Talk:2009 World Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 2009 World Series is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.


Philadelphia Phillies won the NLCS 5 to 4 against the dodgers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19 October 2009

That was the score of the latest game. The series isn't over yet :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


I will be trying to get this article featured ASAP. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then just a heads up that it would probably be good to remove the non-free logo, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 World Series/archive2. I definitely support your efforts, but I wouldn't recommend rushing anything simply to get an FA. blackngold29 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave the logo until a better image arises. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm sure we'll get some good ones now that so many people put stuff on Flickr, etc. Should be the best WS for free pictures yet! blackngold29 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Season Series[edit]

Should a note be made about the season series between the two teams? I believe they played only once during the regular season with the Phillies winning two in a three game series. (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Jay-Z and Alesha Keys will be performing their song Empire State of Mind prior to game 2 of the world series. Also can we list the opening pitch of the games and who sang the national athem and other music as it happenes.--Cooly123 16:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

country flag icons in infobox without country textual descriptive[edit]

why are no country names provided next to flag icons in infobox? see MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names. in reality, why are flags used at all instead of just country name in parentheses?-- (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Utley and Rivera's stock pics[edit]

I found that 2008 WS uses stock pics, too. However, can we provide additional information, such as when/where they were taken, so reader won't be misled?--NullSpace (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Add the info (2004 World Series does, mentioning the shots are from 07) if you think it's needed. It's just that sometimes the "stock" image provides a better image of the person discussed within than anything available in that moment. See 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt, for example, a featured article on an "event" such as this. But the individuals at play in the article are all displayed by more generic, timeless photos. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Please understand that I am not against using stock pics. But if we use one, we have to also tell readers that it's not taken during the series for clearify. They did that well in 2004 WS and 2008 WS articles... --NullSpace (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Go for it. I would but I've gotta' go grab dinner before the dining hall closes! :) Staxringold talkcontribs 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why was there a mention of the blown call in the top of the 8th, in the caption of the Rivera photo? That was only a makeup call, for the blown call in the bottom of the 7th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


Two things guys. First, unsourced quotes will get deleted really fast. Second, lets not overload the thing and turn it into a trivia section. A few choice ones is nice, too many is ugly. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The two quotes currently in the article remain uncited. Also, I don't think we need to dedicate an entire section to two quotes which really tell the reader nothing new. blackngold29 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OH I'M SORRY STAX IS THIS YOUR ARTICLE? DO YOU OWN IT? A VIDEO OF THEY ACTUAL CALL IS NOT A REFERENCE??? By the way what does this mean. "Linking to a random video is not a cite and a series quotes section is NOT in the 2 FA WS articles" I don't mean to be rude, but I don't read gibberish, could you please spell it out 2 FA WS?????? If your trying to say series quotes are not part of any other World Series articles YOUR WRONG CHECK THE LAST THREE... UM just how is the video random??? Looks to me the FOX LOGO is clearly there, it is available on,, and It does not seem to be random when you click on it, it show you what you need to see. It is as credible as any source out there, on any other wikipedia page.--Subman758 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpire controversy[edit]

Would it be worth adding a section on all of the umpire controversy involved in the series? The whole post-season has included it, but I can't remember a World Series with so many calls that have been wrong on the replay. MachineFist (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It already has one. Feel free to add more well sourced info. That section will have to get incorporated to meet style guidelines, but the info is useful. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. By the way, I'm going to put the note about Cabrera leaving with a hammy strain back in with a reference; I'm 90% sure I saw it mentioned in one of the wrap-up articles. MachineFist (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There we go, perfecto (though stinks about Melky, he is a bit overrated tho. Be nice to give Gardner a start). Staxringold talkcontribs 08:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a big fan of Mekly. He's a gritty player... not the best hitter, but usually makes his AB's count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MachineFist (talkcontribs) 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Question, which set of sourcing should we use? I currently have the Variety numbers listed, but they use a different definition for ratings/share, apparently because those numbers differ greatly from:

What do you think, who should we use? Staxringold talkcontribs 08:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, their numbers in "household" ratings/share are the same. The household rating/share (a.k.a. fast national ratings issued by NMR):
  • G1: 11.9/19 (19.5m viewers)
  • G2: 11.7/19 (18.9m viewers)
  • G3: 9.1/18 (15.4m viewers)
  • (average of above): 10.9/19 (17.9m viewers)
And the adults 18-49 rating:
  • G1: 6.3
  • G2: 5.7
  • G3: (not available)
I think the household ratings/share are fair enough for us.--NullSpace (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Is TVbythenumbers often used as a reliable source? My first instinct would be to go with MLB's numbers. GlassCobra 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. It's what 2004 did as well, so the #s will be on a consistent scale. Re-writing now. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There we go. Small thing, I found this copy of the press release on Game 2. Looks to confirm the validity of TV By the Numbers, at least to me, as it's a direct host of the file (like Futon Critic which I recently used on 30 Rock (season 3). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a great ratings summary article for the world series from which should be integreted someway [[1]]--Cooly123 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting in refs[edit]

Currently some of the refs are YYYY-MM-DD format and some are Month DD, YYYY. Which format do we want to standardize to? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer MMM DD, YYYY. We're Americans here, whether it's called the "World Series" or not. But I don't care very much about it, so I could be easily overruled. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I didn't mean "Nov 2, 2009". Should've been more clear. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok then, lets go ahead and do it (that does seem like the best style to me, no potential mix up with MM and DD when they could be switched, like November 2 or February 11). I'll format new refs that way, and whenever you see one in a section you're editing try to fix it! Staxringold talkcontribs 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Composite box[edit]

