Talk:2008 World Series/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2008 World Series. 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.

Archive 1

Salary figures

Do we need to include the salary statistics? I know we all love small-market competitors, but how does it relate to the Series? If people want to know where the teams rank there are multiple sites out there that has the info. Maybe it's just the wording or something, but it seems kind of awkward. Any thoughts? Black ngold29 03:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As recommended

As recommended by Gladys j cortez, I'm outlining the policies in MOS that require the section headers to stay as they were when the game began, since no other users have come to the talk page yet.

WP:MOSCAPS#Section headings: "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus 'Rules and regulations', not 'Rules and Regulations'."
WP:MOSNUM#Dates: "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so."
WP:MOS#Retaining_the_existing_variety: "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor."

Because of these reasons, the section headers should stay as is. Now there shouldn't be any more fighting about it, and hopefully I'm not going to be blocked for violating 3RR. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 10:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It would still appear that people don't like writing out number in the heading (I'm not going to revert that one, can everyone just leave it for now? It's 9am and I have a headache already). As I've stated multiple times on various talk pages, I am trying to get this article to GA status, which might mean changing various things from past seasons, playoff rounds, whatever. If I change something and you don't like it, I would be far more likely to agree with you if you come to the talk page instead of reverting my edits. I'm curios to know why people insist on having numerals (Game 1) instead of words (Game one); while neither is technically incorrect I prefer the latter. My ultimate dream would be not to have a rigid "Game 1, Game 2" but actual titles of some sort; if another Merlke boner occurs then I think it would be cool to have that as part of the title. Warring like this is the exact reason that I make an effort to edit articles with low traffic, but if everyone will talk this out I think we can reach a comprimise. A very low number of people have actually put effort into writing, citing, and chenking info for the article, I don't want to go too far in-depth, but in the long run this would be more beneficial than changing heading titles without giving a reason. Black ngold29 12:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with numerals, per se; rather, I have a problem with game dates in the subheads. That's the main issue that I'd like to avoid, because they are not nearly descriptive enough. They belong directly under the subhead, as they currently are. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "Game 1/2/3/..." should be considered as "proper names". (see the second to last rule in WP:MOSNUM) Also, in MLB.com, most news articles use "(LCS/LDS/WS) Game 1", "Game 2", instead of "Game One", "Game Two", etc. It seems that numerals are more preferrable than words.--NullSpace (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Numerals may be "preferred," but it doesn't make them correct or incorrect. This article is eventually going to be put through a peer review and a GA review, so we are trying to head off issues now. Per the MOS, numbers under 10 should be written out. As for the proper name argument, I don't see any way for that to hold any water, because it's just not true. A proper name is just that, a name. The game numbers are ordinal labels. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another re-occuring battle is the linking/unlinking of dates, stadiums, and cities especially in the Game summaries section. Per WP:OVERLINK the stadiums and cities should be linked the first time they appear only. Dates should not be linked because they are not presented fully (ie December 25, 1895) per the title of the article all dates are assumed 2008 unless otherwise noted. Black ngold29 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Danley

Can we throw something in there about Danley failing? I mean, he failed so hard on two calls in baseball's biggest stage. Something must be noted about that. It's not POV, it's the cold hard facts, Jules. YerYeller (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether the umpire is right or whether the umpire is wrong, the umpire is still right. There's no changing the outcome, so there's no reason to mention it. The human element of the game is part of what makes baseball unique. It's past, it's over, it's done with. Next game. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the plays you're referring to, but I understand umps make mistakes from time to time and calls usually even out by the end of the year. Unless there is some sort of apology from MLB I don't think it's worth adding. Black ngold29 19:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

James Shields

The link to James Shields under "Game two" is incorrect. It links to James Shields, a politician from the 1800s, not the baseball player. Here is the correct link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields_(baseball) Will an admin please correct this error?

