# Talk:Clayton Kershaw

So I noticed something weird. There are 4 pages of archives here, but the index at the top of the page only shows page 1. Page 2 and page 3 are missing, and newly archived topics are being added to page 4. Is there a standard procedure to fix this? - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this too and I thought it had been fixed - same issue with Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander's BTW - but it's still going to a Archive page 4? Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia and @UmbyUmbreon, I've fixed it by moving Archive 4 to Archive 2 (without leaving a redirect) and updating the archiving template. TarnishedPathtalk 08:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath Well that's easy, I'll keep that in mind for next time. Thank you! - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@UmbyUmbreon, it was the archiving template which was the cause. Someone messed with it and either made a mistake or didn't know what they were doing. TarnishedPathtalk 11:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Clayton Kershaw is a 3x World Series champion (2020,2024 and 2025) 74.69.180.137 (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The prevailing consensus is that Kershaw was not part of the World Series roster and should not have 2024 listed, and the listed years are backed by cited sources. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the only one with this made up stat. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
If you have a better source than the ones already on the article, feel free to fix it. But this is what the player stats on both Baseball Reference and MLB.com says too. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
" MLB.com says too"
MLB literally says "Clayton Kershaw wins third world series". Update the Wikipedia. This is the most official source, straight from the MLB!!!!
https://www.mlb.com/news/clayton-kershaw-wins-third-world-series-dodgers 2A02:2A40:573:C200:A5CE:4EA3:92A7:223F (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
"The prevailing consensus is that Kershaw was not part of the World Series roster and should not have 2024 listed, and the listed years are backed by cited sources"
Who are you to decide that if someone didn't pitch in literally a couple games in a series they don't get to be called a champion. he played the entire season, what have you done with your life? 2A02:2A40:573:C200:A5CE:4EA3:92A7:223F (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Major League Baseball themselves. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Wrong mfer and hater.
MLB says "Clayton Kershaw wins third world series" and "Kershaw closes book on awesome career with 3rd championship"
https://www.mlb.com/news/clayton-kershaw-wins-third-world-series-dodgers 2A02:2A40:573:C200:A5CE:4EA3:92A7:223F (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
If you go to his player page on MLB.com, he's listed as two-time champ. Same with Baseball-Reference. Articles on MLB.com are opinions of the writers, not official stats. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Kershaw closes book on awesome career with 3rd championship"
https://www.mlb.com/news/clayton-kershaw-wins-third-world-series-dodgers 2A02:2A40:573:C200:A5CE:4EA3:92A7:223F (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is the MLB website not showing him as part of the 2024 World Series roster. This is correct as other players—e.g. Fernando Valenzuela, Frank Thomas, and Evan Phillips—all received rings, but are not credited officially with the World Series win. You're welcome to start discussion with WP:BASEBALL if you think this should change. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 12:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
"the MLB website not showing him as part of the 2024 World Series roster"
Being on the roster and being a champion are two different things. NBA players injured and not participating in the Finals still get to be called a champion. You're making up a bullshit rule because you're a hater! 2A02:2A40:573:C200:A5CE:4EA3:92A7:223F (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I and many others have already stated the rationale for not putting it on his page. I have also given you an avenue to discuss and potentially resolve this, if you choose to do so. Otherwise, continuing to attack other editors (and carrying it to their talk page, for some reason) as well as restating the same arguments that others have already said will not change anything, so I would advise you not to do so. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 13:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, the mobile editor's tone isn't apprecciated. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah but the NBA is not the MLB. MLB defines a World Series Champion as someone who was on the World Series Roster. It’s not complicated. TheChromekey (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
If you have a reference to MLB's definition of a World Series champion, that would be a great help to this discussion. So far, I have not seen anyone else who was able to find one. It appears MLB confers the title World Series champion only on teams and not on individual players. The National Baseball Hall of Fame does not publish a definition describing which players it considers World Series champions, but they told me in an email that it is "any player who played for a World Series-winning team during that season." See below. They include Don Sutton on their list of Hall of Fame Players Who Won the World Series, even though he was released by the champion Dodgers in August 1988. Taxman1913 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
@Taxman1913, if it helps, I was discussing this with someone else whom I'm acquainted with, who studies baseball statistics and whatnot, and they said the official stats of MLB - and all pro sports leagues in the US - are handled by Elias Sports Bureau. Completely slipped my mind to mention it here due to IRL stuff going on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Omnis Scientia, that would be an authority substantially equivalent to official. However, they do not publish statistics or records for use by the general public. We have no way of knowing whether they officially do or do not confer the title World Series champion on individual players. Do you intend to contact them in an attempt to find out? Taxman1913 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@Taxman1913, oh sure, I will send them an email asking since they don't publish to the public. I assume they must have a criteria for MLB and other leagues so worth asking at least! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Being part of the roster to be considered a champion is kind of silly. Ben Rortvedt was part of the roster and he didn't play a single inning. He didn't register a single at bat or pinch run, either. He warmed the bench the whole series but still gets called a champion just because he was part of the roster (nothing against him, he earned his spot on the roster). I understand that rules are rules; but someone on the roster who did as much as someone who wasn't on it (due to injury, family matter, not being good enough) should not be condidered a champion, either (to be honest, MLB should change their criteria). ~2025-32185-76 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Also being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#"Clayton Kershaw is a 3-Time Champion" - MLB
Wikipedia must follow reliable secondary sources, not WP:OR opinions about needing to be on the WS roster to be a WS champion.
Associated Press: "Kershaw also won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024."
CBS Sports: "And now, he finishes with back-to-back World Series championships."
ESPN: "And that's gratifying because it means Kershaw was at least a contributor to the third championship of his storied career."
This treatment in news sources merits inclusion here on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP grounds.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Some of the sources cited only state that he "won three World Series rings", which is not the same as being a 3X champion.
Assadzadeh (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
won 3 World Series rings isn't the same as 3x champion? That doesn't make sense what you're arguing. Explain yourself. ~2025-31939-01 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Players who were traded/let go midseason also get rings, as do executives, ball and bat boys, commentators, and stadium personnel, etc. So it's not an indicator as to who is WS champion in that sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Same case with all other sports leagues. NFL cheerleaders also receive rings, for example. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)


### Biography of Living Person
I've boldly changed the article to "3x World Series champion (2020, 2024, 2025)", citing these reliable secondary sources:
Please note the WP:BLP notice on this page. Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.
The citations I've added satisfy the requirements of a WP:BLP article, and a GA-class one at that. The previous deference to "MLB.com" and "Baseball Reference" does not. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BASEBALL dictates on Wikipedia that players who are not on the World Series roster in a particular year for a winning team should not be added as World Series champions in that particular year. They can say that Kershaw is a 3-time champion (2020, 2024, 2025) on other internet sources, but not on Wikipedia with the year 2024 in the infobox; he is currently listed as a 2-time champion (2020, 2025) as dictated for players on the World Series roster with the winning team. This was the case for Kershaw when he was not on the 2024 World Series roster with the winning team he played due to injury sustained late in the 2024 season. He only played in the regular season during the 2024 season with a few games started.
In my opinion, I disagree with WP:BASEBALL's long-standing consensus that players who were not on the World Series roster with the winning team are not considered World Series champions listed in the players' infobox in that particular year. So, to tell everyone else this on Wikipedia: If you guys are not going to add the year 2024 as a World Series champion in the infobox, then you guys hate Kershaw for not listing him as 2024 World Series champions.
--Allen (talk / ctrb) 17:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The thing is, he barely played in 2024, was only active for a handful of games all season before getting hurt and did not participate in the postseason at all. Saying he was part of three world championship teams in the text could work but calling him a world series champion when he did not participate at all is incorrect.. by that logic every scrub that came up from the minors for a handful of games would be listed as a champion. Spanneraol (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Reliable sources such as the New York Times disagree. Your assertion that "calling him a world series champion when he did not participate at all is incorrect" is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. If a "scrub that came up from the minors" is listed in multiple reliable secondary sources as a World Series champion he should be listed as well... but that is a completely different discussion than the WP:BLP article for Clayton Kershaw. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It's literally not. You're providing us the opinions of writers who are going for senitmental POVs for a retiring future HOFer. I don't see anything wrong with going with the playoff roster like Baseball Reference and other stats sites do. That is not original research and if you're gonna widen the scope to make a guy coming up for two weeks or someone traded mid-season to another team, I really can't go along with it. It's nothing personal, we certainly aren't doing it because I hate CK or are any player as Allen seems to be claiming.
I know @Spanneraol is a big Dodgers fan as well so you can't say they hate CK just because they are going with Baseball-Reference and other stats sites. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The wikiproject WP:BASEBALL does not have the authority to arbitrarily dictate what content is displayed or what sources are used in a WP:BLP article.
WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
WP:BLP: Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about building consensus not about ramming your views through like you are trying to do.. None of this is "contentious material" so your BLP complaints are moot. ditto your NPOV complaints as this is a content dispute not some other thing. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Very funny to say "none of this is 'contentious material'" when the material has spawned over a year of edit wars, 25+ semi-protected edit requests in the archives, Template:Round in circles on the article, and a current WP:DISPUTED tag in the article. It absolutely is contentious material and BLP requires it be sourced to reliable secondary sources. WP:BLP articles are NOT about "building consensus", they are about "getting the article right", "being very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources", and "removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately and without waiting for discussion." PK-WIKI (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)


### RfC: 2x or 3x champ?
Clayton Kershaw pitched in the 2020 and 2025 World Series. In 2024 he pitched in the regular season, but was put on the injured list at the end of August and did not appear on any post-season rosters as the Dodgers went on to win the World Series.
In the wake of last week's championship and his retirement:

Secondary source news reports (example) credit Kershaw as a "3-time World Series champion" for 2020, 2024, and 2025.
His MLB.com profile and the statistics website Baseball Reference instead give him credit for "2x World Series" and "World Series Championship (2020, 2025)", omitting 2024 when he was not on the active WS roster.
Should Clayton Kershaw be called a two-time World Series champion? Or a three-time World Series champion? Long-running content dispute that has gone on for an entire year since the 2024 World Series concluded. 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)


#### Survey
Neutral - All I request, is that we treat the MLB bios with consistency. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Have him as a 3 time World Series Champion AdonisVIP (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
3x WS champion (2020, 2024, 2025): This is directly stated in multiple reliable secondary sources. In a WP:BLP article, we MUST follow the reliable secondary sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, he Should be a 3x Champion! He pitched during the season! Add him to the postseason roster! ~2025-31601-81 (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you. he should be a three-time champion. If I'm not mistaken the Dodgers gave him a ring when they were handed out earlier this year for the 2024 WS. ~2025-32148-30 (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Rings are given to all employees for the team and stadium, and even players who were released mid-season or traded, etc. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, he should be a 3x Champion ~2025-33861-31 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes he should be 3x world champion. ~2025-34678-21 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
This is easy oppose (i.e. 2x WS Champ for 2020 and 2025) because I don't know why we should go against MLB policy and long-standing Wikipedia policy just because CK's fans want us to. He's a two-time champion because he was on the roster of exactly TWO WS winning playoff teams. That's never been controversial. It's nothing against CK or any player who maybe spent one game in MLB for the team and got the ring as a result. I don't call Jacob deGrom the 2023 Champion either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Is there a link to an MLB policy on this topic? —Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I can find the playoff roster eligibility rules, I can find the playoff rosters for WS winning teams. I'm making the assumption from that that they somewhat limit who is OFFICIALLY a champion which. Baseball Reference draws a more solid line on the matter. They have a proper policy which is any player on a playoff roster, not necessarily WS, is seen as a champion.
Again, its nothing personal. I go with the playoff roster. I'm happy players who participated in the regular season get rings but I'm uncomfortable expanding the pool beyond the playoff roster rule. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
There are playoff roster rules, but I don't believe the league confers a champion title on individual players. —Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid they don't actually have an official line on that the way Baseball Reference does. They tend to go by who was on the WS roster as far as I see.Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I differentiate the league, MLB, from its website, MLB.com.  I don't think the league usually makes any mention of player X winning Y titles, unless it's part of some statement about a Historic Achievement Award, which probably hasn't involved a player in this WS roster situation (yet). —Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
That's definitely fair! The rules don't have anything concrete about it from the league itself. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Which long-standing Wikipedia policy is this referring to? And what evidence is there that those advocating for 3x here are a coordinated group of CK's fans who care more about him than the project? Left guide (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see this as an issue on other prominent players' talk pages where they aren't on the roster of the WS team in question. On the other hand IP addresses have come in to this talk page asking for CK's to be changed. Some have been quite insulting as well, unfortunately, claiming this is a personal thing and that we supposedly "hate" CK because of it. It happened during WS time last and again this year but then usually it becomes a non-issue after a while.
@Spanneraol can attest to this. They handle Dodgers articles and I think their experience is the same as mine. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
And I should be clarify I meant the WP:Baseball policy about keeping WS champs count in the infobox to just those on the playoff rosters during the WS run. There's very few, if any, doing the same for lesser known players or other well known players from before. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:Baseball cannot create policy, at least not one that supersedes or is equal to sitewide policies when they conflict unless the broader community has agreed to allow an exception. This is explained in WP:LOCALCON. Left guide (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide, thanks for clarifying I didn't know! I still think it's the better approach and I've explained why I don't think sportwriters paying tribute tojust one player is not reliable since they don't treat every player the same and I've given examples showing that too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:!TRUTHFINDERS might be relevant here - opining on the motives of sportswriters doesn't discredit their reliability. Katzrockso (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Reliability isn't an issue in this case – the facts aren't in dispute. The standard used to decide if a player is part of a World Series champion team, however, can vary from person to person. (Promotional concerns can be a issue with sports journalism. But in this specific case, Kershaw wasn't some backbencher during the previous season in question, so I don't think it's a significant problem.) The reality is that sportswriters aren't necessarily concerned about setting a specific, consistent standard across all the articles they write about different players. Since typical ardent sports fans like consistency in stats collection, unsurprisingly many of the editors who edit baseball articles preferred to choose an objective standard. But since sportswriters don't do the same, there will be inconsistencies, as in Kershaw's case. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Isaacl, thank you for clarifying my position, much appreciated! That is what I was trying to say. Yeah, I guess "reliability" is the wrong word for how to explain this situation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately for sports fans, consistency and the imposition of an objective standard are not aspects of Wikipedia policies and guidelines when it governs content. The Wikipedia:Consistency proposal failed and there are no aspects of Wikipedia policy that indicate that the unilateral imposition of an objective standard by editors of a particular topic area is warranted. Katzrockso (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the previous discussion points on Wikipedia guidance. I was just providing context for those unfamiliar with how sports fans view statistics. isaacl (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Uh, no this an obvious support. Does he get a ring from the team? That should be all that matters. They are the 2025 World Champions of MLB. That means everyone who played for them during the season was a part of the team that won the World Series. If, for example, a player like Paul Skenes pitches and goes 30-0 with a 1.00 ERA but blows his arm out on the last start of the year and the Pirates win the WS, did Skenes not help the Pirates make it the playoffs, which is how they even had a chance to win a WS? Yes, he did.
