Talk:2004 World Series

Naming

• why is it called the world series when the US is the only country that plays baseball?

• Canada had two teams, and now has one, that play in the same leagues as the United States teams. Japan and several other countries have baseball leagues, but no ties to the American leagues. It kinda works the same way as football. There are signs everywhere the call the Patriots "World Champions" but they didn't have to beat anyone in, say, Europe or Asia, to attain that title. Sahasrahla 13:54, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Also, rightly or wrongly, MLB is considered the top of the game, with the Minor Leagues and various national leagues elsewhere in the world acting as training/proving grounds for MLB. That said, the 2004 MLB season began with games in Japan, including an exhibition game between the Hated Yankees (runner up in the 2003 World Series) and the Hanshin Tigers (runner up in the 2003 Japan Series); Hanshin won 11–7. The 2003 World Series winning Tampa Bay Devil Rays for some reason faced the Yomiuri Giants, instead of the 2003 Japan Series winning Fukuoka Daiei Hawks; Tampa Bay won 7–1. Carter 18:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Devil Rays most certainly did NOT win the World Series. You mean the Florida Marlins? Jonpin 23:42, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, brain fart. Although it was Tampa Bay that went to Japan, not the Marlins ... Offending parts of above struck out Carter

I've heard that it's called the 'World' Series because it was originally promoted by a newspaper called 'The World.' Matchups 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting anniversies

Both 2003 and 2004 say to be the 100th modern World Series? Am I missing something here?

2003 was the 100th anniversary of the World Series. The 2004 World Series is the 100th occurrence of the World Series. --timc | Talk 02:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No you didnt. the 1904 World Series did not occur. the 1903 World Series was technically the first. see here Alkivar 02:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, note that the 1994 Series was also cancelled. Thus, it is the 101st anniversary but only the 100th Series this year. --timc | Talk 02:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand it either... if the World Series wasn't played in 1904 or 1994, and the first World Series was held in 1903, wouldn't that make 2004 the 99th occurence of the World Series? See: 2004 (current year) - 1903 (first World Series) - 2 (years the World Series wasn't played) = 99. I don't get it. --Thebends 00:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to add one to that formula. To see this, take a simple example: How many WS's were played between 2003 and 2004? 2004-2003=1, but if WS's were played in both years, the result should be 2. --BlueSoxSWJ 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Home Field Advantage

"It was also the second year in a row the home team (in this case St. Louis) did not win the World Series." Although Boston clinched the series on St. Louis turf, this doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy considering Boston had the home field advantage going into the series. In fact there have been many times in which the world series was won on enemy turf. Plaintext 17:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree This is a bogus piece of trivia. Let's remove it. Matchups 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Steven Tyler: It says "a native of Boston, though born in NY". I think this might be incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, one is technically a "native" of the place they're born in, even if they never live there. So that would make Tyler a native of NY, even though he spent most of his formative years in the Boston area. I can't really think of a way to reword this that won't sound convoluted...but I'm just throwing it out there if someone wants to touch it up at some point.

Agree here too. I'll change it to 'long-time resident.' Matchups 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Curse of the Bambino

How can the word "curse" never enter this article. I think it is a bunch of baloney, really, but notable nonetheless. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Aftermath" photo is not in Boston

The photo of fans celebrating is not actually "in the Boston streets", as it is labelled. It is on Elm Street in Davis Square, Somerville. (Somerville is an inner suburb of Boston.)