Anyone can correct this error (the wonderful thing about Wiki). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, so I couldn't edit it. I would have otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrboone (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been fixed now. Clark89 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} please change "kep" to "key" in the line "a kep component to their 2008 success" under Tampa Bay Rays header

Done. Clark89 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Information about delayed start

Since all games of the Series are assumed to start at 8 PM EST unless delayed by weather, and since the 2008 US Presidential election is a topic that has received wide coverage, the footnote that was removed is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I'm replacing it. Discussions can be here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Elmer Fudd" hats

I think we should somehow include the fact that the teams wore the so-called Elmer Fudd hats (baseball caps with ear flaps) in both games 4 and 5 due to weather conditions. Here are some links to use: link one, and link two. The cold temperatures prompted the teams to wear them, which were originally introduced in Spring Training, for the first time in any regular or postseason game. They're both hilarious but also historic, so I believe it's notable. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Phiwwies and the Ways. Heh-heh-heh-heh! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it into a section describing the weather conditions. conman33 (. . .talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Game 5 Suspended -- Scoreboard?

How should the scoreboxes look after the game resumes? Especially now that it's a different day, and play likely won't be resumed for a few days? I've always seen a rain-delayed game with all scores reflected in one scoreboard, but I've never seen a game suspended and resumed on another date. Would it be unorthodox to have a scoreboard for game 5a and 5b? Mjf3719 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it'll be alright to leave it as one, we can make people understand through the prose that it was split up. If we tried to divide it, I fear mass template confusion. Black ngold29 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but it would be "original research", as completed suspended games are displayed in newspapers as if they were continuous. It's sufficient to state the suspension in the game notes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Bugs and BnG. It's the same game, with the same scoreboard. The Orioles/White Sox game from earlier this season was done in the same manner. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Commissioner

The post-season is run by the Commissioner's Office. That's how Selig was able to get away with his pre-game decision that the game must go to normal length. He has basically ruled that any Series-deciding game must go the full length. This approach in general runs counter to the way such a game would be handled in the regular season. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a cite? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean like, the baseball rule book vs. the Commissioner's pre-game announcement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem using his announcement as a cite, but how do we do it? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion of the normal situation, in the suspended game article. The World Series has been run by the top governing body of baseball since 1905, as discussed in various articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The cite is in the MLB.com article used in the article. Cite name is <cite name=delay/> He apparently made this clear to both teams before the game even started. Black ngold29 17:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. So he knew it was a realistic possibility, but they tried to slip the game in there, and this is what they end up with. It was a gamble. Was anything said about the tickets? You see, in theory, there would be no "rain check" for this game, because it's already an official game. But I would guess that they would honor ticketholders from the previous game - the ones who remembered to hang onto their ticket stubs, anyway. What a mess. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just assumed the tickets would be honored, but that would be something to add if a source can be found. I think the Rays bailed out Selig by tying the game, it would've been odd to delay a game that's technically "official". I'm sure if they would've delayed it and had TB come back and won the game (and especially the whole series) it would make the backlash of the tied All Star game look laughable. Black ngold29 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen anything about how the tickets will be handled. You're right that the Rays "bailed him out" of a situation that is arguably a rules violation, at least for the regular season. But as I said, the Commissioner's Office runs the post-season and they can define the rules the way they need to, within reason. Another couple of examples of the Commissioner flexing his muscle occurred in 1922, when Landis suspected chicanery in the tied game, and ordered all gate receipts turned over to charity; and in Game 7 of 1934, when Landis pulled Medwick off the field in order to keep the crowd calm and avoid the risk of a forfeit, which would have been a black eye for baseball. The only post-season forfeiture was in 1885 or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama ad

