# Talk:2017 World Series

I know this page is evolving as the Series progresses, but does each game summary really have to begin with who threw out the ceremonial first pitch? This is probably about as superfluous as it gets and is completely unrelated to the events that transpire in each game. If ceremonial first pitch just has to be included, could it be included somewhere as to not disrupt the flow of reading the game summaries? 
For example, for Game 2 it'd be much more interesting, and valuable to the reader, for the summary to begin with it stating that Game 2 was the first World Series game ever won by the Astros... it's not interesting, or pertinent, that Vin Scully and Fernando Valenzuela threw out the ceremonial first pitch and yet that's exactly what starts off the Game 2 summary. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but it looks like that is consistent with how the previous world series articles were handled. Spanneraol (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The classic WP dilemma of being consistently bad or inconsistently good (I'd choose the latter).—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This only has been done since the 2015 World Series.  I vote to remove it. posty (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been the one adding it since 2015, I guess. Why is it superfluous? It's the ceremonial start of the game, it honors people associated with the home team, and in only one sentence. Ceremonial first pitch is a notable topic. I definitely disagree with starting the Game 2 summary with who won, the game summary should be chronological and that starts with the CFP, starting pitchers, and then the first inning, or first action. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It’s superfluous in that the game summary should be the summary of the game and not pre-game ceremonies. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The pre-game ceremonies are part of the story of the game though... as are the national anthem singers for that matter. Spanneraol (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Acknowledged, but that sort of information should be in its appropriate place, and not in the game summary logs. Does it really make sense to have game summary logs start off with who sang the national anthem, who threw out the first pitch, who announced the players for both teams, who the sponsors are...? People look to a game summary to see what the summary of the game is, and not for the pre-game ceremony info. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's part of the game. I draw the line with the national anthem singers. What would you suggest is the appropriate place for CFP? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if it would fit in as a one-line thing underneath the start time and temperature before the box score? Spanneraol (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Like, in the "Other" parameter of {{Linescore}}? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yea... if it doesnt look weird. Spanneraol (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I know we're not supposed to do test edits, but here it is. WP:IAR, right? To me, it looks cluttered. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks alright to me, takes it out of the text and still keeps it tied to the game. Unless someone has a better idea? Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think that the CFP even deserves to be mentioned to be honest. It’s purely a publicity stunt that has zero relevance to the game being played. I know there’s been a sort of natural push to include more and more of these little tidbits of information in wiki articles in recent years so I wouldn’t dare challenge to exclude it completely, but to be honest if it wasn’t even mentioned I think these articles would be better for it. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Disagree that a game summary should be purely chronological.  First paragraph should summarize the key points of the game, for the many readers that wont bother to read the finer points of action.  Its the equivalent of the lead for the individual game.  CFP should be on a per case basis.  Robinson in Game 1 AFAIK was purely ceremonial, and thus trivial.  Scully in Game 2 might be more notable, since he retired only a year ago, and the first pitch act went on for a few minutes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with that re: chronology. Anyone wanting the quick summary can read the line score. Games go inning by inning. It doesn't make sense to me to mention in prose something about, say, extra innings of Game 2, without first covering the first nine innings. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mubo here... there should be an overall summary of the series at the top somewhere.. no need to do that with each game. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The linescore only tells what team scored, and doesn't capture the players and key points involved.  See WP:PYRAMID for details on this style: "this style encourages brevity and prioritizes information, because many people expect to find important material early, and less important information later, where interest decreases." For example the brief lead for Game 2 could read something like "Springer hit a 2-run homer in the top of the 11th inning to lead the Astros to a 7–6 win over the Dodgers. The Dodgers' rallied in the bottom of the inning when Culbertson hit a two-out homer off Devenski, who struck out Puig to earn the win for the game. A record eight home runs were hit in the game, including six in the final three innings."  It's fine that the first iterations are chronological, as some of you are live editing the game.  But I fail to see the downside if someone later edits to summarize the key points first, making it more useful for readers, and moving less important items like CFP down.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba, and what he posted from WP:PYRAMID applies to the inclusion of the Ceremonial First Pitch always leading off each game summary. That is easily the least important information in each summary and yet it's exactly what is leading off each summary currently. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