  -- Comment added by Ron Newman, rnewman@thecia.net, who lives a block from the scene shown in this photo

Damon/Kapler

The claim that Damon and Kapler were the first players to hug seems spurious to me. They would have been about 150 feet apart when the final out was made (Damon in center, Kapler in right), and I doubt they could have sprinted into each others arms faster than Varitek and Foulke did. 12.11.160.2 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Ed Lover, 07-Jun-2006

Keep in mind that they could have started running towards each other as soon as the ball was hit, whereas Foulke had to field the grounder and make the play. Whether or not the Damon and Kapler claim is true, however, they did embrace very quickly (there are plenty of pictures of it), and such a coincidence will obviously remain folklore throughout New England, even if it were proven false. --BlueSoxSWJ 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Screams of rape"

I'm from Lynn and I can tell you, I didn't not hear any screams of rape. I think this was put in by someone just to hurt Lynn's already crime-ridden image. There is no source and while I can confirm the banging of pots and pans and fireworks. I never heard any screams of rape, I did hear screams of joy though, cars honking and plenty of other celebration.. on top of that. --Saint-Paddy 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Game Commentaries and Singers

Is it really necessary to give the names of the singers, and their career highlights, in the descriptions of the baseball games? Yes, in one sense, these are a part of the spectacle, a part of the night's entertainment, but for every non-American baseball fan just wanting to read about the games these digressions are just not needed.

I deleted all the God Bless America references. I have not yet done the same for the national anthems, but it won't be long. Discuss. Darcyj 06:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Stongly disagree, while how many Grammy's they have won isn't relative, I think including who sung during the game is relevant to the article. I added in the portions you removed, but toned them down a bit for the ones that needed it. I also toned down the Star Spangled Banner portion as well. I agree, no one really cares how many Grammys you have won on a baseball article. --Holderca1 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with previous. Keep the singer, scrap the résumé, though notes about their associations with the teams are welcome. And of course, the beauty of Wikipedia is that the information is just one click away for those who want it. Matchups 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Foulke making dirt-angels

I distinctly remember some five seconds after the winning play, Foulke fell down on the mound and started making a "dirt angel". Am I mistaken? I thought this would be appropriate, albeit silly, to add to the article. Frotz661 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but let's not worry about whose memory is better, as we're getting into OR here. If you can find a citation, then by all means add it. Matchups 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A little much

Is it really necessary to mention that an eclipse foreshadowed the Red Sox victory and the exact "time" the first pitch was made? It seems to me like people are trying to make a World Series victory a whole lot more epic than it actually is. Also, the number coincidences make me puke. You can make up those things in nearly any circumstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.55.123 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A quasi-correction by 202.69.200.5

A quasi-correction: The 2004 Red Sox were not quite the first team to win Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year award, unless we want to get technical and make a distinction for gender. The 1999 U.S. Women's Soccer team, who won the World Cup that year, were on the SI cover as Sportswomen of the Year.

moved here by NullSpace (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:MLBWS2004.png

I would be unconvinced that this image meets WP:NFCC, but it seems to be that wp toleartes these things as a matter of course, this image at the very least should not be a png file format per minimal use Fasach Nua (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the logo be removed? (resolved)

This debate about the logo has been going on way too long and it seems to be holding back the FA nomination. So I'm just going to put up to a simple vote. Leave your signature under the choice you wish to vote for. I'll leave this open for at least a week, maybe longer depending on many people vote and if there is a clear consensus or not.

Keep the logo

1. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
2. --Torsodog^Talk 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
3. See below - Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete the logo

1. NW (Talk)
2. blackngold29 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Further comments on the FAC page.
3. (Chiming in here, rather than the FAC page as requested since all the other images appear to meet par so there's not much point) I agree with NW's sentiments. Things such as album covers and book jackets are justified in infoboxes as primary identifiers, and in 9 out of 10 cases is no way any sort of replacement is possible. With a sporting event (where it's not marketed in a similar way) I think that criterion 1 concerns are legitimate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Wknight94 ^talk
5. Just delete the logo. The WS Trophy is not specific to this Series.--NullSpace (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

