Talk:1919 World Series

message: == Black Sox Scandal == thank you for helping me with my history project Wikipedia!
Who is Mike Jones?? No one has ever claimed Kid Gleason (the White Sox manager) was in on the conspiracy. The first two sentences of this entry read like someone's private goof. Chick Gandil, the first baseman of the White Sox and not the manager, is widely believed to have engineered the conspiracy on the players' side.
User:207.237.215.155 asked this in the Black Sox section: "does anyone have proof of this? sounds like urban legen
d to me". Stephen Compall 15:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

message: I reverted the change of the start of the curse from 1917 back to 1919.  The 
idea as I've always understood it is that if it hadn't been for the sellout, they would have won in 1919.  Thus the curse starts at the moment the deal was struck.  They were not cursed in 1918, they just weren't good enough to win the pennant.  If you must revert, go ahead--it's hardly a big deal.  Chick Bowen 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of start of curse 

message: What about a section detailing the 2005 World Series, and the presumed end of the "curse?" Realbrvhrt 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's covered now -Elmer Clark 06:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the Black Sox? 

message: What exactly is the basis for having a section on the "curse".  The information included appears to be more trivial in nature.  I would suggest that the section gets moved to trivia and can be summed up in one sentence.  A full description of what happened in the games does not seem beneficial.Tecmobowl 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the lore, just like so many other superstitions in baseball. It's something hardly anyone takes seriously, but baseball, more so than other sports, is about its history, and the supposed curse is part of that. PaulGS 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this section back yet again, since I still see no reason for removing it. Just because it isn't something to be taken seriously doesn't mean it doesn't belong. PaulGS 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is already an article on the Black Sox Scandal.  This is about the World Series, not the circumstances surrounding it.  If you want to talk about adding content like this, please try and get some input from others before doing so. Tecmobowl 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write the section. It was there for a while, got removed (see the discussion above), and then I restored it. Maybe Black Sox Scandal is a better place for it. I could suggest getting input from others before removing it, but nobody else has commented on the section in a while. PaulGS 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Curse

message: I see no reason to have separate articles for the Series and the Black Sox Scandal. Vidor 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree wholeheartedly.  The Scandal and the series are not one in the same.  The article about the 1919 World Series is to communicate the events of the series.  The article about the Black Sox Scandal is to communicate the events and experiences surrounding the series.  While there is some over lap, these are two separate issues. Similarly, there is an article for The Catch and another article for the 1954 World Series. // Tecmobowl 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'all are nuts.  First, the articles should be merged under THIS article, the article for the 1919 World Series.  I am not proposing removing this article from the list of World Series articles; that would be silly.  (Removed the "merge" recommendation from this article, to reflect that.) The scandal and the Series are the same; the scandal was about fixing the Series, the scandal as executed was the fix of the Series, and the aftermath of the scandal was the aftermath of the Series.  I entered "1919 World Series" into the search engine the other day, and was amazed to see very little about the fix--just a dry list of box scores, essentially.  Vidor 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:NPA before making any comments on the topic at hand. // Tecmobowl 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, that makes more sense. The confusion comes from how you listed the merge request. There is a way to say "another page should be merged to this one", like this:  would be placed on this page, and  would be placed on the other page (Black Sox scandal, in this instance). I still think it's a bad idea though. Each topic is distinct in it's own right. There should be a short sub-section here with a paragraph about the Black Sox scandal, and a link to the full article, though. --Ohms law 08:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Tecmo Banned Indefinitely.  FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge

message: Earlier, I added the (aparently) newer  picker, and hid the older  picker. Information on the newer picker's page indicated that it matches the form of other pickers, and I tend to agree with the author  that it looks better. I added the  to many other world series pages, but I'll hold of on changing any more if the change is controversial at all and is just going to be reverted. All the pages should be the same is all, so which picker should we be using? --Ohms law 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, i must have missed that when i was looking in the edit history.  Sorry!  My personal preference would be to reserve the top of the article for information about to the specific world series.  I would think an infobox about the series itself, or some imagery relating to the series would be the best thing to put up in the introduction area.  If you feel strongly that the template should be placed at he top, please feel free to put it back. // Tecmobowl 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, I agree about the top ought to be being used for info specific to the series. The infobox does go along the side though, so that the top and right should still be available for imagry. Infobox's tend to be pretty cooperative, from what i've seen elsewhere. Anyway, i'll go ahead and put it back. Just didn't want to start any sort of "edit war", you know? --Ohms law 09:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Right now there is no alternative template so i can't really complain.  Certainly the fact that you started the subject here shows you have no interest in an edit war.  Let's see how this develops and go from there. // Tecmobowl 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, in regards to alternatives. If you or anyone else knows anything about CSS, I was attempint to copy the system used on the  template so that the infobox could be hidden. I didn't have any luck getting it to look right though, so if you or anyone else could lend assistance it'd be great. --Ohms law 14:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'll look at it when i get a chance.  I'll see if I can't help you out.  I know css and such, but i've never touched a template on here. // Tecmobowl 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Series Template 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Substituted at 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball assessment comment

message: There are some issues with statements made in the second paragraph of this article. One sentence reads "The 1919 World Series was the last World Series to take place without a Commissioner of Baseball in place." However, the Wikipedia "Kenesaw Mountain Landis" article states he became commissioner on November 12, 1920. Obviously this took place after the 1920 World Series was played. Another sentence states "In August 1920, seven players from the White Sox were banned from organized baseball for fixing the series (or having knowledge about the fix)." According to the Wikipedia "Black Sox Scandal" article eight players (not seven) were banned by Commissioner Landis on August 3, 1921 (not August 1920). Bunkyray5 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with second paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1919 World Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815042229/http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html to http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where and when would Game #9 have been played? The article doesn't even mention it. CFLeon (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game 9?