I don't think we can even say the ad is delaying the start anymore. Grsz ^Review! 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, given that Game 5 might delay the start of Game 6. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So I assume it will delay the "re-start" now? I suppose it'll give Obama a bigger audience for his ad, but I doubt anybody will care on November 5. Black ngold29 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The delay has been granted for the day, not specifically game 6. Wednesday's game is slated to start at 8:37 EDST, not 8:22.^[1] Mjf3719 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So the ad will not effect the game, as the start time is purposely later? Should we remove the footnote? Black ngold29 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if it's already pre-planned, then it's not truly a "delay". But if I were Obama, I would cut the ad to 5 minutes or less, and finish by saying, "Let's play ball!" Not only is that a subtle political statement, it would gain him a lot more votes than droning on for 15 or 20 minutes and getting on everyone's nerves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still worth mentioning - If Obama's people had not asked for the short delay, there wouldn't be one. Mjf3719 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But it's no longer affecting the start time, because there is no set time for when a game should be resumed. Grsz ^Review! 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering MLB won't ever change their game time to work around weather, it is certainly noteworthy that MLB had agreed to change their game time for Obama. Even if, in the end, a game time changed, that MLB agreed to - that is noteworthy enough. Kingturtle (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that they changed it because Obama unless we have a cite. Games start at goofy times everyday (most Penguins games are at 7:37pm). It's possible that Obama is the reason, but we can't say that definitively. Black ngold29 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The post-season schedule is set by the Commissioner's Office in conjunction with the television networks. That's where all the weird times come from. And if the game time includes a speech by Obama, that's just part of the equation and no big deal. I'm suspicious someone was pushing for inclusion of that fact for POV reasons, though not necessarily. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We can say that they changed it because of Obama because references do exist to back it up. Kingturtle (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't back up that 8:37 is a result of the ad. That could have been the time without it. Grsz ^Review! 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What have the other starting times been? Are they consistent except for this one? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Most sporting event are scheduled for around 7 minutes after the hour (or bottom of the hour) so that TV can have an introduction and not have to start the game right away. The World Series and the All-Star game sometimes start at 13 minutes after (AS game more so) so they get a longer intro. And while Kingturtle's article discusses the topic, I suggest reading the last paragraph: "The Obama campaign points out that a Fox executive says there's no delay because the first pitch this World Series has been happening between 8:22 p.m. and 8:35 p.m., so the only thing that is being pre-empted is the pre-game show." If they scheduled the game for 8 and backed it up then it would be notable. Black ngold29 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So it never really was delaying the game, and especially now it doesn't merit mention. Grsz ^Review! 02:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless people feel it's notable that it's delaying the US pre-game show only. Black ngold29 02:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, "The Fox television network agreed with a request by Major League Baseball to move the start of Game 6 of the series by 15 minutes to accommodate Obama's purchase of the television time." And this news article quotes Fox as saying "Fox will accommodate Senator Obama's desire to communicate with voters in this longform format. We are pleased that Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the first pitch of World Series Game 6 for a few minutes in order for Fox to carry his program on Oct. 29. If requested, the network would be willing to make similar time available to Senator McCain's campaign." Of course, that statement was made before anyone knew about the suspended game. Kingturtle (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You make the point exactly. "that statement was made before anyone knew about the suspended game" when the game was scheduled to start earlier. Now the game is not scheduled to start at the same time so there is no game being delayed whatsoever. I think this is turning into a political debate, which I hate because baseball is one of the few things to get away from all that junk going on. We should concentrate on the Series, in particular, the on-field play of the Series. In two years (or two weeks) I really don't think anyone is going to care about a commercial, per WP:RECENT I request to suspend this arguement until after the election. Black ngold29 02:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Couldn't we get some pix up? Particularly the one of the tarp crew coming on during game 5. --Levineps (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you find an appropriate one? If you can, upload it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

45,000 flashbulbs going off all night. there must be SOME pictures to find out there. Kingturtle (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see none on FlickR currently. Though I would be surprised if some didn't show up somewhere. Black ngold29 02:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those who can afford World Series tickets probably don't do much with wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a few pictures that I took at game 5. The seats were poor, but so far better than nothing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2008_world_series_rain_delay.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hinske_strikeout.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Players_rushing_field.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phillies_board.JPG Edg126 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Games 6 and 7

As of this writing MLB.com is giving the start date and time of Games 6 and 7 as "TBD". That means "To Be Determined", as opposed to "Tampa Bay Dome", which is certain. My assumption is that, given the iffy weather in Philly, unless there is a need for Game 6, they won't make any announcement about it until Game 5 is in the bag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree Mjf3719 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also agree, the last I heard Selig is taking it hour-by-hour for game 5 and games 6 & 7 are still up in the air. He also said it is doubtful they will have a travel day if it goes back to Florida. Black ngold29 14:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Game 5 Section

There's alot of information under the Game 5 heading - much more than is under the other games. Most of it is due to the suspension. The Nevada gambeling paragraph has nothing to do with the game. Is it worth creating a sub-heading under Game 5 to explain Nevada and the historical first-ness of the suspension? This would allow the game 5 section to pertain only to the actual game, as the other game sections do. Mjf3719 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and made the change [1]. Mjf3719 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Game 5 section should be "Play of first half, info about Game 5 delay, Play of second half". That's it. The gambling and other WS delay info should be moved; I think the Weather section or Mjf's section are acceptable to move it to. Black ngold29 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit Game five to say that Victorino drove in Werth and Utley, not Werth and Burrell. Burrell was on first, and only advanced to second on Shane's hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.53.244 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Walk-off wins?