• Remove the logo, replace with a free picture of the Red Sox celebrating after Game 4. Though I watched the entirety of this series live and must have seen the logo a thousand times, there is no way I would think of it when I think of the 2004 World Series. I would think of the aftermath of Game 4. I feel that is what needs to be included within the article. NW (Talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur that we shouldn't be voting for this (and yet I add my name, lol). I think the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season pulls off putting a meaningful non-free image in the infobox perfectly. Any non-free images should be used as a kind of last resort, but it seems that WP in general has gotten away from that (Which is what I think Fasach Nua is trying to say above). blackngold29 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not ideal I agree but I really want to get this resloved and I don't know what eles to do. This also is not a case of "most votes wins", I'm looking for a clear consensus one way or the other and at least 10-15 people voting on it. BUC (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Concur with NuclearWarfare ----- i.e., use nuclear warfare to delete the image. Seriously, it's not necessary, esp. given the number of nice images in the article (one of which is mine --- go me!). Use the White House picture at the top. Wknight94 ^talk 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So here's the way that I see it: There's a few people who feel that if the logo is removed the article will improve in quality and meet FA criteria. The people who don't think that it should be removed may not like it, but that doesn't mean that they don't feel it is still FA quality. However, if the logo remains then a few people will oppose the nomination, whereas those who support keeping it in the article will be unaffected. I know that it's about the quality of the article and not passing FA, but FA is the highest quality of article. See what I'm saying? It's not hurting anything to remove the logo, but keeping it there is preventing the article from becoming an FA. Unless people will be contacted personally to weigh in on the discussion I don't see this going too much further as it's been almost two weeks. blackngold29 20:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to get a few more people to check this out. The whole, getting it to FA standered, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, if the nomination fails because of this, so be it I can always re-nominate. BUC (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the logo seems to be blatantly WP:NPOV. The Red Sox may have won the World Series, but the Cardinals played in the series, too! This article is not about the World Series victory of the Red Sox. It's about the 4 game series that took place between two teams, and ultimately the outcome was the Red Sox winning. A logo designed for the World Series is the only neutral way to represent this series. Otherwise, it seems to be neatly glossing over the fact that the Cardinals competed in the series. This image is much more appropriate for the infobox on the Red Sox 2004 season. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's POV, the issue is NFCC. Because the Sox won is a reason that they deserve to be in the infobox more. Now if you stuck the 2004 Cardinals team picture in the infobox, that would be kind of dumb... Unless we could find free images of both teams (though I doubt we could). Having the WS trophy is fine with me, although if we're setting the standard for WS articles then that means the trophy would be the infobox image every year, which seems odd to me. However, I won't object to any free image—or even no image at all—being in the infobox. blackngold29 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't like the image we now have to use as the lead image. But there isn't really anything eles. Another reason why I'm disspionted the logo was removed. BUC (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just go with the logo, like any article about any other championship game/series that has a logo associated with it? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they aren't featured articles. It's bad form to have a featured article of a free encyclopedia start off with a non-free image. Wknight94 ^talk 12:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker4 I agree with you but it seems pretty clear to me that the logo is gone and is not coming back. So I would suggest you drop it. I would like to get a better lead image for the article thought, like a photo from an actual game in the series. BUC (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Having the trophy as the lead image in the infobox is a complete waste of space. It conveys absolutely nothing about this specific series when that prime article space could be doing something much more important. I would much rather a game image take its place if we can't have the obvious logo choice.--Torsodog^Talk 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that so would everyone else, you're very welcome to add it if you can find one. blackngold29 14:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes if you have a picture from a game in the series please let me know. BUC (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Now FA, but still not perfect

Even though it is now a FA, I am still not happy with the lead image. If anyone has a better free use image which looks fairly neutral (such as a photo from one of the games with at least one player from each team). Please let me know.

Also even though this was 90% my own work I'd like to thank a few users for there help:

• KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! for detailed feedback on first PR.
• Giants2008 (17–14) for general feedback.
• blackngold29 for feedback on FAC.
• Staxringold _talk^contribs for support on FAC as well as general feedback.
• User:SNIyer12 the only other major editor of the article.

LOST

Shouldn't someone put in a cultural reference of Christian Shephard's motto of "And that's why the Red Sox will never win the World Series, as well as Ben's eventual videotape reveal to Jack that the Red Sox actually won? --204.246.229.130 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)