If you contribute to the team during the regular season you’re just as important as anyone else. Here’s another example. Go ahead look up the stats of everyone on the dodgers roster in the playoffs or WS. Should a guy who pinch ran once in a 7 game WS be considered a champion? YES! Because he was on the team and contributed. Should a guy who never had an AB in the playoffs get a ring? Yes. Because he was on the team! This is so easy it’s unreal. If you are on the team at the end of the year then you get a ring. If you get a ring, you’re considered a WS champion.
So when he gets his ring at dodger stadium next year and he’s wearing his TWO other rings and he’s presented with his THIRD ring, then he’s a 3 time champion! Symosky2017 (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2x World Series Champion (2020, 2025) Per the arguments of Umby. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I am considering changing my mind, but it is tough. He wasn't on the postseason roster. But does anyone no whether the MLB gets the say on whether he officially counts as a 2X or 3X World Series Champion? Ultimately I think it is best to do what Sports leagues officially say for stats. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I had commented similarly above that the league (not to be confused as the same as the MLB.com website) only declares a team the champion. It does not make any statements on individuals—whether players, executives, coaches, etc.—short of awarding an MVP award to one player. —Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Going further, teams typically decide who receives rings or acknowledgment, and many include players, coaches, and staff who contributed during the regular season to get rings. Nemov (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
This includes players who are traded away mid-season, executives, and also ball and bat boys and girls. There was actually a joke about congratulating two players who were with both pennant-winnings teams at some point in the regular season this year for "getting a WS ring". I think prominent former players of the team receive one too. Famously Johnny Pesky got one for the 2004 Boston championship. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Did he get a ring for 2024 or not? That’s all that matters. Just because he didn’t pitch I the playoffs doesn’t mean he didn’t contribute to the team GETTING to the playoffs. Can’t win a WS if you don’t make the playoffs can you? If Paul Skenes goes 30-0 with a 1.00 ERA and 350 Ks and breaks his arm in his last start should we not consider him a champion if the Pirates win the WS? That’s ridiculous.
They got a trophy for winning the 2025 MLB World Championship. That means they were the best team in the league right? Well, you’re basically saying the regular season doesn’t matter. Theyre not just WS champions, or playoff champions, they are champions of the whole season. That’s they’re called the 2025 Champions. Not the 2025 WS winners. Not the 2025 playoffs champs.
They are referred to as the 2025 MLB Champions. Which means all parts of the 2025 season. Symosky2017 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Symosky2017, Winning the World Series doesn't equate to That means they were the best team in the league right? Winning the World Series is quantifiable. It means they won enough games to qualify for the postseason tournament and then won the tournament. Which club was the best team in any particular year is a qualitative judgement. The best team does not always win the World Series. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2x WS champion (2020, 2025): Much as I'm a big Kershaw fan and the one who got this article to GA status... he was not a significant part of the 2024 team and did not participate in the postseason. The article correctly says the team won three titles during his time with them but that he only participated in two of the championships. Spanneraol (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Did he get a ring? Yes. Is it a ring for the 2025 WS? No. Is it a ring for the 2025 playoffs? No.
It’s a ring for being 2025 MLB Champions. If we start evaluating the contributions of players to decide if they’re champions or not we’re gonna take away a lot of rings.
You’re basically saying if a guy hit .180 with no homers and 10 RBIs all year and then hit .180 with no homers or RBIs in the playoffs then he shouldn’t get a ring?
If you use the argument of how much he contributed to the team then we need to go back through every championship and take them away from everyone who performed poorly in those years. And that would be stupid.
What if the bench coach was the guy who every hitter went to during a slump and he got them out of it somehow? He gets a ring. But we wouldn’t know what his contributions are. But according to you he ”didn’t really contribute much” so he shouldn’t get a ring either. Symosky2017 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2x WS Champion (2020, 2025): Given that the official MLB.com player stats page and the highly reliable Baseball Reference stats page doesn't even list Kershaw as having taken part in the 2024 postseason, let alone listing Kershaw as champion for 2024 (separate from newsposts below the fold in the former's case), it makes sense that Wikipedia also reflects this. This is consistent with other articles of players who played a part in a season, did not participate in the World Series, but still received a ring. Regardless, the outcome here should be applied consistently to all other player articles, too. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Reggie Jackson shows that these "highly reliable" WP:TERTIARY sources aren't even in agreement. His MLB.com profile lists "World Series Championship (1973, 1974, 1977, 1978)" while his Baseball Reference profile lists "5x World Series" (adding 1972). PK-WIKI (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
He was on the LCS roster in 1972 and got injured. And again Jackson appeared in four World Series so that is accurate. He appeared in five playoff rosters where the team went on to win a title after he got injured. CK had neither case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
So? Why are we using this "Baseball Reference" site when the MLB.com site says something different? Jackson was on the LCS roster. Kershaw was on the regular-season roster. Where's the reliable secondary source that says you qualify as a World Series champion for one but not the other? PK-WIKI (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Because it's by far the most reliable statistical website for baseball stats. MLB.com has career stats too but, in many cases, it doesn't list players who were on the roster of a WS-winning as a champ because they didn't make an appearence in a game despite them being available to appear and MLB listing them on said WS roster - its quite inconsistant in how it applies that.
Baseball Reference is consistant throughout which is why its also mostly used in the articles for players statistical achievements instead of MLB.com. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Similar to Jackson, Alex Vesia is listed as a 2025 Champion in Baseball Reference even though he didn't make an appearence in the World Series. He was on the playoff roster of the NLDS and NLCS. I think that's right and I think his article should reflect that too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It’s not a World Series championship.
it’s the 2025 MLB Championship. They are the champions of the whole season, right? They aren’t the 2025 MLB Playoff Champs. They aren’t the 2025 Regular season champs are they?
You can’t start evaluating the level of contributions from player to a team just because they were or weren’t on the Playoff or WS roster.
What if Jackson is the reason they won the LCS? That means without him, there’s no WS for them to be able to even be able to attempt to win. So because he didn’t play in the WS he shouldn’t be called a champion but the 25th guy on the bench with no ABs and sat on the bench all playoffs long and played 45 games as the backup catcher and hit .180 is a champion because he was on the roster?
You see what this does? We wouldn’t have to go back through every team that won and evaluate which players deserved a ring or not. And what if say we’re evaluating 1986 and we aren’t watching the games. What if the Mets had to win their final game to make the playoffs/win the pennant that year and they needed one more out and they had Joe Blow in right field who just got called up from Triple A and he never appears in another game, but he makes an incredible home run Robbing catch and the Mets continue on? Should Joe Blow in right field be called a champion or not? Bc if he doesn’t catch that ball they don’t continue on.
See what I mean? Symosky2017 (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
And can I kindly ask you to please not be snarky or make it as if this is personal slight at you. I am sure that it is not be your intention but the way you're questioning my explanation because its not aligning with your opinion, it is coming across as such. I'm trying my best to explain to you as accurately as possible.
Baseball writers and statisticians and SABR members all swear by Baseball Reference which is made by the hard work a lot of people compiling rosters and numbers as accurately as possible and constantly updating it in light of new information. MLB.com isn't anywhere near as accurate as BBRef is. And it's certainly nothing against CK or anyone who was in a situation he was in last year. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I’m just trying to get you to see the precedent you’d be setting by saying he’s not a champion. And I’m not trying to be snarky or condescending, I’m just explaining my position and poking holes in yours in a non-malicious fashion, that’s all.
Did all those sites also go year by year and decide who deserved a ring or not? Because someone else made a comment a lot of these sites can’t agree if Reggie Jackson won a ring for the season he got hurt in the LCS and didn’t play in the WS. Some say he is a champ for that year and some don’t.
I’d be willing to wager they wouldn’t have anything that year without Reggie Jackson. Symosky2017 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I've explained my reasonings in detail several times as to why I prefer to keep it to rosters only in how to present it in the infobox only throughout this LONG conversation. I don't feel like explaining it again and again. I've answered your exact question. Please stop responding with the same message again and again. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
And I'm sure you don't mean to be snarky, I didn't think you were trying to be. No worries there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
And again Jackson appeared in four World Series so that is accurate. Reggie Jackson aso appeared in the 1981 World Series for the losing team. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2x WS Champion (2020, 2025) We established a project-wide consensus on this to keep it tight. I oppose undoing that consensus on one player's page. If you say this RfC should override the entire project-wide consensus, I say this is the wrong venue for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
While I have yet to look into this and form a position, WP:LOCALCON from a WikiProject does not override our core policies such as WP:V. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
There's sources either way, because it's somewhat subjective on who is a WS champion, so it's more about making an editorial decision on how to present it. —Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Disagree that there are sources either way, especially in a WP:BLP that requires high-quality, reliable secondary sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
You won't find a more reliable source for playoff rosters or statistics than Baseball Reference in which case. I've explained why above too, in comparison to MLB.com which is a good site for basic career overview but isn't a stats website in the same way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm often blind, but I don't see where WS titles are even listed on his MLB.com profile. —Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
There's a tiny "+" button to expand the awards list at the bottom of the awards section. World Series championships are listed at the very bottom of that expanded section.  SirParzifal (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Got it, LOL.  So it shows 2× as well, though I guess one might argue that it's a non-independent source. —Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
That MLB.com profile, on the same page, also contains an MLB.com news article: Kershaw closes book on awesome career with 3rd championship. I don't see why the stats should be trusted while the news articles produced by the same organization are ignored. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Because those are opinion articles. I'm online acquaintences with one MLB.com writer through SABR and she told me they cover the teams and write opinions articles for the website, usually with controlled messaging as to what they can and can't write about.
It should also be clear why opinion articles are different from statistics and playoff rosters which can't be changed. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Deciding who to call a "World Series champion" is equally an opinion. MLB.com has two opinions, apparently. Baseball Reference has a different opinion. Reliable secondary sources have yet another opinion. 01:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC) PK-WIKI (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
MLB is far more inconsistant on this so it's not reliable IMO. It's article writers say one thing while it's award list says another and even there it's different given I've found a few players on WS rosters not credited with it despite them being available to play in said WS if called upon. I personally don't know anyone who actually uses MLB.com for stats either, they tend to go for BBRef.
Baseball Reference, as I mentioned above and several times to you, HAS a fixed policy and they have applied it consistantly for each player going back to 1904, the first WS, based on if a given player were on the roster of a WS championship team at any point of a postseason run. That is also the approach which the WP:Baseball policy is based on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
No offense, but I really don't care what Baseball Reference's policy is. Whatever they use is a completely arbitrary policy, an opinion, chosen by an opaque website. They haven't published their policy and we only know about it via random emails to unknown BR employees. Their policy is in no way an "official" policy for Major League Baseball. It doesn't matter that SABR members like the website. Their policy does not appear to be a widely held belief, given the 10+ articles I've posted from top-tier reliable sources that directly contradict it. And our inability to find any secondary sources that mirror their views.
Wikipedia should not be outsourcing its core policies such as Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:NPOV to an arbitrary WP:TERTIARY stats website that also appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. This is especially true in BLP articles, a point which no one has even attempted to refute. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's your opinion of Baseball Reference which I have to disagree with. It's not an opinion site, it's not a promotional site, or a news site with an agenda, and it's an independant source of statistics and I wouldn't call it opaque by any means. If you wish to find their policy, I believe it's under Sports Reference, the main company which handles the website. Omnis Scientia (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe Baseball Reference is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Baseball Reference has a wiki built alongside it called the Bullpen which IS WP:SELFPUBLISHED, but I haven't seen anyone cite it here.
And I do think BR is WP:SECONDARY on this particular matter. Admittedly, I don't have a great amount of experience on this sort of source analysis, but as I understand it, the primary source is the raw stats that BR receives, and BR has produced an analysis based on those stats saying that Kershaw is a 2x champion - that would make it WP:SECONDARY. SirParzifal (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
That is about right. Their job is to compile what happened as accurately as possible using newspapers articles with box scores, and official lineups and rosters, etc. Omnis Scientia (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It appears they have not dropped their WP:STICK on Sports Reference, even after they were told back in April at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475 § Are 'Sports-Reference.com' websites reliable sources for redshirt seasons and awards? that it is not self-published. —Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
There was no consensus in that thread that Sports Reference is not self-published. You yourself wrote "...whether or not it's (debatably) self-published." PK-WIKI (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Full quote: Reliable as clearly meets WP:USEBYOTHERS and is a subject matter expert, whether or not it's (debatably) self-published. And I was being diplomatic with "(debatably)".—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning if it's generally reliable. I was questioning if it's self-published, which is still an open question for another day. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It was already stated that it's not a one-person show.  The "x-time champion" debate has enough merits without WP:WIKILAWYERING. Regards —Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
He has a ring for that season right?
It’s the 2025 MLB Championship. It’s not the MLB Regular seasons champ, the playoffs champ, it’s the 2025 MLB Season Champion. The coach is called a champion but how much did he really contribute? We don’t know.
Like I said, if you start going down the path of what they contributed to the team that year to determine if there champions then a lot of guys will lose some championships don’t you think? Drew Bledsoe got a ring in 2001. What if he studied with Brady every single night and prepared him and that’s why Brady lead that team to the SB?
We can’t attempt to measure contributions and equate it with whether they “deserve” the championship or not Symosky2017 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to point out here that Bledsoe WAS on the active roster for the Super Bowl as Brady's backup. And it is the "World Series" champ not the "season championship." Spanneraol (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
MLB.com is more inconsistant in how it lists WS champs. For example, it doesn't list some players as champions despite them being on a WS roster because they didn't appear in a game but list other players in the same situation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Do you have an example of a player who was on the WS active roster at some point (not any playoff roster, but specifically the WS) and is not credited on MLB.com?
Ezequiel Duran would’ve been by my best guess. He was activated mid-series due to an injury to Adolis García, made zero appearances, and was still credited.
Players added to the IL mid-postseason but before the WS also appear to be excluded, e.g. Steven Wright in 2018. ~2025-31449-42 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2x WS Champion (2020, 2025): I don't see why he should be included in 2024 despite not playing, not appearing on the roster, and going against already established consensus. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Because if you start evaluating how much a guy contributed to a teams championships then we would have to take away a lot more championships in other guys bios. If you get called up to
the WS roster bc of an injury and never even see the field then should you be a champion? Why is the coach a champion? How much do we that he contributed? what about the 3rd base coach? Bench Coach? See what I mean.