"The team accumulated seven walk-off wins before the All-Star break"

Maybe I haven't watched enough baseball lately, but "walk-off win" is not clear to me.

Also, as far as I could tell they didn't play the National Anthem before the re-start, nor Take me out to the ballgame or God Bless America at the 7th inning stretch. Smallbones (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A Walk-off win is when a game is won on the last at bat (Kind of like a Walk-off home run, but not always a home run). I don't know if the Banner or 7th inning stretch happend or if they're notable. Black ngold29 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Curse

Someone should add a blurb about Penn's curse!

Go ahead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

About mention of an officiating controversy

As I've already removed one section, and there will probably be more to come, I thought I'd lay out some guidelines for any inclusion of a controversy section.

Any statements must be sourced to reliable sources.
Blogs are not reliable sources and are only to be used for the opinion of the author. With that, only notable authors should be included, and the coverage must be done in a way that shows it is the commentators opinion that is being expressed. These blogs should be hosted by a reliable source, such as ESPN, a Phildelphia or Tampa newspaper, etc.
Be weary of undue weight. If one writer says Eric Hinske's second strike should have been a ball, but 10 others say it was the right call, then it is undue weight to include the opinion that it was a bad call.

Just thought I would put a few things out there. Without any comment on the merit of such claims, I encourage anybody who thinks these opinions should be added to start a discussion here. Thanks, Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There was already one comment above, but I think that most of the people adding those comments aren't likely to show up on the talk page - they just want to do what they want to do. That being said, I will assume good faith and give my opinion that it doesn't need to be included at this time. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I was in the middle of adding citations but someone deleted all of my work WHILE I was working on it. There have been reliable sources (ESPN) where the unpires admit they got the calls wrong. All I am aking is that you let me SHOW this before you delete them... I am not a poster who "does what I want" I am trying but someone keeps changing it before I added the refernce tag.

This is what I want to add

Between Games 4 and 5, the league admitted that in Game 3, Phillies Jamie Moyer threw the ball to Ryan Howard to tag out Rays Carl Crawford at first base, despite umpire Tom Hallion calling Crawford safe in the game. The league also admitted that in Game 4, Evan Longoria tagged Rollins at third base, though umpire Tim Welke had ruled Rollins safe.^[2] In Game 2, home plate umpire Kerwin Danley appealed a call to the first base umpire after calling strike three; the first base umpire called ball four to award Rays Rocco Baldelli a walk. Baldelli admitted that the calls did not come up in the locker room, and did not affect the results.^[3]

^ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/10/28/game5.cancelled.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
^ Associated Press (2008-10-27). "Umpires admit second missed World Series call in as many games". ESPN. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
^ Robinson, Joshua (2008-10-27). "Umpires in Spotlight For the Wrong Reasons". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Obviously it will conform to Wiki standards first

Thoughts... I want to ask for approval from the Wikipedia gods first —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2543 (talk • contribs)

Do you mind if I make some edits to the paragraph? Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Akc2543: Go for it; it needs to be posted and it needs to conform to Wiki standards. I found relianble sources, I don't do blogs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2543 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the other source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/sports/baseball/28baseball.html?em - I am open, but this was a part of the World Series and it will be remembered for it - for the few who watched it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2543 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, let me know if I can post; I can do that ~~Akc2543~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2543 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting while you were still making edits, but you probably should have the paragraph written out properly before adding it. Thank you for being reasonable by coming here to discuss it. I have no problem with adding the section as long as it's well sourced and has not POV or Weasel words, especially in a topic as sensitive as this one. The paragraph looks like it's coming along, though I still don't know if I would call it a "controversey". Black ngold29 03:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I will call it simply "Umpiring". I am VERy reasonable. I am not someone who posts on Wiki unless I have citations. I was trying to add them, and I also was trying to be neutral. I was unsure of the weasel words. As a PhD student, I try to avoid them, but I am happy to remove if necessary ~~AKC2543~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2543 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is now a respectable paragraph. However, I'm not sure if it is undue weight, how to title it, or if it merits its own section. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 03:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it merits its own section. I think it is a sideline that will bring change to the way things are handled in 2009 or 2010. I also do not think it is one-sided BECAUSE the calls were not one-sided. In other words, both teams can be upset and happy. I also won't make personal attacks on the umpires because they are human and it is the nature of baseball. I hope this clears my thoughts up. AKC2543