For Game 2, I went ahead and added highlights in opening paragraph and moved ceremonial pitch to end.—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Bagumba, I just did the same for Games 1 and 3. I still feel that all this Ceremonial First Pitch information should either be removed completely, or placed in a completely different section of the article. For a Game Summary to begin like this: "Houston Texans defensive end J. J. Watt, who had raised $37 million for Hurricane Harvey victims, threw out the first pitch." is uncyclopedic as J.J. Watt's charity contributions, while noble and very wonderful of him, have zero to do with the World Series. I mean we're explaining to the reader what the person did to justify his throwing out the first pitch in the game summaries? How is that information pertinent to the game summary that this section should be about? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I added to article that Game 1 was anniversary of Robinson's death, and 2017 was 7th anniversary of his breaking color line. That type of context makes it relevant. I'm OK with keeping those CFPs that have some relevance to the WS or the teams, or like Watt with the city of Houston and the hurricane.  Perhaps they are always notable, but just simply dropping a name without any other context makes the mere act of the CFP sound trivial for most.—Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so Muboshgu decided to undo the edits that Bagumba and I discussed here above. I do not wish to get into an edit war with this, but there seems to be a consensus that having the Ceremonial First Pitch begin each game summary should be changed and WP:PYRAMID sets president against having info such as Ceremonial first pitch begin a section like this. In order to get this addressed civilly, what should be the next step? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I say table it until the series is over and it can be reworked with more of a historical perspective. Spanneraol (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see a consensus on this issue. I expressed that I disagree, so it's 2 to 1 plus Spanneraol opposing using WP:PYRAMID here, unless I'm mistaken. On articles as important as the World Series to WP:BASEBALL should get more input, and be discussed for more than a day. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Acknowledged. This clearly needs further action and should be addressed. However, there was no need to undo the edits that Bagumba and I did earlier, especially in light that we used president, discussed it here and the CFP info was not removed, just placed in a different part of the Game Summary. Remember, no one owns a Wiki article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't own the article, but there wasn't consensus to make those changes yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
There was less "consensus" to keep the CFP as the first sentence, so that revert could only stoke an edit war, which I'm glad Darwin's Bulldog avoided.—Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
After looking at the examples, I think having a brief game summary at the start of the section for each game makes the article seem like a collection of wire stories rather than an encyclopedia article. If there is going to be a summary of highlights for each game, I suggest it would fit better in the "Summary" section, providing readers with a quick overview of the entire series. I personally prefer having each game section begin with the starting pitchers. I think that for the most part, pre-game ceremonies could be moved to the end of the section, as an event that does not affect the competitive outcome. (Exceptions could be made for truly exceptional cases, such as a special commemoration for a global event.) If putting this information in the summary box, I don't like having it under the table caption, as I think it gives it undue prominence. I would prefer it to be at the bottom of the box. isaacl (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your comment regarding a "wire story" vs "encyclopedia article", which encyclopedia would you be referencing?  Encyclopedia Brittanica and the like don't even get into game-by-game details, so what is the reference point you are proposing.  I still maintain it's presumptuous that a reader would (or must) want to read the article or a section from beginning to end; WP:SUMMARY and WP:PYRAMID reflect that spirt. 2014 NBA Finals#Game summaries would be my suggested model.  The series is summarized at the top level with little specific game details, with more stats and sports details than you would find in the lead.  The individual games each have a brief overview on the highlights, followed by some chronological details.  Granted the challenge is that basketball was never going to write about each score, so selective highlights are a given, while in other sports the inclination is to write about each score.—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more presumptuous to assume most readers will expect to see a summary of each section at the start of it, which leads to repetition. The lead section will already summarize the biggest highlights, and then each game section would repeat the highlights twice. Readers are used to this in a newspaper article, but an encyclopedia article is not just a collection of mini-encyclopedia articles, so it's not a bad thing for the sections to rely on each other. Readers not interested in reading the entire article would likely appreciate having all game summaries in the "Summary" section, saving them time. Readers who want more details could easily skip this section and go straight to the individual game sections. