr had changed it to. - BilCat (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with this. First, if the lead is changed, it undermines the reasoning to keep the disambiguation note short, and then that discussion must be reopened. Second, with the small number of disagreeing commenters, I do not believe a consensus can be claimed to change from the wording that has been already present for some time. I do not believe the lead should be changed without more discussion of the points I raised or more opinions expressed. isaacl (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not believe a consensus has been reached on changing the article from its previously agreed-upon lead sentence. I ask that the lead sentence not be changed without further discussion of the points I raised. isaacl (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the only person disagreeing at this point. A consensus doesn't need unanimity. - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote; a discussion should be held to build consensus. (If it were a vote, note two editors have raised the issue of providing some information on the scope of the championship.) isaacl (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a suidice pact either, or a filibuster. You've expressed your concerns, but there's no requirement that you be satisfied with the result. You're welcome to request a third opinion - a good place would be the baseball project page. - BilCat (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not asked to be satisfied with the result; I've only asked that there be an attempt at consensus building via a discussion, in accordance with the spirit of community editing. I have solicited the baseball project page for opinions, but I guess no one has taken an interest. isaacl (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You should probably wait a few months and revist the issue then. In the meantime, the posts are here if anyone else choses to comment on them. - BilCat (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

change title

I think the title of this article is misleading. It should be changed to "The MLB Playoff Finals". This is not USApedia. 74.14.35.254 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another way to put it would be "It is called what it is called". -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another another way to put it is that it is never called "The MLB Playoff Finals". - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It could be described as "the MLB playoff finals", but that would be just a colloquialism or an invention... much as "playoffs" is. The term "playoff(s)" is often used by the media, but is not used by MLB itself for any level of its playoff system (the term "playoffs" continues to be used at the minor league level, though). The old one-game playoffs are now referred to as "Tiebreakers", and the rounds of the tournament are referred to as "League Division Series", "League Championship Series" and "World Series", the latter being short for what was originally called "World's Championship Series". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some people don't like the fact that MLB calls its championship the "World Series" because they somehow think that the teams must represent various nations in order to do so. What they always fail to grasp is the fact that MLB is made up of the best players in the world, regardless of nationality.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

¶ To see the question discussed extensively, exhaustingly, and nearly exhaustively from just about every possible angle and point of view (left field, right field, the pitcher's mound, both dugouts, the batter's box, behind the screen, inside the scoreboard, the press box, the bleachers, the Commissioner's suite and the Goodyear blimp), see Talk:World Series/Archive 4 and Talk:World Series/world title. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Trophy, rings, and prize money?

Should there be a section or sections discussing the rewards for winning the World Series?Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Teams that have moved

These edits mostly added some trivia regarding teams that have moved, and if they have won championships in different cities. Given the small number of teams that have moved, I don't believe this information is sufficiently notable—it is basically just a restating of the number of championships won by a select number of teams. I propose that this information be removed. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is a page about the World Series, not team relocations. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Most all of that stuff is trivia, and in some sense original research, although the facts are obviously verifiable. I recall a few years back that there was a huge amount of this kind of stuff, and it got pared back significantly. Maybe it's creeping up again. And maybe someone could point out that not only did the Giants win and lose at least one Series in each of their 2 cities, but also that they are the only existing team to have also won both an NL-AA World Series and a Temple Cup Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the content in question is trivial and does not belong in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rankings by team name, city, or association?

Anyone without a deep historical knowledge of the team would look at the table and assume the Oakland Athletics, for example, won nine World Series as an Oakland team, when in fact they won only four. The table needs desperately to make this distinction. I suggest separate columns for series won and Pennants won by the team in their current city, and I think these should come before the counts for series won and Pennants won by the team in all their cities combined--because people in general think of baseball teams in terms of their associated cities and almost always form allegiances that way. TheScotch (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A perennial quandary that's hard to resolve in a compact table. For example, the World Almanac lists World Series appearances for each team by city, while this particular table doesn't. However there is such a table at List of World Series champions. A lot of continuity is lost by breaking up a franchise's history into its host cities (e.g. the Braves, the Dodgers, the Giants and the A's), and it's hard to compare their briefer records in a single city with the century-long records of teams that haven't moved since 1903: the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cardinals, the Tigers, the Phillies, the Pirates, both teams in Ohio and both teams in Chicago. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Graph showing age of teams, series appearances, and wins

The graph illustrating the age of teams, their series appearances, and series wins is a bit confusing with its dual Y-axes: it makes it less meaningful to include the teams' ages, since they cannot be directly compared with the number of series appearances or wins, thereby largely negating the value of having the two together. I suggest that only a single Y axis be placed on the graph, assuming there is consensus to retain it. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

2003: All-Star Game used to determine home-field advantage

In the first two lines it is written that the change (ie that the winner will have home-field advantage) took place after an All-Star game finished in a tie, and goes on to say that no one knows what happens if the all-star game ends in a tie. I don't think it makes sense, and there are no links to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.67.176 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed as uncited OR. - BilCat (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found anything via a brief google, except for guesses... and in the absence of any official pronouncement, the preponderance of those guesses is that they would get the game in and played to a conclusion, one way or another. It would not end in a tie, since it could be suspended and concluded the next day. And if it looks like there will be a monsoon in the host city, the Commissioner could move it to the nearest dome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)