Once you start down that path how far go you go? He has a ring for that year, he’s a 3x champ, he was a part of the team that entire season, that’s all that matters. Symosky2017 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Please do not reply to every !vote you disagree on with the same general message. Keep that in the #Discussion section below rather than WP:BLUDGEONING. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3x World Champion. Gotta follow WP:BLP. WP:BLPPRIMARY means we can't use MLB in this, and WP:BLPSPS says we probably shouldn't use Baseball Reference. PK showed secondary sources as required by WP:RS. I would be ok with listing 3x world champions in the info box and in prose say some reference sites say only 2x. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 02:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Baseball Reference is not a self-published source. Not sure why PK keeps saying it is but I assure you it isn't. Omnis Scientia (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Who publishes it? PK-WIKI (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Sports Reference. Omnis Scientia (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Sport Reference publishes Sports Reference products, yes. Self publishing self. PK-WIKI (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't what you mean by this. All I can say is that the company maintains sports statistics and that it's a highly reliable source for them which is regularly updated with each season. Omnis Scientia (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the concern here. Sports Reference does indeed publish Baseball Reference. That's how publishing works. Is the New York Times self-published as well because the paper is published by The New York Times Company? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 03:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's definitely not self-published in that anyone can go in and change the statistics and rosters as they wish. They are as accurate as possible and is updated regularly. Omnis Scientia (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
That would be WP:USERGENERATED content like a comments section or Wiki. I don't think BR is user-generated. But it is self-published. PK-WIKI (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Again, it's not. It's published by a company which compiles statistics for major sports leagues. Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I don’t have a dog in this particular hunt but just would add to the voices that say the sports-reference family of sites are NOT self published. Self published sites would be things like the Dodgers site, for whom a primary part of its mission is to promote the team and its players. Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
"Self published sites would be things like the Dodgers site, for whom a primary part of its mission is to promote the team and its players."
That would be a WP:NIS or WP:BIASED source, but says nothing about if a source is self-published or not.
If the sport's foremost historian, who everyone trusts, who is completely unbiased, has their own website that everyone uses... that would still be a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source. Even if the website is agreed to be reliable and completely free of bias. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
You convinced me on BRef not being a self-published source. I've struck that part. Still think it is a tertiary source, so we should give more weight to the secondary sources. Even if it is a secondary source, it's the only secondary source I've found making the 2x claim. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's pretty much the only stat site which has a policy of regarding WS champion credit. They collect information from newspaper articles, radio and tv recordings, and official rosters and lineups. So it's a HIGHLY reliable if you want to know who was on the roster of, say, the 1927 WS champs. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I've made clear below why I don't think writers are reliable on THIS particular issue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Sure, it is one site. But WP:NPOV means we need to give proper weight to what WP:RS are saying on this issue. BRef is one site. There are numerous others (ESPN, AP, Yahoo, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Athletic, and others) that say he is a 3x champion. We need to follow Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:NPOV if you haven't yet. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
ESPN has a player page which has stats but doesn't list WS titles and doesn't list every stat. And I'm not going with opinion articles about one player by sportswriters. I'm considering if those same writers will talk about a non-star or a bench player the same way and I know that historically they will not and indeed they aren't doing the same for other players who weren't on the 2025 roster. He's getting special treatment because he's a retiring star receiving tributes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
As I mentioned, MY view is that will writers give a random player in the same situation at any time in baseball history the same treatment as CK is currently receiving. No, they will not. In fact, an unpopular player like Michael Conforto was in 2025 because he was just not good, has not been mentioned once (I don't recall seeing him at the parade but he probably was). He was left off the roster because of poor regular season performance. Same with Tanner Scott who was not used and was not that good in the regular season. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The reason the playoff roster rule of Baseball Reference is reliable and why it became policy is that it removes biases of fans and sportswriters and makes sure that there is an even policy being applied across MLB - and now also Negro League Baseball - history. People will not be arguing over a first-year bench player who performed poorly in the regular season with this amount of passion - rightfull IMO - and the writers will not even acknowledge him. And if you're talking about the Colored World Series, then I'm afraid these same writers will not make the same case for those forgotten players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
He's getting special treatment That doesn't matter, we need to do what WP:RS say.
I'm considering if those same writers will talk about a non-star or a bench player the same way We aren't talking about other players, we're talking about Kershaw.
The reason the playoff roster rule of Baseball Reference is reliable and why it became policy Is it policy, or is it just WP:LOCALCONSENSUS?
it removes biases of fans and sportswriters WP:NPOV covers this. It says A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. And WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 15:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
If you're gonna talk about Kershaw with regards to his absense on the 2024 WS roster, it will definitely effect every other player in a similar situation going back to the first World Series. So yes, it definitely matters that he's not being treated the same by the press as other players, both current and former. It goes beyond this page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
This RfC is just for Kershaw. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not what one reliable source says or who was on a World Series roster. Other players in similar situations should follow the same Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 19:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't agree with the idea that Kershaw should be given special treatment on Wikipedia while other players in his situation should not be because he's being given star treatment they will never get. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
We wouldn't be giving special treatment. We would be following the core, non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV and WP:V. We don't care why secondary sources say Kershaw is 3x champ while others in his scenario don't get the same treatment - we simply care what the sources say. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 20:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
In other words give him different treatment from other players who are in his situation simply because he's a star and they aren't. Sorry I just don't agree with that.
My view is that he should subjected to the same unbiased, uniform policy as any other player would be in the same situation, star or not. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
And that unbiased, uniform policy is WP:NPOV and WP:V. Again, local consensus cannot override these core policies. I'm going to walk away from this discussion to let the RfC run its course and advise you do the same. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with you on this since I see it as favoring one player over ALL others, but I will do the same and let it run its course.
I hope you have a good day. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Sportswriters don't decided who champions are. The fact that they think some people aren't champions and some people are shows they aren't consistant with their views on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Another problem I have with Baseball Reference it is doesn't appear to list the years a player won the World Series - it simply says "2x". Maybe I am just missing where it says that, but I'm currently not seeing it. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 17:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I just needed to look more. If one scrolls down to the "Postseason" section of a player's page, there is a little trophy icon next to the year Baseball Reference says the player won the Series. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 17:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, this isn't the 'end all be all' for seeing what years a player won the WS. Alex Vesia's page says he won 2x World Series, but his page only has one trophy icon. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 01:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Baseball-Reference considers a player a World Series winner, if he either appeared in a postseason game that season or was on the World Series roster, even if he did not appear in a game. See Baseball-Reference World Series champ criteria. Until yesterday, I was under the impression that WP:BASE simply used these criteria, but then I learned the project has developed its own set, resulting in Alex Vesia being recognized as a World Series winner in 2025, by Baseball-Reference but not by WP:BASE. The trophies on players' BB-Ref pages show up next to the line for World Series statistics. Since Vesia did not appear in the 2025 World Series and has no statistics, there is a mismatch between his trophy count and the number of titles for which he is credited by BB-Ref. A representative of Sport-Reference commented on Reddit that BB-Ref has had internal discussions concerning expanding their criteria. Taxman1913 (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Vesia didn't appear in a game in the World Series but he appeared in playoffs until the NLCS before unfortunate family circumstances made him unable to partake in the WS. That's why. If he had appeared even once in a WS game, there would be a trophy next to that series. Since he appeared in the playoffs, BBRef recognizes his contribution until then - and I think that's correct, fwiw. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3x World Champion I know almost nothing about baseball let alone any baseball league. But that's a good thing since it means I go by the sources. It's not up to me to decide whether someone played enough to be consider a champion winner or part of the champion winning team that year. That is solely the purview of sources. And it's clear enough sources say he's 3x World Champion with only a small minority saying he's only 2x that we should primarily lead with him being a 3x World Champion. We can note the disagreement in a footnote and go into more details on his participation in the 2024 season in the article. I would accept saying 2x or 3x World Champion as a compromise although that's a distinct second choice but would oppose only saying 2x World Champion. Note as others have said, arguments based on some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a Wikiproject are invalid arguments since global policy always overrides them, and so they should be ignored by any closer. If other articles have been similarly affected by this local consensus overriding site wide policy they should be fixed as well. There is no need for an RfC to establish that the local consensus which attempts to override global consensus is invalid. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
In case there's some confusion, what I'm saying is ultimately I agree we should be consistent in always following what the majority of quality reliable secondary say about whether someone was a World Champion on whatever year. If there is significant dispute we can note this disagreement in some way. But we should never take the side of any specific source over others. Note that this means we might say person A is a World Champion despite source X disagreeing for one player, and person B is a World Champion in line with source X for a second player. And source X can be any source out there since for pretty much any source they might be in disagreement with what a majority of quality reliable secondary sources say. This isn't inconsistent or a bad thing. Editors who want us to only follow a certain source when there is disagreement are wrong, since there is no Wikipedia policy which allows such a thing and instead it's in opposition to our fundamental sourcing policies and therefore no local consensus can establish one. There isn't need for an RfC to establish any of this. If some wikiproject is saying otherwise Wikiproject editors should trivially remove that without needing an RfC since there should be no dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I wholeheartedly agree with your points, but from a pragmatic standpoint, an RfC seems warranted because these changes have been perennially rejected in edit requests dating back an entire year, and then today PK-WIKI attempted to directly make the change and was reverted by three different editors, not to mention other discussions about the matter both here and on the project talk page. Left guide (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
For clarity, this RfC is fine IMO. And if editors change the Wikiproject rules from it to be in line with global policy, that's fine IMO. My concern is that some editors have expressed the view above that this RfC is in the wrong venue to change their Wikiproject rules or otherwise seem to have doubts over changing them. Even an RfC in the Wikiproject over the issue is problematic since even if it establishes another consensus for the rules, it's still almost definitely going to be seen as a WP:Local consensus that cannot override global policy. (If it establishes a consensus to change them that's great albeit IMO unneeded.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
3x WS champion — I do not know this individual, and I am not here just because CK's fans want us to. However, I do know WP's policies and guidelines, and 3x WS champion is reliably sourced, verifiable, and a significant point of view – which is a non-negotiable policy, and cannot be superseded by a Wikiproject consensus to only use their preferred sources. It is DUE for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The only thing that matters is whether he was on the playoff roster or not. He was not on the roster in 2024 so he's not a World Series champion. I'm afraid I cannot go with writers being sentimental about a star player who is retiring since they will not be giving this same treatment to someone who is a regular player and non-star. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
For the purposes of this encyclopedia, and this article, the only thing that matters is our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
If you're gonna go with the sportswriters, the question to ask is would they give this treatment to a random player in the same situation? Historically, they will not and they tend to focus on the players actually on the roster when refering to the WS champions. So they aren't a reliable source as to who is and isn't a WS champion, especially since they are natural bias towards a star player retiring and not towards an unpopular outfielder who was dropped from the roster who is noticably NOT being called a WS champion by these same writers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Again, these are articles about ONE player only. There are several players in same situations as he was who will never be given this level of treatment by the press. None of these writers will be calling ex-All Star player Michael Conforto a 2025 Champion since he was not on the roster in these playoffs due to poor performance in the regular season and Tanner Scott who was injured during the playoff run and never made an appearence in the postseason (and was also not good in the regular season), because they aren't long-tenured team icons who are retiring. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
So while majority of writers will be calling a retiring future Hall of Fame player a 3x champion in tribute articles, they won't be calling a vast majority of others in the same situation a champion based on the fact that they were not on the roster; they likely won't be mentioning them either when writing about the team. This treatment for CK is very much an exception, and it's far from the rule if you're talking about it historically. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
So the regular season means nothing? You guys keep saying World Series Champion but they are called the team is called the WORLD CHAMPIONS.
That means they’re not just WS champs, just playoff champs, just regular season champs. They are the champions of the league for that entire season. If a player breaks his leg on the last day of the season but wins the MVP award (which is only given out for the regular season) then does that team make it to the playoffs to even have a chance to be WS Champs? No. But the 26th guy on the bench who never even got into
the game is a champion?
Sorry but I can’t follow that logic. Once you start evaluating who contributed what then we’re gonna have to go back and take away a lot of others championships. Symosky2017 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The season that just concluded was my 53rd following baseball. I don't recall ever hearing from any official or reliable secondary source that the World Series winner is the champion of MLB. The World Series itself pre-dates MLB as the modern organization we know. It comes from an agreement between the AL and NL, which were separately administered at the time, that the champions of the two leagues should meet in a series. The 1904 NL champion refused to participate, and there was no disciplinary action taken, because the NL did not decide to do so, and the loose association between the leagues that constituted what MLB was at the time had no power. I have heard World Series winners called champions of baseball or world champions (without the word Series) but not MLB champions. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3x WS champion - As I noted below, I am not a baseball fan and know nothing about baseball. Because of this, I questioned why we can't acknowledge the dispute in the text between the sources. Given the number of sources that referred to Kershaw as a 3x-winner already cited, I thought there may be more sources that refer to him as a 2x-winner. I could not identify any sources, and indeed only found more clarification that WP:RS characterize him as a winner of the 2024 season (if that's the right term). On 18 September 2025, MLB.com [1] and ESPN [2] both reported Kershaw a 2x-winner, before the conclusion of the 2025 results; ESPN explicitly lists him as a winner of the 2020 and 2024 seasons in the infobox. This is consistent with their later coverage, which indicates that following the conclusion of the 2025 season, Kershaw was referred to as a 3x-winner. The only sources provided to support the claim that Kershaw is a 2x-winner are Baseball Reference and the MLB.com player stats page. Editors have convincingly, in my opinion, argued that these two sources are not consistent with each other. Other editors have argued that these sources are primary or tertiary sources, which per WP:PSTS, we prefer secondary sources over primary or tertiary sources. These analyses are convincing, but also ultimately irrelevant as even if they were both secondary sources, they are still outnumbered by the numerous other sources on this topic. I do not find arguments about whether or not he was on the playoff roster convincing - obviously the secondary sources publishing that he is a 3x-winner do not believe that this fact is determinative of whether or not he should be considered a winner for the 2024 season. Thus, the viewpoint that Kershaw is a 2x-winner is not only a minority among the sources, but such a significant minority that this overrides the concern about WP:VOICE, which states that "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I do think that a footnote would be warranted to list the sources that describe him as a 3x-winner and those that describe him as a 2x-winner, as it is important to at least note that there is a dispute, even if the great majority of such sources indicate one thing. Katzrockso (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not a type of dispute where there is disagreement with the facts; it's just that different sources use different approaches in using a qualitative adjective. Sort of like if one source says person A rose early three times this week, and another source says Person A rose early two times this week. It depends on what standard you are using to decide to apply a given label. I think explicit discussion would give the matter undue prominence, as what's important is the description of Kershaw's activities with the Dodgers during the years in question (during the regular season and the playoffs, including absences from the playoffs), not how different sportswriters characterize his contributions by applying or not applying a label. Readers can decide for themselves how they want to count up a total. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Your comment here seems to suggest that the "winner" label should be removed from the lead and infobox altogether. Is that what you are proposing? Katzrockso (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
My opinion is to follow what reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources say—if they call a player a World Series champion, then the World Series championship can be highlighted in the infobox. An explanatory footnote can describe how the tally was reached, such as including a season even though the player wasn't on the postseason roster. The prose itself doesn't have to note that sources X and Y credit the player with being a member of two championship teams and sources U and V credit the player with being a member of three championship teams. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree, if we list him as a 3x champion with a footnote anybody who really cares can look at it and see why it’s presented on Wikipedia that he’s a 3x champ. Because in 5-10-15-50 years, nobody will remember this discussion and when people look up Kershaws profile to see how many times he was on a championship team (that’s key be wise you don’t get named a champion whether or not you did well or not, you are a champion based on being on the team for the whole year, no matter your playoff stats, roster status or anything. If you were on the team you’re a champion) then they will see he was 3 time champ and that’s all that matters. And if anyone does care then they click the footnote and read all about it. But he has a ring for 2024 so I think that’s the only evidence you need. Symosky2017 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3x World Champion: I'm very much with Nil Einne and Isaidnoway on this. Per WP:V and WP:RS we follow what the reliable secondary sources say. As I'd written above in response to someone, WP:LOCALCON formed at a WikiProject has never and will never override WP:PAG. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Theoretically, if this ends in consensus for 3x champ, does that mean Tanner Scott gets to be called a World champ too since he was injured during the 2025 World Series? In Scott's case though, there aren't any sportswriters singing his praises so I guess he doesn't get to be a champ? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Same with Michael Conforto - who has hardly been mentioned since he was not put on the playoff roster - and several other Dodger players who appeared in the regular season but weren't on the roster in both 2024 and 2025. There are several such examples in history too. Precisely why I'm not comfortable going with the opinion of sportswriters talking about just ONE player. They will not be doing the same for others in the same situation who aren't a retiring future HOFer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
they’re going to get rings though aren’t they? Yes, they will. So they are champions. Your roster status and your performance don’t matter. They were on the team that won the 2025 MLB Championship.