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. Summarize the main points of the whole series in the summary section and then have the game by game sections talk about it in chronological order. Spanneraol (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the 2016 World Series article, the seventh-inning stretch singers in Chicago for "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" are listed in the first sentence. Strictly speaking, if it were to be organized chronologically, it should come later. Combining the two events into one sentence is treating ceremonial aspects of the game in a different way than the competitive portion, which I feel is apt. isaacl (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The ceremonial aspects are generally not as core to understanding of the game, and should be relegated to the end of a game summary as you suggested earlier.—Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that.. or maybe even strip them from the game summaries entirely and have a new section that combines all the ceremonial aspects into one section. Spanneraol (talk)
Idk if CFPs are important enough to merit their own sections, but they certainly don't belong in game summaries so I'm for removing it form that info from the Game summary sections.  Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


### Arbitrary break
I guess there's another option. The "notes" parameter in {{linescore}}

Uh, no. Whether or not the first pitch info should be included in the article is a valid debate. However, to include it in the line score would indicate that it is part of the actual game, which it is most certainly not. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jdavi333 that this should not be included in the boxscore... that will only open up people wanting to include who sang the national anthem and the celebrity who sang "Take Me Out the Ball Game" in the boxscore as well. Besides, MLB boxscores (which wiki boxscores duplicate) don't include such superfluous information. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
If "the game" is only defined as the action from the first pitch of the first inning to the handshake line at the end of the game, then yes, CFP is not part of the game. But if one considers "the game" to include what happens when the fans are in the stadium, then yeah it's part of the game. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Is batting practice part of the game? Or post-game fireworks? Or other random things that happen from opening of the gates till they close? Of course not. The game is the game. everything else is superfluous. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yuli Gurriel's suspension came between games and is still relevant. So is what I'm reading about slicker baseballs making it difficult to throw sliders. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The ceremonial first pitch is included on the Fox broadcast.. the fireworks and batting practice are not.. that alone makes it more important. Also only the Cubs do that cheesy celebrity singing take me out to the ballgame thing.. and fortunately they arent in this series.Spanneraol (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright, we're straying off topic with this here and that is exactly my point. The CFP does not belong in the game summary sections, and its very inclusion will lead to the desire to include additional pre-game pomp and circumstances that clearly do not belong in such a section. Readers go to the game summary to read about the game. Not the CFP, not who sang the national anthem or to find out the fire-marshal who approved that night's fireworks, but the game itself. For example, it's far more important for a reader to know that Bill Buckner misplayed a grounder rolling on the first base side during Game 6 of the 1986 World Series than it is to know who threw out the first pitch of that game. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, when I came here to read about Game 2 the other day, I found myself reading all about how Fernando Valenzuela and Steve Yeager threw out the ceremonial first pitches and how they were introduced by retired Dodgers broadcaster Vin Scully and I realized that I just read a ton of information and yet still knew nothing about what happened in the actual game. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You read one sentence, which mentioned two former Dodgers players and a former announcer, that's not a "ton of information". You can't just then read the second sentence, which mentions who started the game, and then read the third sentence, which talks about how the game went? Instead, the Game 2 summary, in PYRAMID style, is a mess, duplicating information about extra innings, and leading with extra innings skipping everything that happened before it. Readers should be able to read about what they see in the broadcast; I think Spanneraol's point was right on target. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On any other article all this would be removed as trivia, if it must be there, why not add a sub-section say, "Ceremonies" and add the first pitches and anthem singers and any thing else that might apply.  - FlightTime (open channel) 21:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm completely for removing CFP as it's trivial information at best. If we can close this soon and move on with our lives without getting into edit wars then that would be awesome. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus. Maybe we can do an informal vote to see what solutions are the most popular? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Spanneraol was fine with moving the ceremonial events to the end of each game section, or to a separate section; can most of the commenters live with this approach? From what I can see, this is in general alignment with most of the expressed views to de-emphasize this aspect of the game. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say separate section for the time being. Muboshgu seems to be the only one in favor of keeping that data. I feel it's trivial and should not even be in the article, but if it just has to be in the article then a separate section is where it should be for now. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I can live with finding a separate section to put it in. But where exactly would that go? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