Perhaps they can be added in the game summaries that they happend in? Black ngold29 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just posted what we added above for you to view. Truthfully, if it were ONE or TWO bad calls I would agree, but this because an issue among itself by Game 5 with the weather. The weather and umpiring took a theme as much as the Phillies and Rays. AKC2543 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2543 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see everyone's comments on how to sign. I am new to discussion, I have it now. Thanks --Akc2543 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Under "Umpiring," there is no mention of another call the umpires blew. Jimmy Rollins protested that he was hit by a pitch. The umpire shakes his head no, but replay shows that the ball did indeed hit Rollins in the back of his jersey. It was during a pivotal moment in Game 2- I believe during the 8th inning- as the Phillies were successfully mounting a comeback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.203.65 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Table formatting

There is no reason to change the table formatting. Using non-breaking spaces is fine, but not removing the other spaces creates an excess of space between numbers and the teams with which they are associated. Right-aligning the table not only looks extremely sloppy, but aligning only some of the cells makes it look even worse. Please defer to the style (which was already correct) used by the first major contributor (Blackngold29). In addition, inserting the days wastes space, as opposed to just the dates. The days are listed below; they do not need to be in the table as well. I have no problem using the "class=wikitable," but it needs to be done properly. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For anybody who wants to do some research

I've noticed that the last three World Series all ended with a strikeout (Wainwright in 2006, Papelbon in 2007, and Lidge in 2008). I'm wondering if that's the first time that has ever happened. It would be a nice fun fact to add to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.184.131 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to research it. Give me until Tuesday to find out and I will post it for discussion.--Akc2543 (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chase Utley quotation

This question is going to recur as long as this article exists (someone will want to delete it, Bowdlerise it or send it to a footnote, only to have others revert it back to its present format and position). So we might as well have a discussion, learn what others think and try to reach some consensus to which reference can be made when a new editor wants to change whatever conclusion is reached.

I have no fixed position myself (living in Providence without following baseball closely, I hadn't heard of Chase Utley until the playoffs), but to me the question (to which I don't know the answer) is whether the quotation is important and notable enough to balance out the fact that this page will be visited by many children, adults and families who like baseball but will surely be offended by the language in a place where it might not be expected. This doesn't mean I favor censorship, any more than in an article about Allen Ginsberg's poetry or hip hop, but on the other hand, the Wikipedia policies on censorship and profanity, with the attendant discussions and essays, also say that profanity (rather than, for example, a paraphrase with or without explicit footnotes) should be used if and only if it is important to the topic:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

Having wordily framed the question, I now leave it to others better-informed to fill out the details and arguments. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the quotation was never to offend; whether it truly does or not is not the issue. Rather, the intent is the matter at hand, and in context, Utley's quote truly does express the true elation of Phillies fans (of which I am one) having waited so long to bring a major sports title of any kind back to the city. If you lived in Philadelphia, I think that you would understand, or at least sympathize. As for other editors changing it, there are two editors, myself and Blackngold29, who are actively involved with the article and intend to take it through the GA review. So it's not like we aren't paying attention to it. If it gets to be a serious recurring issue, the page can be protected again. Not a big deal at this time. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not to be censored. Whether or not the quote is offensive should never be the question on Wikipedia. Whether or not the quote is useful, relevant or notable should always be the question on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am neutral on inclusion of the Utley quote (personally I wish he didn't say it). However, when I read the article I think the appearance of only two quotes and this being one of them make its seem out of line. Maybe additional quotes would soften the blow - it may not fit but I like this one from Mitchell Modell, CEO of 119-year-old Modell's sporting goods in light recent economic problems: [2]

“

It is clearly the single biggest event in the history of our company, which is pretty amazing.