If a guy leads his team through the whole season, the DS and LCS and is the only reason they made the WS but slips on a banana peel and breaks his arm on his way off the field in the LCS and he’s not on the WS roster does that mean he wasn’t a champion and had nothing to do with them winning anything? And his replacement on the roster who sees no playing time at all should be just bc he was on the roster? It’s about being champions of the entire season, not just the 7 games we call the World Series. Why do coaches get championships? How do we know they contributed anything to winning it? We have no evidence.
if you get a ring, you’re a champion. And when they present Kershaw with one for 2025 next year, he’s going to be wearing TWO already. Symosky2017 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
"if you get a ring, you’re a champion" - that's really not how it works. Even the stadium employees get rings. Vin Scully got six rings during his LONG and storied tenure with the team. Rings are the one thing given out quite liberally. As for coaches, they are part of the field staff, like the manager is - and on the roster too. They coach the team through the season and playoffs. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
A prominent example is Nomar Garciaparra: he received a World Series ring from the Red Sox in 2004 although he was traded at the end of July. Reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources do not refer to him as a World Series champion. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2x WS champion (2020, 2025) - He wasn't on the World Series roster. Carving out this exception for Kershaw simply because of bad reporting would be a very inane thing to do. In 2021, Ronald Acuna Jr. was injured during the season, he was in the dugout when the Braves won the World Series. Statistically speaking, Acuna contributed a lot to the Braves championship in 2021. Far more than the season in question for Kershaw. Acuna is not listed as a World Series champion. This is the case with every situation like this on the baseball project. Essentially, Kershaw would get credit for something he didn't do because he plays in a big market where the writers are too lazy to fact check how baseball determines champions? Nemov (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's less about they don't do fact-check and more so how they are inconsistant with whom they give this sort of treatment to. That's the main issue. And again, go back to 1988, I think I will struggle to an article, let alone multiple, giving Don Sutton the same treatment in 1988 even though its the same situation as 2024 CK. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Don Sutton's Hall of Fame plaque says: "... pitched in four World Series..." and says nothing about being a member of the 1988 World Series champion. Those four were 1974, 1977 and 1978 with the Dodgers and 1982 with the Brewers. Typically, a Hall of Fame player who won a World Series will have this fact mentioned on his plaque. Tim Raines: "Earned two World Series rings with the Yankees." Cal Ripken Jr.: "His Orioles won the 1983 World Series..." Jackie Robinson: "Led Brooklyn to six pennants and its only World Series title." Goose Gossage: "Pitched in three World Series, clinching victory for New York in 1978." Eddie Murrray: "Played in three World Series, winning with the Orioles in 1983." Rube Waddell was injured and did not play for the Athletics in the 1905 World Series, which the A's lost. There is no mention of a World Series or an AL championship on his Hall of Fame plaque. Waddell injured his pitching arm in a late-season fight with a teammate. We will have to wait a little while to find out what is inscribed on CK's HoF plaque, but if Don Sutton's precedent is followed, we can expect it will say he played for two World Series champions. Taxman1913 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
3x champion with an asterisk, as sourced.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2x World Series champion (2020, 2025) Kershaw was not on the playoff roster in 2024 and thus is not listed as a champion in 2024. He is a two-time World Series champion. I’m not sure why this is even in contention, and why Kershaw should get special treatment. Jacob DeGrom is not credited for 2023, nor is Ronald Acuña Jr. credited for 2021. Don Sutton is listed as having no championships despite pitching in 1988 because he was not on the playoff roster. Dustin Pedroia missed the entire 2018 playoffs and thus is not recognized as a champion for that season. I could list countless others. Easy oppose from me unless there is a change in precedent. DaveTheBrave (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
3x World Series champion (2020, 2024, 2025) We follow what the reliable secondary sources say, not what the tertiary statistical databases say. Period. We can also include an "a" note explaining the differences in the databases as a separate thing, if that really matters so much. But, on that note, I'm seeing a lot of Wikiproject Baseball people above arguing for their own OR opinion on the subject, which has zero weight in this RfC question. And the arguments claiming that only these two specific statistical databases count is giving serious WP:LOCALCONSENSUS vibes. We already had to break y'all up from your NSPORTS and GNG violation collusion in all the sports Wikiprojects. Is this another subject area, specific to the baseball wikiproject this time, that needs community cracking? SilverserenC 02:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I broadly agree with you, but I do feel obliged to point out that Baseball Reference is a reliable secondary source on this specific matter - them assigning or not assigning a World Series championship to a player is their own analysis based on primary sources (the stats). It's still drowned out by the many other reliable secondary sources that say 3x WS champion, of course, but it is reliable and it is a secondary source for this specific case. SirParzifal (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Tanner Scott was in the same situation as Kershaw this year (and is even wearing a World Series Champ shirt in his Wikipedia article). However, there aren't a bunch of news articles calling him a WS champ. So, according to your argument above, Scott should not have WS champ in his infobox, correct? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Genuinely surprised there are people on here who okay with giving Kershaw unique/special treatment because he getting A LOT more press coverage (which is normal for a star player who has now retired) than vast majority of other guys who have been in the same situation as he was last year. Again, that is what I'm getting from this.
And also I feel like it's worth clarifying that Baseball Reference - and a lot of cited statistical websites commonly used in baseball articles - is NOT a tertiary source. It's an independant secondary source which collects information from primary sources such as official MLB rosters, lineups, and gameplay as well as television and audio recordings of games, etc, and they make sure to keep up to date and accurate as possible. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Please don't cast aspersions about people's motives - okay with giving Kershaw unique/special treatment - for their participation in this RfC. Please WP:AGF. Speaking for myself, it is not about giving Kershaw unique/special treatment, it's about how reliable sources describe Kershaw as a 3X WS champion. We should not ever rely on a single source like Baseball Reference, that is not how Wikipedia works. Per our policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE (which Kershaw obviously is), there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say, and also WP:NPOV - representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. So no one, that I know of, is advocating to give Kershaw "unique/special treatment", editors are merely following our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
But that is what it is coming across as. Every player is a public figure and all of them are covered in the press but not all of them got called "WS Champ" in the immediate aftermath of a WS win. Why is Clayton Kershaw 2024 different from Don Sutton 1988, Jacob deGrom 2023, and a slewth of other equally well-know ballplayers? They aren't different. All of them were not on the playoff rosters of their respect teams. Saying they aren't gonna get credit but he should just because a handful of writers decided he is one is giving him unique treatment. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I also want to clarify I don't think that is the motive of the people who are favoring writers opinions over official statistics and rosters nor was it my intention to say so. I'm just trying to convey a concern. Apologies if it came across as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows "writers opinions" per WP:RSOPINION, as long as they are properly attributed. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I am aware of that, having used them myself, but that does not change the fact that Kershaw is benefitting from his stardom the way others would not. Writers don't determine who is and isn't a member of a championship team. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And likewise, we can not rely on a Wikiproject preferred source to "determine who is and isn't a member of a championship team", in every single MLB article on this project. We must follow policy in representing all the significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and if the sources conflict, then we document that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Isaidnoway, as long as doing so actually improves the encylopedia in accordance with WP:5P5. In this case, I would say it does not. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If a writer is calling one player a champ while ignoring another player on the same team in the same situation not that, it means they aren't reliable in determining who gets to be part of the championship team. I don't think that is improving the encyclopedia since it's giving ONE player preference over several others simply because those other players don't interest the writers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It does not make any difference what the particular topic may be, sports, politics, entertainment, etc., we have no control over what, or who, the writers choose to write about, or choose what or who to ignore. Our standard for reliability is the publication itself. If you believe there is a publication listed in this discussion that is not reliable, then maybe you should open a discussion at RSN. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
We do have control over HOW we are gonna use the articles. Is it to favor certain athletes over others because they are lucky enough to be getting more press coverage? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
With all due respect to @Isaidnoway, whose opinion I value, Omnis has responded to a comment that characterizes the opposition as some kind of cabal that needs to be "broken up." That's far from good faith and casts aspersions. Those supporting this proposal are on solid policy footing, but it's fair to acknowledge that inclusion carves out an exception for this biography that doesn’t exist for any comparable biography. I don't think he's getting "special treatment," but he is benefiting from being in a major media market where reliable coverage is often poor when it comes to small specific details. We should be wary of LOCALCON, but this is a case where the subject matter experts are technically right, but policy can be used to include information that's technically wrong. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that inclusion carves out an exception for this biography that doesn’t exist for any comparable biography. All biographies are subject to the exact same WP:POLICY. I also believe that many of the other players mentioned here can/should be listed as WS champions as well, but that's a discussion for their articles or a broader RfC.
I also disagree that this is a case where the subject matter experts are technically right, but policy can be used to include information that's technically wrong. This is only based on my opinion and vibes, but a player that performs during the regular season, remains signed with the team, stays in the dugout/bullpen in a team leadership role, hoists the trophy, is honored at the parade, makes a speech, shakes the hand of two presidents in White House celebrations, etc. etc. etc. has all the hallmarks of a WP:DUCK and a member of the championship team. It's not "technically wrong" to include him. There is nothing (based on vibes) that indicates he is not a champion. That's why the reliable sources call him a champion. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
How is it subjectively required that one remains signed with the team?  Former players get championship rings. Is it similarly against policy to not start tracking rings instead, e.g. Nomar Garciaparra with Boston in 2024?  It seems like arbitrarily inciting "against policy" to decry a mere editorial decision based on consensus. Simply WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. —Bagumba (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying that's subjectively required, just that in Kershaw's case his characteristics make it an extremely easy call for reliable sources to describe him as a WS champion. That's why they all did. And why over the last year there's been such a huge push from IPs, etc., to "correct this mistake" on Wikipedia. A player like Nomar Garciaparra in 2004 is far more of a subjective call, and based on vibes I can see why reliable sources might end up declaring he is not a WS champion. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Is Tanner Scott a WS champ? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion he should be considered one, and I believe that most reliable sources would agree. But I haven't checked. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I couldn't find any sources calling him a champ. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
WikiOriginal-9 - according to Baseball-Reference, Tanner Scott won one World Series with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2025. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
That's the Bullpen wiki. Not his actual profile. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The information is still hosted on their servers, so in my view, it doesn't inspire confidence in their overall reliability, if they support WP:UGC on their website. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It's delineated from the rest of the site, and disclosed here  Many "credible" sites have their Web 2.0 offshoots, for better or for worse. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Bullpen wiki has never been used as it is like Wikipedia, and can be edited by anyone. This is his actually Baseball Reference profile: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/scottta01.shtml - complete with his player ID and his statistics and awards, etc. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The same writers haven't referred to him all that much, if at all. Same situation with a lot of players current and in the past. Even though they all probably did stick by their team and support them and whatnot. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It's still a subjective call in Kershaw's case. He has teammates under the same circumstances who did what he did and no sportswriter are calling them champions. So we're back to writers have different criteria for stars than other players. In fact, deGrom is still signed with the Rangers, he's also a star, and yet nobody calls him a 2023 champion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
LOCALCON is misplaced.  Nobody cared about this topic before, so its not like the project is claiming ownership and been ignoring any "outside" consensus.  The sources are inconsistent, but either side is verifiable to an extent.  What's lost perhaps is the WP:IAR-ish position that it might not improve Wikipedia to inconsistently call Kershaw a "champion" due to systemic bias in coverage, but another similar player who was not on the postseason roster and does not receive comparable coverage is not labeled "champion". —Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
We, as editors, have to deal with "systemic bias" in RS coverage all the time, no matter what the topic is, that is why we have discussions like this, and in this case, a RfC, to determine if the content is DUE for inclusion, and as you correctly point out, ONUS is policy, as is WP:CON, so whatever the outcome of this RfC is, we have to abide by it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
2 × World Series champion (2020, 2025) 3 × World Series champion (2020, 2024,[fn] 2025) To be consistent with the non-baseball fans who have commented here, I will disclose that I have followed baseball for 52 years. I edit baseball-related articles on Wikipedia infrequently. I firmly believe that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS formed by WP:BASE cannot override WP:PAG. Further, an article subject to WP:BLP must be treated with utmost care. I also believe that relevant information supported by WP:RS should be included in articles. So, why did I vote that 2024 World Series champion should be excluded from the infobox in the CK article? There is a reason why the regular baseball contributors are vehemently opposed to including 2024. It doesn't pass the smell test. There's no reason to treat CK's article differently from the manner in which all othe articles about baseball players are treated. Yet, they have not provided a reason for their objections that conforms to WP:PAG. I have such a reason. All the sources cited on this page are not WP:RS for the assertion, because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source was published in 2025, and the matter at hand is whether CK was a 2024 World Series champion. Can we find a source that was published shortly after the 2024 World Series that states CK had won his second title? I have not been able to find one. No one was focused on that at the time, because the attention was directed at the players who actually participated in the postseason games. If we examine the sources that are being relied on for the claim that CK is a 2024 World Series champion, we find they are all articles about the career of a likely Hall of Famer whose retirement was concurrent with the end of the 2025 World Series, not articles about the 2024 World Series and the players who were part of the winning team. None of the sources mention his contribution to the Dodgers' 2024 championship, because that is not the topic of the articles, and he did not contribute anything in the postseason. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. While the sources that have been cited are reliable at a base level, they are not reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article. If any of these sources published an article in 2024, about the World Series identifying CK as a 2024 World Series champion, that would be the appropriate context to support an assertion that CK is a 2024 World Series champion, and I would change my vote. However, as stated in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. The cited sources all mention CK as a 2024 World Series champion in passing, which is to be expected in articles about CK's career and not about the 2024 World Series, i.e. the topic at hand. Since Michael Conforto was a member of the 2025 Dodgers but did not participate in the 2025 postseason, no WP:RS will be found identifying him as a 2025 World Series champion, just as was the case with CK in 2024, since he was not then a retiring future Hall of Famer. Wikipedia is well developed, and a careful examination of WP:PAG usually produces a result that conforms with WP:COMMONSENSE, a fundamental principle that stands above all policies, without the need to resort to WP:IAR. While non-baseball fans may not realize that within the baseball community, a player who did not participate in the postseason is not, as a matter of common sense, a World Series champion, baseball fans certainly get this, and that's the reason for their staunch opposition. So, if you're not a baseball fan, would you like to be told by a Wikipedia article that a player was a 2024 World Series champion, when the vast majority of fans would not agree with that? MLB confers the title of World Series champion on teams, not players. Frankly, I'd rather see the wording in the infoboxes read something like "2 × member of World Series champion (1982, 1986)", since that is a more accurate representation of the player's accomplishment. I suppose that's a topic for a different discussion. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC) EDIT: Common sense is defeated. Unless one is a fan of the Dodgers or CK, the overwhelming majority of people who follow baseball will not consider CK a 2024 World Series champion. Nevertheless, I don't see a better solution to both reflect the truth as well as what reliable sources reported.