Shouldn't the Yankees, the team with home field advantage, be the home team in the composite box? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Image question[edit]

Here's a question on images. I've added Lee's image to Game 5 for now, but what do you think about swapping Lee and Utley with Games 1 and 5? Game 1 was Lee's truly dominant and historic start, and Game 5 is where Utley tied Reggie's record. Whaddya say? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Lee's Game 1 performance is truly dominant. Move his pic to G1 seems more appropriate.--NullSpace (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


How can the general seeker after the truth give the slightest credence to an article which has had 500 edits in a couple of days?--SilasW (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say easily, since this has been a subject of great interest that many people have added to, and the high volume of edits has allowed for quality control. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC){| class="wikitable"

World series finished[edit]

They are also trying to become the first NL team to defend their title in the World Series since the 197576 Cincinnati Reds, as well as trying to repeat as World Series champions for the first time in franchise history. Locally, they're trying to become the first Philadelphia team to defend a major professional sports championship since the Flyers won the 1975 Stanley Cup, defending their 1974 championship.[1]

The World series is over, so could this be removed or edited?--Delliot (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It can be kept, but needs to be edited into past tense. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Lots of teams have tried and failed to defend their World Championship. I suspect they are not all uniformly covered in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Presidential politics[edit]

Seriously, stop adding that. It is a completely random set of factoids cited entirely to one random news story that only talks about Philly. If you really think the Curse is notable make a brief mention in the Aftermath section. But read 2004 World Series, that's how a World Series article should be written (and had a way more notable "curse" which has far briefer coverage). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not random. It's not politics. It's just a fact every Yankee fan knows. (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


It's every WS game plus ALCS Game 6, as seen here. It's the same deal as the 1977 WS CE DVD set (WS games + ALCS Game 5) (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


I think someone should add quotes to the 2009 World Series page, no? Every other series page has, at least, the calls of the big plays and broadcasters calling the end of the series. You could also throw in Jimmy Rollins' "Phillies in five" quote and Mariano Rivera's response ("that's not what's going to happen" or whatever it was). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Subman, I presume? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Nope, just a random reader who thinks it makes sense for this type of article. Every other WS page has important quotes and heck, even the ALDS pages have quotes calling the important moments.
  • 1926 World Series and 2004 World Series are the featured-quality examples upon which this article is modeled. The fact that other articles have quotes is an invalid argument under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:INDISCRIMINATE covers the main issue with a quote section. If it is pertinent to a particular aspect of the article, include the quote like an image (or in the prose itself). If it doesn't, it shouldn't be forced into the article via a quote section. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Media speculation on short rest.[edit]

There is a disagreement on whether media speculation blaming Burnett's loss in Game 5 was caused by short rest belongs in the article or not. While I don't think it does, I am perfectly fine with it remaining in the article as long as the facts pointing to the contrary, citing Burnett's success on short rest also be included alongside.

However there has been a refusal by a user to compromise on whether media speculation about AJ Burnett's performance belongs in the article or not as well as refusal to allow facts pointing the contrary to be posted in the article. If this viewpoint is to remain in the article than it's only reasonable that the opposing viewpoint when properly cited by fact, also be included. It is also improper to falsely label edits one does not agree with as vandalism and refuse to compromise. I contend that both perspectives must be included or the entire portion should be nixed. Thanks. Tjrover (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • As I said on your talk page, my issue is not with your edits but the POINTY nature of them coupled with an unformatted link as a reference. It's all about the style, not the substance. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI I'm rewriting and formatting now. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Still have issue with the emphasis on Gene Wojcenski (or whatever his name is), I consider myself more than an average baseball fan and I still am not that familiar with this guy. I do remember this media controversy and he certainly wasn't the only one who chimed in on this discourse, but the excerpt in question makes him seem like more of a focal point than he ever was when really his was just one voice of many. Also feel like the successful performances of other pitchers should be included as well if this point is to remain. I still think it is tedious and sets a bad precedent to start mentioning media-created hype in the body of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrover (talkcontribs) 21:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The other pitchers are not mentioned because they were not starting in this game nor do their performances speak to AJ's durability. Woj is mentioned because Wikipedia prefers specifically naming the source(s) you quote rather than WP:WEASEL words like "some". Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


A large group of people standing on the outfield grass of a baseball diamond holding a large piece of red and white striped material parallel with the ground. An electronic scoreboard in the background has a sign atop it which reads "PHILLIES".
The opening ceremony for Game 3

Any thoughts on trying again at bringing this to FAC? I could always give a pre-FAC review if desired. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Go for it. I tried twice and just never got much steam. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's the opening ceremony image for game 3 that was removed during the FAC because of unclear sourcing. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Box score or Line score?[edit]

Above the line scores for each game of the series, there is a label that calls them "box scores." I am pretty sure these are line scores. Even the article (Box score (baseball)) that is linked calls these line scores. I'm going to switch the wording. InTheAM 13:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ The 1976 Flyers were swept in the Stanley Cup Finals by the Montreal Canadiens, the 1981 Phillies lost in the NLDS to the Montreal Expos. The 1983-84 Philadelphia 76ers lost to the New Jersey Nets in the first round of the NBA Playoffs.