”

Just a passing thought. Mitico (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Shakescene brings up a perfectly valid point: Obscene (material) should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative (...) and no equally suitable alternatives are available. While I agree that Utley's quote certainly sums up the feelings of Philadelphia, (in the same rowdy fashion that Philly Phans are known for), I find it hard to believe that there isn't a cleaner quote to take it's place from, perhaps, Jamie Moyer. However, I'm not sure where to find such quotations... Mjf3719 (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence why this one is used. In addition, this received significant coverage in both local and national media, so it certainly passes WP:N. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

KV5, et al -You may want to reconsider the inclusion of this quote, especially if you are looking to expand it to GA/FA standards. Criteria such as 1a) well-written - "professional standard." I agree with you regarding wp is not censored, however when you think of a professionally written article, this quote would not appear (see SI & Phillies article cited). 1c) By reading those sources, is "fucking" verifiable? 1d) the defense above "Utley's quote truly does express the true elation of Phillies fans (of which I am one)" might cause some to question neutrality... more emotional than encyclopedic. 1e) and clearly stability is a question due to the # of reverts. Also, in the article, why is "fucking" italicized? Some things for your consideration as you move forward. Mitico (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's italicised, but I imagine it's because Utley placed emphasis on that word. (I didn't hear Utley's quote live, so I don't know.) WP:ITALICS states that "Italics are used for emphasis, but sparingly." I see the emphasis on only one word in the entire article as sparingly. Mjf3719 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

← Also, the article cited outlines why the phrase is "unforgettable" and attempts to justify the phrase by use of an example: "They did it. They stinkin' did it." (Which also reinforces the mood of that day) Mjf3719 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral, but the over-the-air stations and three radio stations (WPEN-AM, KYW-AM and WPHT-AM) failed to hit the "bleep" button on time as they were on a five-second delay from what I understood, and they all apologized post haste. Comcast SportsNet also carried the comment, and in the On Demand replay, bleeped the "Fucking" part from what I understand. You might think that it is the 2008 version of Tug McGraw's "New York can take this championship and stick it - 'CAUSE WE'RE NUMBER ONE!" comment in 1980. NoseNuggets (talk) 6:39 PM US EST Nov 14 2008.

This quote adds nothing to the article. And the emphasis is WP:OR and needs removed. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

¶ As I said above, I'm basically agnostic, because I think it depends on the facts.

On the major question of inclusion or exclusion, it depends on how important the quotation is. It's obviously been considered significant and uniquely expressive of something significant by a huge number of people. It's also very clear, both from the comments by many of Philadelphia's own fans and from the number and frequency of attempted edits by random often-unregistered visitors (the type of reader for whom Wikipedia is designed), that a huge number consider it gratuitously offensive, especially to children who are just keen on baseball. So, if the quotation is important, and its form (as seems clear to me) essential to its meaning, then the rules against censorship and Bowdlerisation apply, just as they would to a citation from James Joyce's Ulysses or Allen Ginsberg's HOWL for Carl Solomon. On the other hand, if it's incidental, then using the original language (rather than alluding to it or omitting it altogether) might not be justified, where a less-offensive quotation, even if less significant, might easily be kept.
On the secondary question of emphasis, it's entirely a matter of how much spoken emphasis Utley put on the word. It's distorting to emphasize it if he didn't stress the word, but it's just as distorting not to emphasize it clearly (though not extravagantly) if he did stress the word. Someone should probably try to listen to a couple of those soundbites with as detached an ear (not literally) as possible.
[I didn't read all the Wikipedia policies and essays all the way through, let alone the huge and ever-growing amount of discussion behind them, but it doesn't take long to see that there's still much uncertainty and disagreement, as well as honest passion, over many details. We should certainly look at and try to apply general, universal Wikipedia policies and guidelines on something so sensitive, but on the other hand one should realize that there are many tricky points about which the policies aren't final, definitive or unanimous.]