There can be a new section that focuses on non-game aspects of the series.. which might be a better place for the "slick baseball" controversy also. Spanneraol (talk)
Do we feel that we've reached consensus on this issue? I'd like to go ahead and dump CFP data into a different section but don't wish to go through the effort if it's simply going to be reverted by someone. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept that I'm on the short end of this discussion, but what has been decided? What "different section" would it be moved to? How high or low in the article? How big or small? If you're just going to "dump" the data, the way you do it might get it reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Dump the data at the bottom of the article, below the Broadcasting section. Call the section "Pomp and Circumstances", "Public Relations" or "Trivia". I don't care, be creative. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I created a Pre-Game Ceremonies section [1] at the bottom of the page and moved the lines there. It can be sorted out in that section by another editor. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I moved it up, because "pre-game" ceremonies should not be the last thing presented in the article. We might then be adding national anthem singers and such to that section, which I would've never added to the game by game breakdowns. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
If its gonna be listed as "pre game ceremonies" it probably should include the anthem singers.. and other things that happened during pre-game.. like Josh Reddick being soundly booed during his game 1 introductions thanks to his pre-series comments about LA fans. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that the first pitch information should be included in the above line score box rather, it should be mentioned in the text of the article. While the information can be construed as trivial, sometimes trivial facts are interesting, such as when Pie Traynor threw out the first pitch of Game 3 of the 1971 World Series at Three Rivers Stadium, symbolically tying the then new stadium to the old Forbes Field Pirates. It was timely too as Traynor died in 1972.Orsoni (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit in the #Ceremonial First Pitch thread about this, but the two items need to be treated separately. As of the moment of my edit, Game 2 is presented in WP:PYRAMID style, while Games 1, 3, and 4 are presented in a straight chronological style.

We need to pick one and stick with it. I vote for chronology. It makes no sense to talk about extra innings of a game, for instance, before talking about how we got there. Newspapers use PYRAMID style, and we are not newspapers, so we shouldn't write the way they do. We write two to three paragraphs for an entire game, there's no need to add extra summary to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As I suggested above, the "Summary" section can contain brief game summaries, and the individual game sections can cover the game events in chronological order (leaving aside the question of ceremonial events). isaacl (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I detest the use of the pyramid style in this instance.. that summary of game 2 makes it all about extra innings when the game itself had so much drama.. it's hard to properly express it unless it is told in chronological order. An overall summary as Isaacl suggests makes more sense. Spanneraol (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Isaacl:, I don't understand your suggestion, we would have two game summaries for each game in different parts of the article? Isn't that redundant? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe he means a summary of the entire series that hits the major thematic beats and doesnt cover detailed play by play of each of the games. Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, something like that could work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The "Summary" section, instead of just having a table, would also include a brief summary of each game with just the key highlights. Thus there would be no need to have a brief summary of highlights at the start of each game section. The game sections would contain a more complete description of events. This puts the brief overview in one place, convenient for those skimming the article to get the gist, and easy to skip over for those wanting to read the details. It's reordering the redundancy to better serve each audience segment: Skimmers won't have to go from game section to game section to read the first paragraph, and others won't have to skip over the first paragraph in each section. isaacl (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: The Game 2 summary can be edited to capture any key highlight missing. The main question is whther the concept of having a summary is useful to non-hardcore readers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I invite people to comment on the style at 2014 NBA Finals#Game summaries. The top level describes the overall series and flow, without getting into much game-by-game details.  