Talk:2016 World Series

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DavidPaulBiorn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Working on Postseason articles

The Playoff (or postseason) schedule was released today, and I decided to start writing the first of many articles for this year. Zacchaeusbarbour (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Matchups

I have been a little confused by the back and forth editing that has been going on. It seem obvious that when the score is listed in the matchup tables, it should be in the format of "Winner, Loser". there has been a constant change to put the home team second, even when they win. this would be correct before the game, in the format of "Away @ Home". however, once the game is completed I think it should be changed to Winner, Loser. I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia to contradict this, and I would like a discussion to be started to resolve the issue. I have found an example of a case of an official mlb.com box score that lists the winning team first, even though its the home team. This is obviously only one example but I think it's safe to assume that Major League Baseball would be consistent in their publications. I am posting this message on the talk pages of all the 2016 post season pages. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A note to all updaters

Thank you for all that you do as the series begins. Please remember to cite your sources when you add anything. This way, we can keep the article in top notch shape, which will allow it to be posted on the Main Page by Wikipedia:In the news once the series is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Section about singing

So just out of curiosity, how can we cite incidents such as the crowd at and around Wrigley singing "Sweet Home Chicago," by Robert Johnson in relative at the end of the game, assuming this is worth adding? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely is not worth adding, but if it were, simply find a reliable source that explains that the song was sung at the end of the game and add it to the text. Frank Anchor^Talk 12:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. they sing Go Cubs Go after every win. Jdavi333 (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Referring to championship teams

"between the National League champions Chicago Cubs and the American League champions Cleveland Indians." Shouldn't that be either "between the National League champion Chicago Cubs and the American League champion Cleveland Indians" or "between the National League champions the Chicago Cubs and the American League champions the Cleveland Indians"?--Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to protect the article

I request to protect this article. Already I spotted vandalism.

This Series will be remembered forever

WP:NOTAFORUM

I gave this series the nickname "The Cursebreaker", because one way or another someone's hex was going to fall. RIP Billy Goat Curse, 1908-2016! --Zhane Masaki (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC) --Kyuzoaoi (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC) As a lifelong Cubs fan, I understand "Cursebreaker", but it should be reference appropriately. The Curse of the Billy Goat was actually one that they were cursed not to ever PLAY in a World Series again, not win one. Technically, the Cubs' "Cursebreaker" game was Game 6 of the NLCS, not Game 7 of the World Series. I know its more a technicality than anything, but its accurate FiveOh1084 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) --What was the story of the Billy Goat? Did someone bring him into the game or did a random goat find its way in the stadium?--BraedenL (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC) @BraedenL: see article Curse of the Billy Goat. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Composite Scores math error

I counted, added and re-counted the runs for both teams throughout the Series and I come up with a total of 54 runs, and the team runs were even at 27 each. Somehow, the team composite for Cleveland only shows 26 runs. My head is swirling right now or else I'd fix it myself. Could someone check me and fix it as appropriate? Thanks-- and great Series! Congrats to both teams from Megan in Dallas, TX 2602:306:CD93:1700:14B4:605E:88A2:2BAA (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I see someone else caught it. Thanks! -Megan in Dallas 2602:306:CD93:1700:14B4:605E:88A2:2BAA (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Date Range? Nov 2nd or 3rd?

The current "Dates" for the series are listed as October 25–November 2. But the 7th game ended after midnight, so it ended on November 3rd. Is it typical to only list the date for the start of the game? — Eoghanacht ^talk 12:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Precedent says only the dates in which the games started. The date range for the 1997 World Series is October 18-26, although Game 7 ended just after midnight local time on October 27. Frank Anchor^Talk 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just migrated a bunch of photos

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2016_World_Series_Game_7

Lots more to migrate here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apardavila/albums

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

VOA video

This could also be migrated http://www.voanews.com/a/world-series-brings-national-spotlight-back-to-cleveland/3579499.html Victor Grigas (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Five million at celebrations?

Five million people at the celebrations is nonsense. There are "only" about ten million people in all Chicagoland. There is no way half of them went to celebrations. Think about it. People work, babysit, are sick, don't have disposable income, and many are simply not fans. The estimate of the size of the crowd is so unrealistic I can't believe the CPD made it or the news outlets broadcast it. But they did, so it can be referenced. Sammy D III (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Officials estimate that 5 million people showed up to the Chicago Cubs parade and rally Friday, making it the 7th largest gathering in human history." Granted you're not the only one who is skeptical, but at Wikipedia, the policy is "verifiability, not truth". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. "But they did, so it can be referenced." Have a nice night. Sammy D III (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Should be noted that a lot of people traveled from outside Chicago for the parade/gathering, so the estimate is not as "unrealistic" as you claim it to be. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The skepticism could be included if there were a better source than that Tribune opinion piece. But maybe not. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There probably won't be anything other than that Trib kind of stuff. I doubt anybody objective flew a helicopter over it. Maybe if you had several you could say "but some have questioned", but it sounds like 5 million has to stand unchallenged. (Head shake). Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2016 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/20170522065937/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161024/wrigleyville/dexter-fowler-first-black-cub-world-series to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161024/wrigleyville/dexter-fowler-first-black-cub-world-series
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104010916/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161102/wrigleyville/cubs-indians-world-series-game-7-championship to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161102/wrigleyville/cubs-indians-world-series-game-7-championship