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also a stretch. Two days later is certainly out of the scope of this article, whether it's at a celebration or not. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's a stretch (however you feel about the quotation): where else would you put something that others could readily find about the celebration of a specific world-title-clinching game? —— Shakescene (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't. Why is it notable? Winning the Series is notable. Having a parade, not so much. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is related to the World Series and on topic, so mentioning the parade, etc is includable. In regard to the importance of the quote, it is only considered significant (and received coverage) because he said fucking otherwise it would have received the same attention as the 20-30 other players statements that day (which are absent). So the argument can easily become circular. Anyway, thanks to Shakescene for framing the discussion in a thoughtful manner. Mitico (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember how Pittsburgh reacted when the Pirates won the 1979 Series, but in some cities (e.g. Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C.) the post-victory celebrations and parades after a long drought can be a significant part of the event. However, as Mitico and Grsz said, that significance doesn't necessarily transfer to the quotation, or derive from it. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the entire quote to be italicized. It seems to detract from the emphasis; perhaps we could get an explanation as to why it was changed? Mjf3719 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I de-italicized The Word in that quotation, and it seemed to indicate the stress as well as italicising it in an unitalicised (roman type) quotation, but someone else changed it back to all italics.

Since I haven't heard any of the tapes myself, I don't know much emphasis Utley himself put on it that day, so I didn't revert the change. As I said in 2. above, it would be just as distorting to omit the written emphasis of a stressed spoken word as it would be to introduce written emphasis where none existed in speech. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Having watched it several times on YouTube and Comcast SportsNet, the emphasis wasn't there to require italicization. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video of his speech, and added italics appropriately. Utley definately exclaimed the second sentence, and I feel that he added extra inflection on Champions!, so I made the article reflect that. Mjf3719 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I just dropped the capital "F" to lower-case "f" (since people don't speak in capital letters, while "World Champions" is arguably a title, interrupted by an exclamation). This makes the italics in Champions! stand out better, but perhaps I've emphasized the last word too much in relation to the second. Maybe Utley was creating a Three-Word Title. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was sure that it would, but upon inspection, it looks surprisingly appropriate. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a note on the Chase Utley press conference that I referenced on the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season stating he apologized for using the F-bomb, and maybe when I search it out, I'll add a reference to the quote and add a footnote to the item in question. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:55 AM US EST Dec 18 2008.

The section's not about apologies; it's about quotes. Please don't make edits unilaterally without waiting for a response on the talk page. I am reverting. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe Buck quotation

3/10/09 OK! If we have to endure the Utley quote in the quotes of the series section, can we at least please also include the Joe Buck Quote?? Every time someone readds the Utley Quote, they delete the Joe Buck Quote "Phillies are World Champions" One is vulgar and one is not. Since we seem to be listing the vulgar quote, let's also list the non vulgar quote, rather than delete it just to put Utley's back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.227.2 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Joe Buck quote adds nothing unique or notable to the article. Everything that joke of a sportscaster (OK, I don't like him) said was said much more eloquently by Harry Kalas. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. "The Phillies are World Champions" is not unique or notable. Something like that is said in every world series. Kingturtle (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Buck quote really doesn't add any value to the article. Utley's quote, however, expresses a feeling -- one that was quite literally felt by Phillies and Phillies fans everywhere. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with the motives behind wanting to put in an inoffensive quotation in place of one that has upset and will continue to upset dozens or, more likely, hundreds of readers. However, I have to agree with the current consensus since apparently Chase Utley's utterance was considered significant by many Phillies fans (although not by many others), while the written transcription of Joe Buck's declaration has nothing interesting. (I watched the end of Game 5 and don't even remember hearing it, so I don't think there was much more in the oral inflections.) Joe Buck's quotation is not, however, lost to Wikipedia, since it's used for a different purpose in World Series#International impact and explanation of the term "World" Series as an example of how a North American contest is still considered a world championship. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Category add

This event is certainly significant in the history of Philadelphia as a city and definitely should remain. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And Tampa Bay? And every city that has had a team in the World Series? There's no precedent. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a category for history of Tampa Bay? It's not a matter of having a team in the World Series; it's a matter of the World Series win. In this case, it's coupled with the entire issue of the Curse of William Penn and other mitigating factors. Just because precedent does not exist does not mean that an addition is incorrect. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a "History of Boston" category in 2004 World Series. Just think of all the clutter the "History of New York City" category would have to deal with if all the Yankees' WS wins were added. Since all that is needed is a WS win, go ahead and add the relevant categories to ALL the articles. Otherwise, it's recentism. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How recentism? The 1980 World Series is there as well, as well as a large number of other historical events relevant to the city of Philadelphia. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Any cities other than Philadelphia? My point exactly. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's still no reason for argument; as I said above, the lack of precedent does not disqualify inclusion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should this article be treated differently from the rest? It doesn't make sense to me. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

←Why not add this category to other articles? Sports championships are historically significant. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Include. As a predominantly Blue-Collared city, professional baseball (among other sports) has always been a part of Philadelphia life; a World Series win is a significant event in the lives of Philadelphians.

