Talk:World Series/Archive 2

message: So tempting to remove the yankees have the most sentence M@ 00:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Teams

message: Could the Washington Nationals be added in the 6th expansion?
*They are the Montreal Expos transferred. They are part of the 1969 expansion. Wahkeenah 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Nationals 

message: Can anyone tell me the amount of the cash bonus a World Series player on the winning team gets?  BD2412 talk 13:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cash bonus? 

message: Revisiting the "era" headings, do we really need them at all?!  Not only are baseball eras hard to define but they're not particularly useful, esp. for an article about the World Series (they're more of a baseball history-in-general concept).  In addition, they keep changing!  Of course that's because they're just an invitation to invent whatever heading you want.  I'm tempted to severely overhaul this whole page, removing the headings and removing the mini-novels about individual series, etc.  That's all information already in the pages for the individual series themselves - or, if it's not, it should be.  Maybe a paragraph or two before the list giving a few highlights is okay.  Opinions?  --Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the headings! 

message: I have a nifty book from the mid-1970s called "The Scrapbook History of Baseball". It is a simulated collection of mounted clippings, i.e. actual snippets from contemporary newspapers presented in a "scrapbook" format. The 1884, 1885 and 1886 inter-league contests were referred to as the "World's Championship". When Detroit defeated St. Louis in 1887, the clipping was headlined, "The World's Series". Some revisionists have tried to claim those were "just exhibition games". The fans and the writers of that time didn't think so. Also, on that premise, the 1903 Series was also "just an exhibition". One can make the case that the true "World Series", sanctioned and recognized as such by both major leagues, did not begin until 1905. Wahkeenah 15:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I'd argue that the name can't be a holdover from another series. However, there are arguments on both sides and I won't be reverting. Perhaps the article could say it's a holdover from the earlier World Chanpionshiop Series, though. John FitzGerald 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could be worded differently, i.e. that the title "World Series" has been in use since the 1880s. Wahkeenah 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1880s 

message: All due respect to anon but, to me, this edit is a good example of why people hate trivia sections in articles.  These two seem a bit cheesy to me too:
*The Toronto Blue Jays and the Florida Marlins are tied for the most World Series titles without a loss: 2. 
*The San Diego Padres currently hold the record for most World Series appearances without a title: 2. (The San Francisco Giants are 0-3, but have won as New York). 
Am I the only one that finds those uninteresting?  If the records in these categories were 8 or 9 - or even 5 like some of the Super Bowl winners - maybe that would be interesting.  But 2?!  If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ever make it to the WS, they'll be one shy of one of these records by default.  What's next?  The first World Series where a 2nd baseman's last name started with Z?  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is why many hate Trivia sections... 

message: I know this is just a small thing but I believe Marty is actually surprised about to find out about the Miami team and not the Cub's winning.  In the scene where he's talking to the guy whose asking him for a donation and Marty is surprised by the headline the guy says something like "Yeah, who would've thought the Cubs could win."  Then Marty starts saying "No, I mean Miami..." then gets interupted.  But I don't own the movie and haven't seen it for a while so I could be wrong.
Darkosnarko 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: It seems to me that, right now, the list of World Series results is rather unseemly. I'd like to delete the descriptions of individual games and present the pertinent information (winner, loser, score, MVP) in a table. As most individual World Series' have their own pages which can be linked to, having summaries on this pages seems redundant. Significant pieces of trivia, such as Don Larsen's perfect game, could always be included in a short "Trivia" section at the end of the article.
I'm working on the baseball awards page right now, and after I finish with that I'd like to tackle this project. Please post a message if you can think of any reason why the article should stay as is.
--djrobgordon 05:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not a little simpler and go by each decade?  Locarno 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Series results 

message: Why is this article saying baseball may be deleted from the Summer Olympics?! It already has been!SFGiants 01:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yep, it has.  Feel free to update it.  d:)  Wahkeenah 01:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Olympics]] 

message: What is the purpose of omitting team names in the World Series year-by-year listing?  It seems to me that it is something people would want to know, and it's certainly a lot clearer than stuff like New York NL (1) and New York NL (2).  If no one cries out in protest here, I'll go ahead and add those names. —Cleared as filed. 23:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitting team names in the WS listing