[fn] Kershaw was a member of the 2024 Los Angeles Dodgers but did not participate in the postseason due to injury. Taxman1913 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC) EDIT2: In light of my discovery of the National Baseball Hall of Fame treating Don Sutton as a 1988 World Series champion, and the similarity between his situation and that of CK, I reverse my position that including 2024 in the CK infobox is counter to common sense. Details are explained in my comment below. In order to maintain WP:NPOV, I still believe a footnote in the infobox is appropriate, since 2024 champion is excluded from Kershaw's list of accomplishments by frequently consulted reliable sources (which may or may not be secondary sources). Taxman1913 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC) EDIT3: In light of the information received from the National Baseball Hall of Fame describing the criteria it applies to determine whether a player merits recognition as a World Series champion, I no longer believe a footnote is necessary, since there will be many players recognized as World Series champions, who did not participate in the postseason. Instead, I encourage WP:BASE to adopt the criteria used by the NBHoF, which, as the custodian of baseball history and records, is the best authority available. Should the project reject this, it would need to justify why it is a better arbiter of who should be recognized as a World Series winner than both the NBHoF and Baseball-Reference, since the criteria it applies is more restrictive than both. If the project cannot do so, it will appear its criteria is an attempt to WP:RGW and perhaps WP:OR. I note that the NBHoF criteria is inconsistent with my personal point of view, but Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV. Taxman1913 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I personally do not believe this distinction matters. But here you go:
Sports Illustrated, Nov 4, 2024: "Kershaw is now a two-time World Series champion, and this time, he got to complete the title victory with a celebration that he deserves as a longtime pillar for the franchise."
New York Times / The Athletic, February 11 2025: "It would be the latest flourish in what will be a Hall of Fame career for the three-time Cy Young winner and two-time World Series champion."
PK-WIKI (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I did find coverage that he was referred to as a "two-time" winner of the world series before the 2025 season, including in 2024. See e.g. [3] "Kershaw is now a two-time World Series champion" from 4 November 2024, and "The now-two-time World Series champion" [4] from 7 November 2024. Coverage around his birthday also indicated the same thing [5] "He’s a two-time World Series champion" [6] "two-time World Series champion". Not a reliable source, but the MLB Instagram account also posted this [7] "2x #WorldSeries champion Clayton Kershaw" on 1 November 2024.
There was limited coverage on him in the following the conclusion of the World Series - it would be convincing if you had found any evidence whatsoever that he was referred to as a "one-time winning" world champion following the 2024 season, but this is not the case. Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Again, that coverage is solely because he's a franchise icon and a star. Nobody is gonna be calling his teammates in the same situation the same thing. That's the problem with using writers to decide who is and a champion. Nobody is denying there isn't coverage saying he's got three rings. He does have three rings. But he wasn't on the roster of one of the teams and rings are given quite liberally. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
He doesn't have three rings. No one on the team has a 2025 ring, yet. They haven't been awarded. But reliable sources are clear today he's a 2025 World Series champion, nothing to do with rings. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
He's the 2025 champion because he was on the roster, unlike in 2024 when he was not on the roster. Getting a ring is something different from that. There are people who are now in line to get the ring regardless of them being on the roster or not - that's the point. Nothing to do with WHEN the rings are gonna be given. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And again, the point is about coverage being disporotionate for him compared to a teammate who isn't as famous. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
3 ×  with a footnote; this appears most appropriate given the sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
2x WS champion (2020, 2025): While I am a baseball fan, I would have to stick with the consensus on Wikipedia that dictates players' articles who were not on the World Series roster with the winning team are not listed as World Series champions in that particular year, despite playing in the regular season with the winning team. This applies to Kershaw's case in 2024 that he was not on the World Series roster due to injury late in the season. I came up with a question last year whether it's okay to add the year as World Series champions on players' infoboxes despite not on the World Series roster, which I wonder why it's not allowed to be listed on Wikipedia. The other internet sources can say that Kershaw is a 3-time World Series champion (2020, 2024, 2025), but not on Wikipedia as dictated in WP:BASEBALL's long-standing consensus. You could try adding a footnote or an efn note on his infobox if you guys agree. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 01:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Where on Wikipedia does it say a WP:BASEBALL consensus can supersede sitewide policy? Left guide (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Per archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Inclusion of players as World Series Champions, this applies to other players' case who were not listed as World Series champions with their winning team in particular years if they were not on the World Series roster due to special circumstances (i.e. injury, family emergency). I wish I could add the year in their infoboxes too for their teams that won the World Series, but on Wikipedia, stick with the consensus that is dependent on players whether they were on the World Series roster or not to be listed as World Series champions. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 01:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It's arguing semantics at this point.  There's a community RfC here, and it's fair if a !voter determines that it is reasonable to continue with that past project consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
3x WS champion (2020, 2024, 2025) with an asterisk: If these opposers are crying because of semantics, just add 3x and add an asterisk or hover-note that explains the situation that Kershaw was injured in 2024 hence the reason why he wasn't on the roster. If we're depending on the manager, literally one person, to decide who's on the postseason roster, and he's injured, then you guys are arguing for no reason. I don't give a shit what WP Baseball says about this. There are dozens of reputable sources including the fucking MLBBBBBBBBBBB, saying he's a 3 time champ. People who want to keep 2x World Champ are being silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31939-01 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3x after reading this mountain of a discussion, it seems like the more correct approach, the overwhelming number of sources seems to go with it. a hatnote does seem appropriate, though (a la "Some sources say he was a 2x WS champion. During the 2024 WS he was on the ...). 1brianm7 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2x (in the infobox) per User:Omnis Scientia.  The text can detail the "3rd time." A footnote in the infobox is perfectly acceptable and probably necessary. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2x (in the infobox), as it is what Baseball Reference and other sources list. Additionally, 3x in the infobox would contradict the fact that he is only a member of 2 World Series navboxes (2020 and 2025). Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
2× (in the infobox).  There's many RS interpretations on who is a "champion".  The consensus has been that it doesn't improve Wikipedia to make it a free-for-all based on selection bias of random sources' whims, so the objective criteria used by some reliable sources was chosen to consistently identify players actually on a playoff roster. Put an explanatory footnote in the infobox. Definitely explain the circumstances in prose. Otherwise, just remove it. Do not put 3×. Inconsistently increasing the count only for media darlings degrades Wikipedia.  The cries of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are just posturing.  There was no wider consensus before that was being ignored, and now there's an RfC. Great, let's see if consensus has changed. The self-published claims—for a source easily verifiable to employ multiple people and widely WP:USEDBYOTHERS—is also disingenuous.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Bagumba, the goal of consistently applying a set of objective criteria that you expressed is a  noble one. However, that is not what is being done here. WP:BASE appears to have created its own set of criteria rather than simply following Baseball-Reference. This is seen in the conclusion based on the project's criteria being that Alex Vesia is not a 2025 World Series champion, because he was not on the World Series roster, while Baseball-Reference calls him a 2025 champion, because he appeared on at least one postseason roster. While it has been claimed elsewhere on this page that WP:BASE has simply adopted the policy of Baseball-Reference, we see evidence from the recently completed postseason that this is not the case. Effectively, a group of Wikipedia editors who actively participate in WP:BASE have made an independent decision about which players are World Series champions. I do not believe this should be entertained on Wikipedia before, at a minimum, this group of editors demonstrates that they possess expertise superior to that of all available reliable secondary sources which qualifies them to make this judgement call. Only then should a discussion of whether WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should be permitted to prevail. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I had written consistently identify players actually on a playoff roster.  I believe it's a recent MLB change to allow changes in between playoff rounds. So some might not have gotten the memo. Otherwise, I'm wary of whataboutism resulting in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Vesia is currently shown as champion, and even has the explanatory footnote I had suggested above.  All seems well. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Bagumba, my comments sprung from your words: so the objective criteria used by some reliable sources was chosen to consistently identify players actually on a playoff roster. I understood this to be an inference on your part to the criteria used by WP:BASE. That is simply not the case. Rather than choosing criteria from a reliable source, the criteria appear to have been developed by the group of editors who regularly participate in the baseball project. Early comments on this page indicated the WikiProject's criteria were from Baseball-Reference. In response to that, PK-WIKI edited Alex Vesia's page. This brought the differences between the criteria used by the WikiProject and those used by Baseball-Reference to light. Another user added the footnote after PK-WIKI's edit to the Vesia article in response to discussion on this page. The ability to make roster move between postseason rounds stretches back many years. In the first year of the one-game Wild Card, MLB confirmed that the single game is a round. In response, teams left regular starting pitchers off their rosters in favor of extra relief pitchers and position players. The first year of the one-game Wild Card was 2012. There is little doubt that regular participants in WP:BASE are fully aware of the ability to make roster moves between postseason rounds. Taxman1913 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)


#### Discussion
Noting again, this RFC should cover all MLB bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Very strongly disagree that any conclusion here must be or should be blanket-applied to all MLB bios. Kershaw remained on the team, sat in the dugout/bullpen for the entire postseason, hoisted the trophy, talked at the parade, met the president(s). That's a very different situation than, say, a pitcher who got the same number of regular season wins but was traded to a different post-season team. Or a hitter with a single plate appearance. Even if they all get rings. Reliable secondary sources will likely treat these players' accomplishments differently, and we need to match how the reliable sources cover it in each case. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
He was not on the team. He was on the IL during the rest of the regular season and certainly wasn't on the postseason roster at any point. The only reason he was in the dugout was because he asked to be there and of course they weren't gonna say no to him. And of course writers, with whom he's popular, will write about a retiring future HOFer differently than a regular player with no stardom to his name.
And its worth noting that there are LOADS of MLB players throughout history who had exactly the same situation to CK in 2024 but aren't credited as Champions because they weren't on the playoff roster. He's not a unique situation at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The only reason he was in the dugout was because he asked to be there and of course they weren't gonna say no to him.
Is this original research or do you have a reliable secondary source to back up the claim?
And of course writers, with whom he's popular, will write about a retiring future HOFer differently than a regular player with no stardom to his name.
So professional sportswriters reporting for established reliable secondary publications DO treat Kershaw differently than "cup of coffee" players?
He's not a unique situation at all.
Never said he's a unique situation. My position is that we should follow the reliable secondary reporting for every player, especially ones who are still living. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
He said so that he'd be there for support and even said later that he didn't contribute to the team during the WH visit.
I didn't refer to a cup of coffee player at any point, I'm talking about a non-star regular everyday player. Michael Conforto comes to mind; he was still a Dodger during this run. And of course sportswriters won't refer to Conforto as a Champion, they probably forgot he was there.
The problem with reliable secondary reporting is that sportswriters aren't gonna treat every player the same way. Go further back in time, nobody back then will be making a case for Tommy Davis, a star outfielder, as being the 1965 Champion since he got injured in June and wasn't on the WS roster. And if it's someone who was just a regular everyday player from the same team, then there's nobody calling him that at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
We go by what reliable sources say. If reliable sources aren't consistent there's not much we can do about that per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's somewhat true that as a work always in progress and documenting very recent events, Wikipedia sometime has to change what we say as sources change. If 30 years from now (or whatever) when Kershaw is I assume no longer playing baseball professional, retrospectives of his career generally exclude him as being a 2024 World Series Champion, then of course our article will need to reflect that then. But until and unless it happens, we can only go by what reliable secondary sources say now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Kershaw announced his retirement in September, so it's right now. isaacl (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
There is an inconsistancy with sportswriters describing who is and isn't considered a WS contributor. I've seen quite a few also acknowledge he didn't contribute to the 2024 World Series as well. Rather than go with the opinion of writers, most of whom do agree with the fact that he wasn't on the roster of the 2024 team, I'd rather stick to the people on the roster who can contribute since I'd rather not significantly expand who is and isn't a champion based on just this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
There's a reason why going with just playoff rosters is more reliable than going with writers. Even within that majority, they say "he was not on the roster of the WS-winning team", and they are refering to him receiving a third RING which is given to a lot of players who made some contribution to the team during the regular season, be it even a single appearence.
