Talk:1926 World Series

message: Ref 43 is blank. Just thought I'd notify the editors as I'm too lazy to look for it and since it's a repeated ref. Quadzilla99 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've fixed the reference now. It appears I had deleted the original in one of my previous edits, and forgot to check for duplicates. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference problem

message: Okay, I figured I'd review this. Its GA quality but I think it needs some work before its FA quality. Here are some comments/suggestions. Feel free to strike these out as you address them, if you don't agree with one don't strike it out, just leave a comment below it saying why: 
*Right off the bat I've never been a big fan of the years linked into the season, so I'd do away with that. If its a religion to you that's I just think its overlinking.
*"The 1926 World Series was the championship series of Major League Baseball, featuring the St. Louis Cardinals vs. the New York Yankees." This sentence should mention 1926 again, "The 1926 World Series was the championship series of the 1926 Major League Baseball season, featuring the St. Louis Cardinals vs. the New York Yankees." or somehting like it. I know avoiding redundancy but it reads awkwardly otherwise.
*I'm aware there's some debate about spelling out numbers less than ten in sports articles since many media outlets don't. But I always do unless thay're part of a series (Simms threw for 2,200 yards, 17 touchdowns, and 8 interceptions). Also what's there is inconsistent for instance the first para has 4 games to 3 then the first section has sixteen wins and twelve losses. Generally, WP:MOSNUM recommends spelling out everything under 10. Just be aware of that because people will most likely request you do that during FAC.
*"The Babe Ruth-led Yankees had won their first World Series in 1923 in six games against the New York Giants,[5] after attempts in the two previous years." I think this might be more direct if you just said, "after losing the two previous World Series."
*"In Game Two, future Baseball Hall-of-Famer Grover Cleveland Alexander led the Cardinals to an easy defeat of the Yankees." I'm not sure future is necessary here. I would just say, "In Game Two, Hall of Famer Grover Cleveland Alexander led the Cardinals to an easy defeat of the Yankees." And I'm pretty sure Hall of Famer doesn't get hyphenated:
:I deleted the HOF reference entirely, nearly every player named in the opening of the article is in the HOF, why note it for Alexander.Timpcrk87 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's it. Nice work, and good luck! Quadzilla99 07:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I do not understand why this entry should not be included under Further reading. Pages 33-39 deal specifically with this topic. Kingturtle (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears that if a book is used as a reference, it can't be added to further reading, unless it provides some "significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". I would say it does, but I believe the rest of the book is too out of focus with this topic. This article covers the 1926 World Series, while the Levenson book covers 1926 (in only seven pages) and 34 other World Series championships. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the relevant link: WP:CITE#Further reading/External links. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: There really should be an aftermath section. Kingturtle (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While doing some cleanup work on the article, I noticed that some content added to the Game 7 summary was much better suited for an aftermath section. I split it into a new section. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Just wondering what the (III) in the "Series statistics" section is for. BUC (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the notation came from retrosheet, where (I) represents its 1882–1892 years; (II) represents its 1902–1908 years; and (III), aka Busch Stadium I, represents its 1909–1966 years.--NullSpace (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sportsman's Park (III)" 

message: The infobox marked Billy Southworth as being elected as a manager, but not Miller Huggins. But I think that while Huggins was a great second baseman, I think he is more famous as a manager and was elected on that basis -- he would not have been elected to the Hall of Fame strictly as a second baseman, I am confident, whereas he probably would have been if he had only managed, I think. And his Hall plaque starts off with his managerial accomplishment. Contemporary sources could probably confirm or refute this, but for now I have marked Huggins as being "elected as manager". Herostratus (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Elected as manager" (to Hall of Fame)