The individial games themselves start with a brief overview of  key points of a the game, followed by more specific game details.  Ultimately, as long as a reader is not necessarily forced to read everything from beginning to end and has more flexibility to skim highlights of game, I would be OK.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's really comparable because Basketball as a sport doesn't really have the score by score type of commentary that we have here. It's always gonna be more about overall how many points did so and so score. Spanneraol (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That is true to a certain extent.  I'm a baseball fan, I know the game but dont follow it as closely anymore.  I'd like to know the key storyline at a glance, like was it a domainant starting pitcher, a strong hitter, a late comeback, a controversial call, that was the key takeaway from the game.  If the game was 9–7, a reader should not have to read through all the scores to finally capture that essence.—Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
For baseball, discussing the progression of a series without talking about game highlights wouldn't be much more enlightening than the one-line box score. I think those looking for a barebones understanding of what took place would be best served by adding prose to the "Summary" section to cover the game highlights. isaacl (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not tied to the game highlights having to stay in the individual games section, as oppose to the top level "Game summaries".  To break the stalemate, I propose that editors can feel free to add a summary to the individual game section, with no prejudice if BRD copyedits the individual highlight into "Game summaries".—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, I like 1988 World Series's lead for featuring Kirk Gibson (limping HR) and Orel Hershiser (MVP) without going into sequential game-by-game details like the lead of FA 2009 World Series.  The downside with the 2009 lead style is that it gives equal weight to each game, instead of making editorial decisions on the defining highlights of the series.  Plus as I'm reading the 2009 lead, I'm mentally having to tally who is ahead in the series after each game.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think 1988 clearly has that one huge moment that overshadowed the rest of the series. 2009 didn't really have that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

What purpose does having this serve? It seems like just a weird combination of otherwise independent facts. 151.141.81.91 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 World Series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 23:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one on.  Give me a day or so. I've just gone through the refs and cleaned some of them up, but was left with a couple initial comments on the referencing:

What makes ref 108 (and other uses of Sports Media Watch) a reliable source?
Same with Refs 100 and 102 -- Awful Announcing?
Awful Announcing is a pretty good blog that focuses on the broadcasters, which get little attention from the mainstream sources. They're neutral and factual, and cited in 2015 World Series, which passed GAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Similar with Sports Media Watch, other than I don't know that I've used them in other GAs. They're not the most mainstream site, but their info is solid, neutral, and informative. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to review this. I believe we've had Awful Announcing as a source before, I can check back into some past GA reviews to see what's been said about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"With the Astros and Dodgers having waited a combined 84 years for a championship (the Dodgers last won the World Series in 1988, and the Astros had never won since their 1962 formation), this was the third straight year in which the World Series teams had waited a combined 50 years or more to win a World Series, following 2015 at 59 years and 2016 at 176 years. Both teams had not lost at home this postseason leading to the World Series."  The listed reference for the paragraph contains none of this information.
Removed. Seems trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"With a 101–61 regular season record, the team won its first American League West title since moving from the National League Central starting in its 2013 season, and their first division title since 2001."  Source?  And might be worth mentioning the NL to AL move back up when discussing the team's post-season history.
Sourced. I moved the info about moving from the NL to the AL in the notes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"led to questions about whether the Dodgers would succeed in the postseason."  This could use a "by whom" tag, and a source.
Removed the whole part about the slump. It was obviously much ado about nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Need a source for the five consecutive NL West titles.
Sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"Entering the 2017 World Series, the Dodgers bullpen had thrown 23 consecutive scoreless innings, a postseason record for a bullpen." Not seeing this in the source at the end of the paragraph, either.
Sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
More after I sleep. Courcelles (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary section looks fine.
Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Pre-game ceremonies section is fine, though is there a reason for it to exist and not to separate it out and include it in each game's section? Also, strikes me as odd to reverse the First-pitch-Anthem order for game 7.