That is explained in the article as @Spanneraol can attest. If you're going with a majority consensus, then it's worth looking at the bigger picture than the immediate aftermath of someone who is being given tributes after retirement: as far back as I am able to check, the majority consensus going far back amongst writers has been that someone in a situation like Kershaw was in 2024 - regardless of stardom or not - more often than not, is not described as a champion for that year. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Nil Einne, your comment speaks in absolute terms, when you say We go by what reliable sources say. You commented earlier that you know nothing about baseball. What if your were to read in a Wikipedia article that Clayton Kershaw was a 2024 World Series champion and then attend a party with several baseball fans present. Perhaps you might mention that you don't know much about baseball, but you know Kershaw was a three-time World Series champion. Unless all those fans at your party were Dodgers fans or Kershaw fans, you would get significant pushback. They would immediately point out that he contributed very little to the 2024 championship and wasn't even on the postseason roster. They might point out that Willie Randolph was in the same situation in 1978, Don Sutton in 1988, and even Michael Conforto, Kershaw's teammate, in 2025. Arguably, Randolph has a better claim to a 1978 championship, since he was an effective player all season and was injured about a week before the playoffs started. Kershaw's career ended, when the 2025 World Series concluded, and he is one of the best players of his generation. He also played in a large media market for a popular team. As a result, he gets outsized media attention. Back to the party. After learning that Wikipedia, based on reliable sources that are essentially summarizing the career of an all-time great, considers Kershaw a 2024 champion, but people knowledgeable about baseball, by and large, do not, would you think the encyclopedia had been improved by rigid application of inclusion based on existence of reliable sources? Would it meet the lofty goal of WP:5P5? Although they aren't saying it the way I am, this is the core of the issue the folks from WP:BASE have. I don't participate in WP:BASE, but I've followed baseball for more than 50 years. If I weren't aware of this discussion and saw 2024 in Kershaw's infobox, I would probably delete it, because it would never occur to me that this is controversial. Sometimes, we need to consider whether our passion is better directed toward following P&Gs or making the encyclopedia the best it can be. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The encyclopaedia is the best that can be by following our P&G which for very good reason forbid WP:OR. If people are going to laugh at someone because they refuse OR, that's up to them. There's really no difference when vax deniers ignore sources and decide they know what's better because they're "experts" or when UFO enthusiasts ignore sources and decide they know better because they're "experts" then when baseball "experts" or MMA "experts" decide they likewise know better than sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
My life was destroyed by the COVID jab; I am disabled, because I got the shot. I should never have trusted the government. Nevertheless, denying Kershaw is a 2024 World Series champion is not OR; it is as obvious as the sky is blue. Sources are not always correct. If Wikipedia existed centuries ago, the article about the earth would say that it is flat. You rely on credentialed experts to reach conclusions about the COVID jab (which is not a vaccine, since it does not provide immunity) and UFOs, but you have it backwards, when it comes to baseball. Kershaw not being a 2024 World Champion is not a fringe opinion or conspiracy theory; it is a conclusion reached by a solid majority of those connected to the game. And no one said the people at the party laughed at you. I wouldn't. Most baseball fans are nice people, and they would certainly politely explain how championships are generally viewed. Finally, I engaged you in this conversation, because I found your comments to be thoughtful, and I wanted to introduce an idea into those thoughts of yours. Your response indicates you reject WP:5 in favor of rigid application of P&Gs. Anyway, I tried. Taxman1913 (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Baseball fans trying to explain to a non-fan how baseball rosters work aren't conspiracy theorists and there is no conspiracy here. Kershaw was not on the roster of the 2024 WS playoff team because he wasn't. Neither were several other players in similar situations to him. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:TECHNICAL, "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." Not written for hardcore baseball statistics enthusiasts at a party. (I also disagree that those hypothetical baseball fans would uniformly determine Kershaw wasn't a 2024 WS champion.) PK-WIKI (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
PK-WIKI, where did I say those hypothetical baseball fans would uniformly determine Kershaw wasn't a 2024 WS champion.? Nowhere. Those are your words. My words were significant pushback. Do not attempt to discredit me by altering what I have said in an effort to support your narrative. I even mentioned that Dodgers fans and Kershaw fans might have a different opinion. It is difficut to understand how you could have failed to comprehend what I said. Your mention of WP:TECHNICAL is a clear case of WP:WIKILAWYERING, unless you have failed to comprehend what is said at WP:TECHNICAL in which case it is a simple misunderstandng on your part. That guideline addresses the understandability of an article. How in the world does either 2 × or 3 × World Series champion affect the understandbility of the Kershaw article? If you think so, then it appears you have concluded that baseball fans are in a better position to understand the number 2 than the general public at large. Did you notice that WP:TECHNICAL says Articles should address the topic without twisting the truth or telling "lies-to-children", but should also minimise (unexplained) jargon and not take prior knowledge for granted.? Most baseball fans would consider 3 × World Series champion a lie to children. Please note, and it is sad and pathetic that I feel the need to do this, for the avoidance of doubt, I did not say "all" or any term that would indicate a level that is absolute or unanimous. I said "most". The article already clearly states that CK was a member of the Dodgers in 2024, and that the team won the World Series after he was sidelined by an injury. Taxman1913 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Boldly proclaiming "Most baseball fans would consider 3 × World Series champion a lie to children." and yet you can't find a single source other than MLB.com/BR that agrees. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
PK-WIKI, you've reintroduced whether or not the notion that Kershaw is a 2 × champion is sourced, after I have already conceded that 3 × champion is sourced. You are not WP:LISTENING to the points I am making. Instead, you bring up something about which you and I already agree in an attempt to refute my point, which you apparently don't understand. I listened to you. When you provided sources that were contemporaneous to the 2024 World Series, I literally changed my vote. I don't understand why you cannot extend the same courtesy to me. Taxman1913 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
You keep writing these extremely decisive statements as if they're matters of fact that should be readily accepted by anyone in this discussion:
Most baseball fans would consider 3 × World Series champion a lie to children.
Unless all those fans at your party were Dodgers fans or Kershaw fans, you would get significant pushback.
denying Kershaw is a 2024 World Series champion is not OR; it is as obvious as the sky is blue.
Kershaw not being a 2024 World Champion is not a fringe opinion or conspiracy theory; it is a conclusion reached by a solid majority of those connected to the game.
Being unable to find a single source that agrees perhaps indicates that this folk wisdom is incorrect. Just a thought, but I'll stop responding. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Most baseball fans don't have a column in a prominent newspapers and sports magazine but most of know he had nothing to do with the 2024 World Series championship since he was injured. There are more articles which DON'T mention him in 2024 WS coverage though. I don't think any sportswriter is gonna be like "well actually he's NOT a champion in 2024". They instead mention, "Though he wasn't on the roster, he was in the dugout." which is, again, what a lot of players who are injured do.
The broader public would assume that Kershaw had something to do with the 2024 championship when in reality, he wasn't even on the roster. That he wasn't on the roster is already explained in the article in the appropriate season's section, including WHY he wasn't on the roster. Calling him a 2024 champion is misleading non-baseball fans in that sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
This is absolutely true. If members of the press covering baseball thought there was a reason to mention that Kershaw is generally not considered a 2024 World Series champion, for instance, if they thought the public might be confused about this, we would likely see many reliable sources stating such, and those would far outnumber the sources that say he was a 2024 champion. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Problem with the "you haven't found a single source other than BBref" is exactly that. The few people mentioning him are doing it for a reason - that being that he's a prominent icon - and the ones who are focusing on the series ITSELF won't be mentioning him at all as there is no reason to. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It almost never happens, but wish RfCs would summarize the major conflicting arguments, instead of leaving it to past TLDRs and potentially uninformed, predisposed !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Sorry, a little strapped on time. Is this something you can do? You're always very neutral about things (and knowledgeable about sports). Left guide (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I could, but I am choosing to defer to anyone more invested on this topic. —Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I added a neutral summary. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
A reminder that any WikiProject Baseball consensus is subservient to global sitewide consensus and policy unless the broader community specifically makes an exception for the baseball project (which I have not seen any evidence of). As mentioned at the project talk page, our WP:VOICE policy says (emphasis in original): Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. The way the article is currently written, the two-time/2x is presented as a direct factual statement. Left guide (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I have found mounds of evidence that he is a 3-time champion, it even was mentioned in the world series broadcast when clayton made his last appearance in the MLB.Dafootballguy2 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

One option is to footnote that the player was not on the postseason roster in a WS championship season. For example, this was once tried for Barry Zito, but was removed at some point.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
One option is to footnote that the player was not on the postseason roster in a WS championship season I would support this option. It seems to be the one that best aligns with policy.
As an aside, I don't think not being on the playoff roster really matters. Kershaw was in the dugout taking a leadership role during the 2024 Series. That has to account for something. But again, that is just my vibes and clearly not a policy argument, which is the only type of argument useful for consensus building here on Wikipedia. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Problem with that is that we don't know how many players have done the same going back to say 60 years or 70 years. Even regular players who aren't stars must have done the same thing because they wanted to support the team and encourage them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I know virtually nothing about baseball, but isn't it possible to note that different sources reflect different things here? Katzrockso (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Katzrockso I will take that to note. This is a case of WP:SOURCESDIFFER. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean in the article. Couldn't we "use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation."? Katzrockso (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not really necessary in the prose, as it will already have the details of whether or not a player was on the postseason roster or the World Series roster. The reader can choose whatever standard they want to tally up the number of times the player contributed to the World Series team. There's no single correct answer. isaacl (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Katzrockso: This is somewhat akin to determining someone's hometown if they were born in X, lived at Y until age 12, and then lived in Z until age 18.  Some source might call their hometown:
X because they were born there
Y because they spent most of their childhood there
Z because they spent all of their formative teen years there
—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
So under this interpretation of the dispute, you would suggest that Wikipedia would decide which definition of hometown is correct in contravention of WP:NPOV? Katzrockso (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I only laid out the situation. If it was prose, we could just avoid hometown but explain the situation.  In an infobox, the short X× World Series champion is used, which is uncontroversial in 98% of the cases.  However, in a few cases for high-profile players like Kershaw, sources mention his championships more, while using disparate standards in determining if he is simplistically called an X-time or Y-time "World Series champion".  Some options are to:
Pick either X or Y, and footnote the other.
Remove it from the infobox when there are conflicts, and leave the details to the prose.
Other?
—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@PK-WIKI: are you suggesting unique treatment here, for Kershaw? GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm advocating that all articles must individually meet our core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. We can start by fixing the Kershaw article, where a problem has been identified. Editors are welcome to edit other players' articles as time permits. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Not everybody see this as fixing a problem, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Your heart is in the right place but you're inadvertantly asking for a bigger problem because we don't know how many such exceptions there are over 120 years and multiple leagues. CK is very much an exception with regards to the newspapers you're siting since they are treating him differently as he's a star. You won't find similar news articles for vast majority of players in the situation he was in 2024.
This isn't a "problem" at all, in fact. It never has been for pretty much anyone else. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that a 3x close here would require changes on any other articles - other articles need only be changed if reliable sources describe the people as winners in ways that our articles do not. Impugning sportswriters with a sense of inconsistency (seemingly baselessly?) does not our PAG. Katzrockso (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
No I'm saying that this will otherwise just look like giving Kershaw special treatment because a few sportswriters are currently writing about him as a retiring champ even though he wasn't on the roster in 2024 WHILE they also ignore that his teammates will not be called the same thing because they aren't stars like he is. Sportswriters just aren't consistant about who they describe as champion in a given year.
I don't see anything wrong with asking why we shouldn't consider the fact that the news sources provided are clearly giving him deferential coverage which other players in his 2024 situation are not getting. Especially when there is a clear and consistent alternative source - the one currently in use - which is free from this particular bias. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It reflects that we are following the sources, not any "special treatment". I had never heard of this man before I saw this RfC and doubt I will ever see read anything about him again. Katzrockso (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
That is what I'm trying to explain. Sportswriters aren't the ones who decided who is and isn't a champion. They don't have any fixed criteria for that. And I see this suggestion that we should use a different criteria for Kershaw but not for anyone else as odd. There should be a uniform policy for all players rather than one which favors certain players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
That would be an idea for a new guideline, but currently has no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We are not using any criteria other than what is reported in reliable sources, which is the basis of WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia summation of what reliable sources say about a subject, not the creator of new descriptions based on our own original research. Katzrockso (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Baseball Reference is the reliable source for ALL players in which case. It doesn't differtiate between stars and regular players. It's also consistant with who is and isn't a WS champion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's one source among many, the PAG tell us to follow the WP:BALANCE of reliable sources not to rely on one. There is no PAG basis for dismissing the existing RS in favor of this one and indeed only the opposite (Baseball Reference is a tertiary source and we prefer secondary sources per WP:PSTS. The repetitive nature of this discussion is becoming tiring, so I will leave it to others. Katzrockso (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The core of the issue is that the World Series championship is awarded to a team with a particular snapshot of its members at the time. It isn't awarded to individual players, and so there is no definitive answer to whether or not a player should be referred to as a World Series champion. Thus it's always a choice when deciding to use the World Series champion label, even if that choice is being made by a stats site. isaacl (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Why has this RFC been advertised at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball? Kershaw never played those sports. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing RfCs: "To encourage a broader range of editors to contribute to the discussion, you may also publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations, if related to it: Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects"
All three of those Wikiprojects have had this exact same conversation in the past: if a Sports Reference website's listing of championship stats should be considered as a main objective source of truth.
Using Sports Reference as the main source is currently the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at Wikiproject College Basketball, for example:
> Seth Curry not having national champion denoted in his Sports-Reference profile speaks volumes. This alone is evidence that Rioux is not a national champion as provided by the single most reliable, third-party college basketball source out there. In other words, it's not original research to exclude Rioux. Moreover, every WikiProject is allowed to set its own standards. WP:CBBALL set this standard 20 years ago and it's for the greater good, and nobody up until the other day was butt hurt by the decision. In fact, all WP:CBBALL editors have agreed with and leaned into the idea that redshirts who don't play are not qualified to be national champions in the infoboxes or navboxes. (link)
As such, this RfC is extremely relevant to those Wikiprojects. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The Olivier Rioux case (and Seth Curry) are not that similar to Kershaw in that neither played ANY games - regular season or otherwise - for those championship teams. What is relevant is the idea that sports-reference sites are somehow WP:SELFPUB, and therefore not valid, which is an opinion PK-WIKI was advancing in that discussion as well as this one. Rikster2 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Please review WP:INAPPNOTE. Sharing to a couple of related projects is fine, but this kind of SPAMMING is generally a bad idea. Nemov (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Huh? "Sharing to a couple of related projects is fine", but my sharing to exactly three related projects is spamming? I'm afraid I do not agree. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Those 3 projects have zero to do with Kershaw or baseball. Nemov (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Stop misusing LOCALCONSENSUS.  There was no other "global" consensus before.  Surely WP:CCC, but it's disingenuous to blame a project for having a standard. —Bagumba (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Please feel free to pursue the Archives: 1, 2 and read the replies to people seeking to change this information.
> the policy is just to list them as world champions if they were on the world series roster. | Consensus is to only include it if they were on the WS roster. | WP:BASEBALL's longstanding consensus is to only do this for players on the active World Series roster | The policy by WP:Baseball is pretty much the one adopted from Baseball Reference which states that anyone on the World Series roster will be listed as a World Series champion and not otherwise. | The consensus among the Baseball project is to only include people who were actually on the World Series roster. | our consensus is to not include that line in the info box if he didn't contribute to the championship series. | It's a consensus from the baseball wikiproject, not my personal choice. Only players who were on the WS roster get that distinction in the info box.