Also, just because other World Series articles don't include a History of Xville category, doesn't mean that they cannot. It isn't a bias towards Philadelphia by including the category; it simply represents that the 2008 World Series has had a significant effect on the lives of people from Philadelphia. Mjf3719 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA clean-up / push

It's been a while since I have done anything significant with the article, partially because I have been busy with school-work and partially because I was allowing all of the craziness that comes with a championship to settle down. Hopefully my wait is over and I will be able to do some writing and revising for the GA nomination. I have a few comments/ideas, see what you think:

When I started, I did not realize that there is in fact a World Series article FA (1926 World Series). I will try to model this article after that, though some events (weather, etc.) will obviously be integrated.
MLB.com has compiled all articles about the Series into one page. I hope to take advantage of this as much as possible. We obviously don't have any book sources to use, but internet sources are everywhere.
The Broadcasting section has multiple unsourced statements, a while back I placed a tag within it, but it was taken out at some point. I don't know why, as the statements remain. Maybe it's personal preference, but in five years is anyone gonna care who covered the game in the Philly area in Spanish? If a source can be found then it can stay, but we need one.
All of the pictures are good, but after looking at the article a few times I think there might be too many. KV: you did a good job adding them, maybe there are one or two that you could take out? I don't really think we need one per game. I am surprised that no free pictures taken at the series have become avalible yet.
As for the quotes... First off, I love quotes and quoting people, they're in almost every article I write. However, it is annoying to see a Quote section at the end of every playoff series article when it doesn't really add much and they're usually unsourced. Luckily, the two we have are sourced and are appropriate. Perhaps we could merge them into already existing sections: The Kalas one to conclude Game 5 and the Utley one into a Parade/Aftermath section that I haven't written yet. This would keep them in the article, but perhaps make them less attention-grabbing (thus lessening some controversey).

These are all observations of what I see, please comment on anything or everything! Black ngold29 15:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding images for this article, there should really only be images from the Series itself or of complete 2008 team photos. Photos of players from non-2008 World Series games mislead readers. Kingturtle (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some Flickr images from the actual series: and related images, here and related images, here and related images, here and related images (this is a great shot), here and related images. Kingturtle (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those Flickr images are eligible for upload; they are all "all rights reserved." I can definitely trim the pictures that are in there down a little; I just wanted to be thorough. It's totally not necessary to have that many. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the only ones we can use are "free" pictures, not copyrighted ones. The easiest way to find those is the search feature on the right side here. Black ngold29 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, 1926 World Series uses images from other years, some as early as 1915. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove the images that are currently in the article. But we should try (for all WS articles) to have images from the WS itself. Images that are not from the WS should have a caption that says so (in 1926 World Series there are captions such as Yankees outfielder Bob Meusel in 1921 and Yankees pitcher Dutch Ruether in 1925). This way the reader won't be mislead into thinking the image is from the WS. Kingturtle (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly add years to the captions; some of them don't have years, and those will probably be the ones on the chopping block. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to help you, I read the article over, and made a rearrangement to the "Umpiring" section. I did not add or delete, just put the errors in chronological order. You can fix it if you disapprove. MW --Akc2543 (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)--Akc2543 (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I reordered some material in the Umpiring and Implications of the Suspension sections. Now the short bit about the 1989 WS seems out of place - is it WP:NPOV to call it notorious? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, great work on fixing the captions of the images. Kingturtle (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question

Did they do the seventh-inning stretch in game 5? –Howard the Duck 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[1] ttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/10/28/game5.cancelled.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[2] Associated Press (2008-10-27). "Umpires admit second missed World Series call in as many games". ESPN. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

[3] Robinson, Joshua (2008-10-27). "Umpires in Spotlight For the Wrong Reasons". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]