Yeah.... I don't love it as it is, but see Talk:2017 World Series#Ceremonial First Pitch for the whole tl;dr explanation on why it became the way it is. Some didn't want ceremonial first pitches and such in the article at all, I wanted it in the game summaries, this was the compromise. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Aaah, a classic Wikimedia compromise where no one likes the outcome, but lives with it anyway!  Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Game 1 and game 2 summaries look fine. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"Darvish left the game after ​1 2⁄3 innings, which was the shortest outing of his career." Needs in-line citation for the last clause.
Sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"As a result, Gurriel was suspended for the first five games of the 2018 MLB season without pay"  By whom, the team or the Commissioner?
The commish. The source says so, I added it to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"Bregman homered off of Jansen in the bottom of the ninth but the Dodgers managed to even up the series." Might this flow better as two complete sentences?
I think it flows better with this rewrite: "Bregman hit a home run off of Jansen in the bottom of the ninth inning, but the Dodgers won the game to even up the series." – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"This was his shortest home start of the season."  Citation?
Deleted. That sounds like one too many qualifiers to be worth keeping. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Game 5 could use a link to Hit by pitch.
Link added. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"Bregman became the third youngest player to have a walk-off hit in the World Series ever." Citation?
Third youngest? I didn't see that in there before. Trivial, removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"the other were the Toronto Blue Jays"  Should that be "the other was"? The citation in the middle seems to support the entire sentence, too.
You're right. A team is singular. Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Game 5 lasted five hours and seventeen minutes, making it the second longest World Series game in history by time, trailing only the 14 inning contest between the Astros and the Chicago White Sox in Game 3 of the 2005 World Series in the same ballpark, as well as the third World Series game ever to go beyond five hours of game time." Citations for all of that?
The citation there doesn't have it? I'm not a WaPo subscriber and can't read it any more. Anyway, I'm adding more sourcing. And that's a run on sentence. Cut the trivial ballpark anecdote and can't find sourcing for the last clause, which isn't worth keeping. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"This game is considered one of the greatest World Series games of all time.[84]"  By whom?  Could use more than one writer making such a claim, too.
Cut cut cut. I did not write that and never would. I missed it in my last spotcheck before I nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Game 6 looks fine.
Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"The Astros became the third consecutive road team to win a World Series Game 7 as well as the fourth consecutive team to end a World Series on the road (after the 2014 Giants, 2015 Royals and 2016 Cubs). They also became just the second team to win a seven game League Championship Series and a seven game World Series in the same year, following the 1985 Kansas City Royals"  Sources for that?
No, too trivial. Deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"Winning player's share: $438,901.57.   Losing player's share: $259,722.14."  Source for those numbers?
I'll add the source for those numbers. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Rather than put the reference in the linescore template, I created an "Impact and aftermath" section, which some other World Series articles have. Right now, it's just about the shares and parade. There won't be a lot more to add because it's only been a few months, but I can probably find some Houston Strong thing to include as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I instead found a record-loss by the Nevada sportsbooks and an SI cover to work in. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"After Game 7, Correa proposed to his girlfriend, 2016 Miss Texas USA winner Daniella Rodríguez, on live television during a postgame interview conducted by Rosenthal. She accepted.[101]"  Likely worth including, but... here, in the section about broadcasting?
I didn't know where else to put it, so it went in there because it was sort of about TV. Maybe I'll move it (back?) into Game 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I moved it to Game 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I know there was a Spanish broadcast on a Fox Sports cable channel -- I had to watch it since my cable company and local FOX station were having a fight.  Can/Should it be mentioned with broadcasters?
Found a ref mentioning Fox Deportes' broadcast and their broadcasters. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"This series turned out to be the 3rd highest rated since 2005, trailing only the 2009 World Series and the 2016 World Series.[102] For the second straight year, Game 5 beat out NBC Sunday Night Football in ratings.[103]" Clarify we're talking about only the US ratings here -- and I presume only the English broadcast on FOX.
Clarified it's the Nielsen ratings, which are only U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sponsorship section... a whole level 2 heading for two sentences strikes me as undue weight for a minor detail.  Could easily be squeezed into the background section further up.