That sure sounds like a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has formed and has been successfully used by WP:BASEBALL participants to keep the cited information off this BLP page for over a year and counting. "Participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." PK-WIKI (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Can we all just agree kershaw is a 2 time champion who is the owner of 3 champion rings, I have not seen any evidence that a player who has not been on a World series roster being qualified to be called a World series champion that year. This whole debate seems to be avoidable if we just wrote "Kershaw is a two time world series champion, who possesses 3 world series rings. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I think the infobox, where space is short, is the biggest issue.  Though an explanatory footnote, whether we choose 2× or 3×, seems reasonable to add. —Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Where is the global consensus that has previously been ignored?  That's what LOCALCONSENSUS is, not merely a consensus that's been formed locally (that nowhere else outside has commented on). —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The global consensuses are already documented and authorized in community-approved policies and guidelines which apply to all articles all the time; they do not require any WikiProject's consent to be in force. In and of itself, WikiProjects can set a standard for things, but when it involves matters that conflict with P&Gs the WikiProject always defers unless the broader community has allowed an exception; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is unequivocally clear about this. If we want to bestow WikiProject Baseball an exception to use its methodology for counting WS championships in contravention of P&Gs when there's a conflict, we can pursue such a proposal at WP:Village pump (proposals) and see what the broader community thinks. Left guide (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I think a proposal at the Village pump is appropriate. It does not look like a consensus is forming here. I truly believe that the P&Gs contradict common sense in this case and rather than stop with the P&Gs, we need to look at the five pillars. It doesn't make sense for the Clayton Kershaw article to get treatment with respect to 2024, that differs from the Michael Conforto article with respect to 2025. It is unlikely a secondary reliable source will ever emerge that documents Michael Conforto as a 2025 World Series champion. Yet, we know he arguably contributed more to the 2025 Dodgers than Kershaw did to the 2024 Dodgers. Blindly following P&Gs and regurgitating what is published in Wikipedia articles is not the best way to improve the encyclopedia as WP:5P5 aspires. While we can objectively read and understand the rules and then apply them neutrally, is the encyclopedia as a whole presented from a neutral point of view, if the Kershaw article says he was a champion of a World Series in which he did not participate, while no other article about a baseball player with the same set of facts and circumstances says the same thing about them? I tried to find another player of Kershaw's stature who missed a World Series due to injury, and could only come up with Rube Waddell in 1905, but his team lost. Since MLB confers the title World Series champion to teams and not players, there is no objective rule to which we can point. It's arguable no player should have that in his infobox. But, if it is going to be there, participation in the postseason appears to be a reasonable, objective standard that will lead to consistent results. I've followed baseball for 52 years. If I saw 2024 listed in Kershaw's article, I would assume someone who doesn't know much about baseball put it there. If that's what the majority of people who follow baseball feel, it doesn't seem to improve the encyclopedia. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
An RfC seems to represent the "broader community", and this RfC was already posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC notice.  It is not clear what going back to VPP will accomplish. —Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If it's already at Village pump, then I agree we need to just continue the discussion here. I was responing to Left guide, who suggested such. We have a camp of folks who favor following P&Gs regardless of whether it makes sense to people in the baseball community. We have the baseball community which doesn't like the rigid application of P&Gs, because the result makes no sense to them, but they don't offer a reason for an exception to P&Gs. I seem to stand alone in offering the reasoning that, in this case, departure from the P&Gs improves the encyclopedia in this case, and, therefore, is appropriate here. The voting is very close, and we seem to be very far from reaching a consensus. No one from either camp has agreed or disagreed with or commented on my reasoning. So, I am the cheese standing alone. Taxman1913 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
rigid application of P&Gs: WP:5P5 reads: Wikipedia has no firm rules Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.. —Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Please be sure to read WP:5P2 as well. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
An explanatory footnote could add neutrality, but the idea has yet to gain traction. —Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If anyone could IAR justify their argument in the middle of a dispute, then P&Gs would be toothless, and all hell would break loose since everyone would be "right". That's why WP:LOCALCON explicitly describes the process whereby a WikiProject can be granted the IAR exception your policy quote talks of, by convincing the broader community that such action is right. Left guide (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion is not "already at the village pump"; the post there is merely a notice, not the start of its own village pump discussion proposal which is what I was referring to. Left guide (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't participate in many of these. Left guide and Bagumba appear to have a difference of opinion as to the effectiveness of posting a proposal at the Village pump in an effort to broaden the scope of those involved in this discussion and perhaps reach a reslution that is more universal in nature. I have no clue as to whether it would matter. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It didn't take long for me to find Steinbrenner Must Learn about Tradition in a 1984 newspaper. In the article, which is not about the 1978 World Series, the journalist wrote: Now Steibrenner has stripped the club of everyone but Lou Piniella, Ron Guidry and Willie Randolph from the 1978 World Series championship squad. The infobox of the Wikipedia article on Willie Randolph does not state that he was a 1978 World Series champion. It only says he was a 1977 World Series champion. Randolph injured his hamstring late in the 1978 regular season, and he was not on the postseason roster. Although Randolph is not a Hall of Famer, he was a key player on the Yankees for many years and became team captain late in his tenure there. The Bulletin is a reliable source. Therefore, even though most people in the baseball community would say Brian Doyle was the Yankees' second baseman during the 1978 postseason, filling in for the injured Willie Randolph, the reliable source I found overrides the consensus as well as common sense and compels Wikipedia to identify Willie Randolph as a 1978 World Series champion. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to someone else, not to put this directly under the Discussion section heading? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I meant this to be a new thread in the Dicussion section. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't really understand why there's so much talk of what other people did or didn't do in any season etc. This is basically irrelevant, we don't do OR. While we can use very limited editorial judgment in assessing sources, definitely not to that level. Whyever sources decided that person A was part of the team but person B wasn't is not for use to worry about as editors. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
But it isn't a player A vs. a player B comparison. It is at least dozens, perhaps hundreds, of players vs. player B. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Note that PK-WIKI appears to have changed Alex Vesia's WS championships in accordance with a cited source which contradicts the WikiProject consensus. Similar edits on that article (albeit uncited) were recently disputed. If this is a systemic issue affecting multiple articles rather than just Kershaw, starting a village pump proposal is becoming to look like a more prudent option. Left guide (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I thought I was changing it TO the current "WikiProject consensus". I sourced it to Baseball Reference, the same citation currently used here at Clayton Kershaw and elsewhere. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I had no idea WP:BASE had a consensus before participating in this discussion. Either I have misunderstood what has been said on this page about the project's consensus, or the edit made by PK-WIKI is in accordance with such consensus and not breaking any new ground. Taxman1913 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I added a note to the Vesia info box explaining that he wasn't on the WS roster. Spanneraol (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Based on the hidden editor note, the WikiProject consensus method of counting championships contradicts Baseball Reference in Vesia's case. Left guide (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Vesia is kindof a special case in that he was on the league championship roster and then removed from the WS at the last moment. Someone removed the 2025 link and my footnote though. Spanneraol (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The National Baseball Hall of Fame (NBHoF), which is operated by a private foundation and is not under the auspices of Major League Baseball, is widely regarded as the leading curator of baseball history. There is no clear standard to determine when the title World Series champion should be conferred on a player. Therefore, sports journalists, Baseball-Reference, SABR, FanGraphs, ESPN, Fox Sports and even WP:BASE can develop their own criteria that they believe failry represents whether a player is entitled to such label. However, if there is an ultimate arbiter with respect to baseball, it would have to be the NBHoF. Even if it makes no sense to me, and I and all the baseball fans I know disagree with it, I would regard a determination made by the NBHoF as conclusive, even if such determination could or should be challenged. The NBHoF has a list of Hall of Fame Players Who Won the World Series on its website. Don Sutton is included on that list. The only team on which Sutton played that won a World Series is the 1988 Dodgers. Sutton was the starting pitcher in 16 of the Dodgers' games in 1988. He was released by the team on August 10, 1988, and, obviously, did not appear on the team's postseason roster. Nevertheless, the NBHoF considers him a 1988 World Series champion. Clayton Kershaw appeared in seven games for the 2024 Dodgers, but he was not released. As has been well documented, he was injured and left off the postseason rosters and remained with the team. While I am aware that it is WP:SYNTH to draw a conclusion about Kershaw based on what the NBHoF has done with Sutton, the lack of an identifiable standard describing who is a World Series champion leads me to conclude the Kershaw has at least as good a claim to this title for 2024, as Sutton has for 1988. Therefore, even if the community confers the power to make this determination onto WP:BASE, I don't think it's appropriate for any consensus reached to exclude a player, like Sutton, who is not excluded by the NBHoF. If we are trying to identify subject-matter experts, the NBHoF has a better claim to that than WP:BASE, and that is said from a position of respect for the folks who contribute there. Consequently, I no longer question the inclusion of 2024 in the Kershaw infobox and will edit my vote to reflect my revised position. I do, however, still believe a footnote indicating he did not participate in the postseason due to injury is appropriate in accordance with WP:NPOV since frequently consulted reliable sources (which may or may not be secondary sources) exclude 2024 World Series champion from Kershaw's list of accomplishments. Taxman1913 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the matter, It would appear that that statement has clarified the issue. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
That's just complete nonsense if we added World Series champ (1988) to Sutton's page. He literally wasn't even a member of the team. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean? I see 16 appearances for Sutton with the 1988 Dodgers. that is more appearances than Kershaw in 2024. Rikster2 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Sutton was released by the Dodgers in August 1988. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And Michael Conforto, this year, was not on the roster, and was let go in free agency. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Rikster2, I mentioned the 16 appearances in my comment. If we balance this against the seven appearances Kershaw had for the 2024 Dodgers (also mentioned in the comment), we might come up with some arbitrary cut-off like 10 appearances, which would only be a guess. The NBHoF doesn't say how they made the decision to include Sutton on the list (or, if they did say, I haven't found it). But there is more to the two situations than simply the number of appearances. Sutton was released by the Dodgers in August 1988, and he was no longer on the team, when it won. Kershaw was still a Dodger when they raised the trophy. I think that offsets the difference in the number of appearances, giving Kershaw at least as good a claim as Sutton has. It's a judgement call on my part, and it's okay if your judgement leads to a different conclusion. Taxman1913 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Sutton went to the White House though. He was not a member of the team by then either AND he had retired on top of that. So again, there are too many factors for several different players who were left off the roster. I mention Conforto above, he's no longer a member of the team now either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
My view here is that we need to make sure players who AREN'T stars are not left behind here. 98% of the time, THEY are the ones in these situations, not the stars like Kershaw. Sutton not being on the roster is, on face value, the same situation as Kershaw not being on the roster. Same with a guy like Conforto who was let go AFTER the season ended, or a player who was traded midseason but will be getting a ring regardless. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Omnis Scientia, Sutton was working as a color commentator for Dodgers games on cable in 1989. There's no way to know whether he would have made the White House visit had he not had some association with the team. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Not fully sure, but he WAS retired and - and this is really funny - he was credited as "secret service agent" HA! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, nothing to do with anything HERE, but there are tons of people who would legit get angry at you for saying the BBHOF has a better claim to being experts loool. In part because of controversies over certain players who were and were NOT elected. I love the HOF as a place and whatnot but whether or not they are "experts" on baseball too is quite subjective.
We are an argumentative people here in the baseball community lol! :D Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Omnis Scientia, those are the best people to invite for an embibing session! They were on my mind as I was writing. The PED exclusions have caused them to grow in numbers. I don't agree with everything the NBHoF says or does either. In fact, I don't agree with them including Sutton on the list. Nevertheless, I choose to practice humility and defer to their judgement. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
That's fair! But that would be just HOFers in the end though. I want an approach which is "one size fits all" (does that make sense?) as opposed to favoring the 1% of the best players, you know? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I want that too. So, I emailed the NBHoF and asked them what criteria they used to determine Sutton was a 1988 World Series winner. I don't know whether they will reply or regard me as some nutjob. If Sutton is a 1988 World Series winner, Willie Randolph is clearly a 1978 World Series winner. He suffered a hamstring injury with about a week left in the regular season and is the reason for the fame of the legendary Brian Doyle. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I wonder about that. What if MLB has a different opinion? Or any at all? I mean, they have VERY specific rules about random things - infield fly rule - so I'm surprised they are like "nah this is fine thing to keep vague." Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If MLB has a rule addressing this, they are good at hiding it. It isn't in the MLB Rules, which describe things like tiebreakers, the postseason format and where the money for postseason ticket sales go, or in the collective bargaining agreement. Obviously, it isn't in the playing rules either. As far as I know, MLB confers the title World Series champion on teams, not on players. I actually think the wording in the infobox should be 2 × member of World Series champion (1982, 1986), because individual players do not win a World Series by themselves. I know it is implied, but I think it would be better, if it were crystal clear. Even if MLB had a rule, a NBHoF rule might be more pursuaive, since MLB is a primary source. The NBHoF is independent of MLB. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It is but not sure a museum will have concrete rules about the championships run by MLB. They are history keepers more than anything, you know? Maybe if you ask them about how IN GENERAL as opposed to about one player only, that may help. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I told them the reason I wanted to know and asked whether they could share the criteria they used to make the determination. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Until an hour ago, I would have agreed with you in terms of whether it belongs on Sutton's page. In my heart, I still think Sutton never won a World Series, and it is ridiculous to say he did. But for the the purpose of making a final decision on what recognition should be conferred on Sutton, I defer to the judgement of the NBHoF. They are a far better arbiter in this matter than I am. I'm not convinced Wikipedia should blaze its own trail and publish information that contradicts what the NBHoF says. Taxman1913 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone just email the HOF and ask what the standard is to be included in the list of World Series winners? Could be they have a consistent standard or could be it was a mistake by an intern. Rikster2 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Done. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Response received from National Baseball Hall of Fame
Thank you for your note. While the Hall of Fame is not an arbiter on this point — the Hall is not owned or operated by MLB — we identify any player who played for a World Series-winning team during that season as such. Most of them receive World Series rings if they play even one game for a team in that season, and there are many examples in addition to Don Sutton of players like this, such as Phil Rizzuto on the 1956 Yankees (who was released toward the end of the season) and Reggie Jackson on the 1972 A's (who did not play in the World Series that year due to an injury).
While the NBHoF has expressed humility in saying it is not an arbiter, and remaining mindful that many baseball fans dispute decisions made by the NBHoF, particularly those concerning enshrinement of players, I would defer to its judgement over my own or that of websites such as Baseball-Reference or FanGraphs and even over MLB itself, since it does not award official recognition as a World Series champion to individual players. My personal point of view is that it is just plain silly that applying the NBHoF criteria means that Buddy Kennedy (seven games played for the 2025 Dodgers) and Chuckie Robinson (one game played for the 2025 Dodgers) are recognized as 2025 World Series champions. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not about my personal point of view, and if the regular participants at WP:BASE want a clear set of authoritative criteria that can be applied to all player articles, they now have that. As this discussion has developed, it appears the WP:BASE criteria are more restrictive than that of Baseball-Reference. This became apparent, when Baseball-Reference recognized Alex Vesia as a 2 × World Series champion, but the WP:BASE criteria did not recognize the 2025 championship. Although I respect the regular contributors to that project, I don't believe they have the authority to create criteria that are more restrictive than both Baseball-Reference and the NBHoF. Even though I personally don't like the outcome, i.e. calling Chuckie Robinson a 2025 World Series winner, I don't see any justification for rejecting what the NBHoF has said, and I believe WP:BASE should simply adopt the NBHoF criteria. I will edit my vote again. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I would be absolutely opposed to listing Chuckie Robinson or Buddy Kennedy as World Series champions. the HoF . Vesia played in the league championship series which seems to be what BR is using...I'm fine with including him as a two time champion (with a note that he was off the WS roster)... could possibly do the same with Kershaw due to his prominence in the series broadcasts if that is where this goes... but definitely not EVERY player who was on the roster.. that is beyond ridiculous. Spanneraol (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it is beyond ridiculous, but doing otherwise means subjectivity is introduced into the criteria. Either that or players like Kershaw who get outsized media attention are afforded special treatment. If Kershaw is shown as a 2024 champion, then so should Sutton in 1988, Willie Randolph in 1978, and Phil Rizzuto in 1956. But what will differentiate them from Michael Conforto in 2025? Taxman1913 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Continuing as we have been - just WS roster - also doesn't require any subjectivity... even if it's just expanded to postseason roster (as opposed to just WS) thats still a strong line... opening it up to everyone who came into one game during the season is ridiculous. This consensus has lasted for over a decade.. and is really just becoming an issue because of the excessive coverage Kershaw's retirement has gotten. Spanneraol (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
If the project's consensus criteria are expanded to postseason roster, it still excludes Kershaw in 2024 and Sutton in 1988. Since the NBHoF says Sutton is a 1988 World Series champion. WP:BASE would need to justify why it is in a better position to make that judgement call than the NBHoF. Even if criteria are developed that would include Sutton in 1988, given the NBHoF has released the criteria it applies, WP:BASE would need to justify why it is in a better position to craft its own policy that excludes Chuckie Robinson, when the NBHoF policy would include him. Perhaps that means demonstrating that the Baseball-Reference policy is superior to that of the NBHoF. My heart would never be swayed to say I believe Chuckie Robinson is a 2025 World Series champion, but Wikipedia is not about my heart. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)


##### Sources pre-2025 world series
Sources prior to this years world series, were already saying two world series titles/championships for Kershaw, so with this years win, that would be three. It appears to me that multiple sources are considering the 2024 season as a WS title/championship for him.

Kershaw played his entire 18-season career with the Dodgers, winning two World Series titles and three National League Cy Young awards. Mens Journal (18 Sep 2025)
Kershaw, a lefty, has hundreds of wins, two World Series championships and a trophy case full of MLB awards - all with one team.  NPR (19 Sep 2025)
After 18 seasons, three Cy Young Awards, an MVP, and two World Series titles, Kershaw announced he will retire from Major League Baseball after this season. Los Angeles Times (18 Sep 2025)
They’ve each played 18 respective big-league seasons. They’ve combined for nearly 6,500 strikeouts and 436 career wins. They each have two World Series titles, and three Cy Young Awards. And one day, they’ll each have plaques in Cooperstown, future first-ballot Hall of Famers who defined their generation of pitching. For Clayton Kershaw and Max Scherzer, there’s nothing left to prove. Los Angeles Times (9 August 2025)
Seventeen years, three Cy Young Awards, two World Series titles, and — very nearly — 3,000 strikeouts later, the rest has been singularly impressive history. Los Angeles Times (1 July 2025)
The 37-year-old left-hander who got his 3,000th strikeout in July will make his final regular season start at Dodger Stadium on Friday night against the San Francisco Giants. The 11-time all-star and 2014 NL MVP is in his 18th major-league season, all with the Dodgers, which ties him with Zack Wheat and Bill Russell for the most years in franchise history. Kershaw won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024. Globe and Mail (19 Sep 2025)
The 18-year pro won two World Series titles with the club that drafted him seventh overall in the 2006 player draft. The Texan has spent his entire career with the Dodgers. CNN (18 Sep 2025)
The 11-time All-Star is tied with Zack Wheat and Bill Russell for the most years with the Dodgers in franchise history. Kershaw won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024. Associated Press (19 Sep 2025)
Max Scherzer and Clayton Kershaw have each won three Cy Young awards and two World Series titles. USA Today (27 Oct 2025)
Clayton Kershaw is ending a career that has spanned 18 MLB seasons, 11 All-Star nods, three Cy Young Awards, two World Series titles, a Gold Glove, an NL MVP Award, a Roberto Clemente Award and, notably, just one team. Yahoo Sports (18 Sep 2025)
Kershaw's resume speaks for itself: three Cy Young Awards (2011, 2013, 2014), the 2014 NL MVP, and two World Series titles (2020, 2024). The Sporting Tribune (18 Sep 2025) Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Isaidnoway this is a terrific contribution to the discussion. Taxman1913 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, this is the type of P&G-based source analysis that enhances the quality of the discussion. Left guide (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources but, as I mentioned above to you, that is not the problem at all. The problem is you finding similar ones for all other players in the same situation as Kershaw 2024? As far as I can see, these are mostly tribute-level articles for a popular player. Michael Conforto is not gonna get a series of articles saying he won the 2025 World Series championship with the Dodgers pretty much ever, and he played more in 2025 than Kershaw did in 2024. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And there are MANY such players going back to the first World Series. Not all of them are gonna get treatment of a similar level. I know you seem to think that is not a problem here but it very much is what the issue is. It's not about Kershaw, it's about players who have been in this situation before and WILL be in this situation in the future. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And as I mentioned above, the only thing we are required to do is document what multiple reliable sources report on a topic, and if there is a contradiction in those sources, we report that too. The argument that because sources are not reporting on other players in this situation, or any situation for that matter, means we can't include content about Kershaw in this article makes no sense to me.From what I have read about Kershaw, he is widely considered one of the greatest pitchers of his generation, so it would not be uncommon for him to receive significant media attention. I could be wrong here, but your logic seems to be because other players are not getting significant coverage like he does, it isn't fair, and therefore, we must ignore the significant coverage about Kershaw, which in my mind, is contrary to our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
There's a difference between "ignoring significant coverage" - which is NOT what I'm saying to do - and letting it dictate how WE decide to show in the infobox which player gets to PRESENTED as WS champion and which ones do not. So yes, in that sense, I do have an issue with Kershaw getting credit for a series he was not even on the roster for and his teammate, in the same situation, NOT getting that credit OR perhaps another star who does play in a large media market like Los Angeles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
But if I'm not mistaken, you are ok with Baseball-Reference dictating how we decide to show in the infobox which player is presented as a WS champion and which ones are not. Is that correct?— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Because, unlike writers, they HAVE a criteria. That being limiting it to those players on the playoff rosters. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Baseball Reference is a statistics website using official stats and official rosters, as I've explained to you several times above. He was not on the official roster of the 2024 championship any more than deGrom in 2023 was for the Rangers, and several other examples. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
So are you saying that Baseball-Reference is the only source allowed, or should be allowed, to dictate content in every single MLB player's articles, when it comes to the world series? For the purposes of this discussion, it would help if you could clear that up. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
In the infoboxes ONLY, yes. Because in the article itself, it is clearly explained why he wasn't on the roster and that he received a ring and whatnot. It would be misleading to present him as a 2024 champion - or indeed Michael Conforto as a 2025 champion - to a reader who may not be aware of baseball as much. I'm not saying DON'T mention it at all. I'm saying in the infoboxes, as part of the achievements, it should be the same for all players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I do have an issue with Kershaw getting credit for a series he was not even on the roster for and his teammate, in the same situation, NOT getting that credit OR perhaps another star who does play in a large media market like Los Angeles. This line of argument amounts to WP:RGW:
You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case…we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. We reflect what the wider world of serious thought has made of what is right and wrong, but we present that neutrally, instead of advocating for what we think is right. If there's a purported disparity in coverage, there's nothing we can or should be doing about that here on Wikipedia to artificially "correct" that. Our job is to simply reflect the balance and weight of reliable coverage that's available. Left guide (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
"Righting a great wrong" by adding a third championship for Kershaw because a handful of vocal IP addresses, a minority, and an also minority of sportswriters - they ALL acknowledge he wasn't on the roster of the 2024 team - is exactly my point. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
What sources can you provide to prove that the many shown by PK-WIKI and Isaidnoway are in the minority of sportswriters? Those two users provided a combined 15 references at least. Granted, some are from the same publisher, so even if we go super conservative and say multiple sources from the same publisher count as one it's still about a dozen. As for the opposite argument you've been fighting tooth and nail for, at most all we've got so far is mlb.com, baseball reference, and the hall of fame which is no more than three. Left guide (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Skimming the thread again I just noticed that Esb5415 presented about five, so that first total is probably closer to 20 sources. Left guide (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
There are MANY more writers are have not mentioned him in their accounts of the 2024 WS since he was a non-factor, not having been on the roster. You're not going to find a writer saying "well actually he's NOT a 2024 champion", they're just not gonna mention him. I KNOW there are a lot of writers saying he's got "three rings" - they also give him the "he wasn't on the roster BUT" treatment too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
We cannot make original research inferences based on things sources don't say to ascribe artificial weight to a viewpoint not explicitly stated by sources. Alas, such arguments would allow any viewpoint anywhere to be valid since proving a negative is impossible. This is why verifiability is one of our core policies. So again I ask, where are these sources to support your argument and back up the claim that the collective body of around 20 sources provided by three editors is a minority viewpoint? Left guide (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I've explained myself quite clearly in previous comments. I just don't think it's controversial to say Wikipedia should have a "one size fits all" approach to which sports personality gets credit for their championship run and which one doesn't in the infoboxes. Using sportswriters - who, again, have no criteria and aren't an authority on this matter - is not the way to go about this IMO. That is all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Mention it in the article body, definitely - and it is in detail WHY he wasn't on the roster and that he was injured and later needed surgery - but it's gonna be misleading to say it in the infobox, and this is true of any player who wasn't on the playoff roster of their WS team. I look at Jacob deGrom, I don't see see him as the 2023 WS champion since he was knocked out early in the season. I don't think that is a controversial take here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
In addition to the ones listed above, there is also a few more - The Canadian Press, The Desert Sun, Cincinnati Enquirer, Asbury Park Press, El Paso Times, Tallahassee Democrat, Arizona Republic, Argus Leader - stating he won two World Series championships, before the 2025 World Series. So he has three World Series championships, shown by an overwhelming consensus amongst reliable sources that can't be simply dismissed because of vague hand-waving about "sportswriters". In addition, the infobox is part of the article, so it absolutely needs to be included there.
And the hidden note in his infobox ("Per discussion at WP:BASEBALL do not add 2024"), that links to this discussion from 10 years ago with only 9 editors participating, that in no way represents a community consensus, should not even be there as WP:PROJECT clearly states:WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. — which is exactly what that hidden note does, it is clear ownership over this article that is specifically intended to impose their preference on this article. I'd remove it myself, but undoubtedly it would be reverted.— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
To expand on Isaidnoway's points, our WP:LOCALCON policy says:
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Thus far in this RfC, our sampling of the broader community is represented by the three who have declared a lack of meaningful prior personal involvement in the baseball topic area (Nil Einne, Isaidnoway, Katzrockso), none of whom have been persuaded by the WikiProject consensus. If we want to attract more uninvolved voices to seek a LOCALCON exception for WikiProject Baseball, then the appropriate means of doing that would be to discuss at the village pump following the conclusion of this RfC. Left guide (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I've seen that note on the few places, I assume to prevent editwarring or to inform people who may not be aware of the current consensus. I've added one myself about number of All-Star games a player may have been in because there were a few years with two All-Star Games and some editors may not know that fact. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Bluntly, that hidden note can not be in this article. WP:BASE does not have the authority to issue mandates about what content can or can not be included in this article.— Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
All due respect, I feel like you're taking all this a bit too seriously. There was no ill-intentions behind the hidden note. It is not a mandate, it's just informing people of the current standing consensus. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Like I said, that hidden note can not be there, and yes, when a hidden note clearly states - "Do not" do this, which references BASE, that is indeed a mandate.— Isaidnoway (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Also there is no "vague hand-waving" about sportswriters, as you put it. Saying they don't have biases about covering a retiring star - there's a reason for disporotionate coverage here - is a bit strange. My point is NOT about Kershaw's coverage, as I have explained several times to you, it's that they won't be giving this same coverage to majority of other people in the same situation.
It is a legitimate concern to point out that there is clear bias in the coverage which isn't afforded to other players who aren't being given tributes after retirement. If we ARE gonna have a criteria, it should be "one size fits all" and not one favoring one type of player (i.e. the star athletes) over majority of others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
We already have criteria for what content can be included in a BLP. It must be reliably sourced, verifiable, and a significant viewpoint that is widely documented, as I have explained several times to you. Sports figures, politicians, celebrities, authors, musicians, academics, etc. are not exempt from this policy, and there is no such thing as "one size fits all", nor should there be, as evidenced by the sheer diversity of the 6 million+ plus articles on WP.— Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
We do have "one size fits all criteria"; they are called policies and guidelines which apply equally to all articles all the time. Our P&Gs don't favor any players over others. Left guide (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
And there's also a policy to make exceptions for those guidelines too which apply to situations like this, IMO. If we go by the opinions of sportswriters for what they think of a certain situation which is dictated by official rule sets, then we can also change the outcome of a game. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
And there's also a policy to make exceptions for those guidelines too which apply to situations like this, IMO. Yes, this is exactly what I've been explaining in this sub-thread (this comment for example). But IAR exceptions aren't for one editor to push on a personal whim when there's broader community opposition backed by more definitive policies and guidelines as has been done in this RfC. That's not how Wikipedia works; it's a community process. Your own personal opinion of what constitutes a valid exception does not equate to consensus unless you can show that your view is endorsed by the Wikipedia community at large, which has not occurred. Left guide (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I understand that @Left guide and I appreciate the clarifications you've been giving. I don't think I'm pushing a personal opinion, though, I'm advocating for what official statistics say about the matter over the opinion of writers - and I know people will disagree with me and that's perfectly fine. My personal opinion is not necessarily in line with those stats and whatnot, not always at least. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Could people stop adding extra sections to this discussion... It is already impossible to follow or find new comments. Spanneraol (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Change "September 28th 2025" to
"October 27th 2025" to reflect his appearance in game 3 of the 2025 world series in the 12th inning. 75.83.137.135 (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That section reflects regular season appearances. Spanneraol (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

change World Series champion from 2 to 3. The Dodgers and the MLB recognize him as a 3 time world series champion
2020, 2024, and 2025. EasyMoneySniper1351 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This topic has been discussed multiple times with the current consensus being thay Kershaw was not in the 2024 roster. NotJamestack (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@EasyMoneySniper1351, please see the RFC above at Talk:Clayton_Kershaw#RfC:_2x_or_3x_champ? TarnishedPathtalk 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I get it, but if even the MLB recognizes him as a three-time World Champion and posts articles and links about him winning and retiring as a three-time World Series champion. Why do we always go on what Baseball references says when THE MLB literally recognizes him as a 3 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPION? EasyMoneySniper1351 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@EasyMoneySniper1351, I don't regularly edit this article so your questions/arguments aren't something that I can really address. I still don't know what my position is. What I will say is that your participation/questions/etc are going to be better put in the RFC above. TarnishedPathtalk 04:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

People insist that they want to add the year 2024 as World Series champions in Kershaw's infobox on Wikipedia, but as dictated in WP:BASEBALL as a long-standing consensus, players who were not on the World Series roster with the winning team are not listed as World Series champions in that particular year in the infobox, which was Kershaw's case in 2024. So, can we warrant pending changes protection on this article? --Allen (talk / ctrb) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I requested an increase in protection level for pending changes protection on this article due to the ongoing dispute and argument whether Kershaw should be listed as a 2024 World Series champion or not, which WP:BASEBALL dictates that players who were not on the World Series roster with the winning team in a particular year are not listed as World Series champions in that particular year on players' infoboxes on Wikipedia. So, to reiterate, is pending changes protection warranted on this article to settle the dispute? --Allen (talk / ctrb) 00:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
An increase in protection level on this article has been declined for now. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/11#Clayton Kershaw. There is an ongoing discussion on this article's talk page, particularly in "MLB Admits Kershaw is a 3-Time World Champion." section in terms of consensus dispute, and hopefully the discussion would reach a consensus to warrant a bump in protection level if a round of reverts (edit warring) escalate. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 01:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)


### Clayton Kershaw