Probably. That detail was initially in the lead, I believe, but someone moved it to the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The note needs a citation, though I admit I knew it without looking it up.
Added. And I added more citations to that paragraph. Apparently it was coin flips that determined HFA for all WS matchups until 1925.[2] I did not know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Still to come is an image review. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The logo is non-free and has tagging that is valid and a rationale I agree with.
File:2017 World Series program (cropped).jpg would seem to have problems with WP:NFCC criteria 8.  Indeed, the given rationale "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." calls itself into question as the logo is fulfilling that purpose as the primary means of identification.
Agreed, removed – Muboshgu (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Astros Strong.png is, at least in the opinion of this Commons admin, correctly tagged and would survive a deletion discussion over there.  The Texas silhouette is not a "Simple geometric shape" but neither it is an original work that qualifies this badge for copyright protection.
All other images are appropriately freely licensed and tagged.
Think this is everything I have, though I may do another read-through later.  At any rate, moving this to hold status, primarily to work on adding citations. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty! That's some work to start doing. And I'll start it tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: any progress? Courcelles (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I just thought about this on my commute home. I've been busy and tomorrow is fully booked. I will make progress on it this week. Maybe now I can do a few things. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I will finish it off soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
​ I think I've addressed all points now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Noted. Will look when I get home tonight. Courcelles (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, passing. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes the 2017 World Series' being known "officially known as the World Series presented by YouTube TV"? An MLB.com article cited begins with the sentence "We are just a week away from the World Series presented by YouTube TV", which to me says that YouTube TV will sponsor the Series -- not that YouTube TV has become part of the official name of the Series. The citation for a Variety article includes the same quotation ("We are just a week away from the World Series presented by YouTube TV"), but I cannot see that sentence in the Variety article. It does say, "YouTube TV will serve as the presenting sponsor of the baseball’s 2017 World Series ..." 
Does being the "presenting sponsor" equal being "officially known as ..." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a small request to update the page and keep current with news of the sign stealing scandal. Source is below, and the following is what I would ad as an addendum beneath everything else, but feel free to do whatever you like with it, and please edit it in case I did not properly cite the writer I wan trying to quote/paraphrase.
"While the Houston Astros season concluded with a World Series win, it was not without controversy. On January 13, 2020, the club fired their Manager A.J. Hinch, and their General Manager Jeff Luhnow, while being fined $5 million dollars for stealing signs from opposing teams using stadium cameras to gain an unfair advantage during the 2017 season. Despite being presented with documentary and testimonial evidence of his prior knowledge and consent of the activities, Luhnow would continue to deny any knowledge of his replay review staff decoding and transmitting signs to their dugout. No evidence linked Houston Astros owner Jim Crane to the activity, who was said to be "very upset" when he had found out."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/13/houston-astros-baseball-cheating-punishment Bodgerton (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Adding something similar to that in the "Aftermath" section now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
An actual consequence of the World Series appearing in the "Aftermath" section! It's like the sighting of a blue ox! isaacl (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The editors are being idiots.  It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Astros cheated and the contest was not fair.  Ignoring this basic fact and having this Wikipedia entry 99% about a ridiculous contest that was a complete Sham is shear stupidity.  Stop editing legitimate updates!!  You are not the protectors of MLB owners interest.  Please go away and let the real owners of baseball tell the truth!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.165.51 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 

The article is about the game.. there is a separate article about the scandal. As a Dodgers fan, I'm with you... I hate that they cheated to beat us... BUT as a wikipedian... it's our job to present factual information without personal bias. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
And how, pray tell, do you know for sure that the Astros would have lost if they hadn't cheated? You don't, because that's one of those things in life that will never be proven one way or the other. The Astros, unfortunately IMO, remain the 2017 World Series champions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is really incomplete/misleading without some, brief mention of the Astros sign-stealing. Ebw343 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The Impact and aftermath section covers it some. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You're right, sorry I missed that. I thought some editor had deleted it.Ebw343 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone willing to address this, or should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


### 2017 World Series