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about including the radio call of the final out to game 7

There has been an ongoing editing conflict and discussion regarding the inclusion of the following in the article under the thread, Final Out Call;

Pat Hughes, on Cubs radio 670 The Score WSCR, made the following historic call for the final out of the game:

“ A little bouncer, slowly towards Bryant. He will glove it and throw to Rizzo - it's in time! And the Chicago Cubs win the World Series! The Cubs come pouring out of the dugout, jumping up and down like a bunch of delirious 10-year-olds. The Cubs have done it! The longest drought in the history of American sports is over, and the celebration begins! ”

After the game and series, Hughes would routinely mention, due to the fact there was no radio or television in 1908 (the last time the Cubs won the World Series), his call was the first time in broadcast history which someone said the Cubs had won the world series.

One editor supports including the above broadcasting call during historic sporting events ("There are literally 100’s of pages on sports events where the broadcast is quoted"). Another editor claims that "Final broadcast calls add nothing to the already large articles" and it should be removed. Should the call be included (Support) or removed (Oppose)?―Buster7 ☎ 06:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - The call is one of extreme value, a first of its kind in the history of radio and Major League Baseball. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It's fan cruft. It adds absolutely nothing of value to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support including it in some manner... but not the way the previous editor had it... it doesnt need it's own section... not sure exactly how to include it but the historic nature of the Cubs win i think does need some mention here.. perhaps more like is done on the 1988 World Series page? Spanneraol (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ugh no, that's the same awful format. It provides nothing of encyclopedic value that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it adds real world context actually.. which can be encyclopedic. Not good for you to unilaterally remove the content from that page in the middle of this discussion by the way. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are all on the same page, the content was removed during a discussion that preceeded this RfC. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He removed the content from the 1988 World Series page after i mentioned it here.. thats the content i was referring to. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

O! Well! That's a different story, isn't it. 23:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's just as easy to argue OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Does this RfC pertain to all World Series articles now? Because I could remove these sections that don't have any sources on the justification of WP:UNSOURCED otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with @Muboshgu:, it's nothing but unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIAL WP:ROTM cruft--John, AF4JM (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• (Via RFC) Support, in some form It's an interesting piece of trivia which also provides some context to the historic relevance of the Cubs' win, and whilst it definitely doesn't deserve it's own section I feel it'd be a loss to not mention it at all: In my opinion, if a sentence in a Wikipedia article makes somebody go "Huh, I hadn't thought of it like that" then it's probably worth including, and seeing this RFC definitely gave me, a British person with no real interest in Baseball, some context to an event that'd otherwise go right over my head. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You said it yourself, It's an interesting piece of trivia. See WP:TRIVIA. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Its editorializing - detail the call without the quotation. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This call is important to the historic sports and human value. This is literally how Cubs nation first heard about the win (about 2 seconds before the television broadcast). Later, the parade was the 7th largest gathering of human beings FiveOh1084 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Buster7: How is this "a first of its kind in the history of radio and Major League Baseball"? Because the Cubs last won in 1908? There's been a "final call" in every televised and radio broadcasted World Series. This is not unique. If we want to say that it was the first TV or radio WS the Cubs won, that's one thing. But to include his entire run-of-the-mill quote? That's WP:TRIVIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

An encyclopedia records history. The Cubs victory was as historic as any in all of sports. An integral part of the makeup of what a game is, is the broadcast to those not present at the game. I think there is value in pointing out that, for the first time in the history of radio and Sports, a radio announcer was able to report that the "Cubs have won the World Series". Maybe not the whole quote...but some mention of the uniqueness of the moment would serve our reader. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's trivial. Just as one could say this is the first time the Cubs won a World Series in the era of television. The specific quote isn't notable for any particular reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This quote and radio call has been played thousands of times. It was on at least 50 billboards around Chicagoland following the win. It's been on shirts, been emblazoned on the walls of hundreds of bars, man caves, and various other locations. It's how the the event was broadcast. It was a historic event - not just a sports event. The fact that 5 MILLION people showed up for the parade and was the 7th largest gathering of humans... ever proves this. This quote is historic and part of the fabric of the game, the series, and the Cubs in general.FiveOh1084 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Allow me to point out that our best World Series articles (FA: 2004 World Series, 2009 World Series; GA: 2015 World Series) do not include these quotes. I really want to remove all of these from the other World Series articles that do have them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the others can't include them or that those ones wouldnt benefit from quotes. Sometimes announcer calls have historical value.. for instance this one.. and i'd argue the Vin Scully call of Gibson's homer from the 88 series... and probably a few others along the way. It really should be a case by case basis and not dismiss them all outright on the bases of you don't like them. As long as they are sourced I think they provide value to the articles. Spanneraol (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't even see what's so special about Scully's Gibson '88 call. It doesn't stand out to me any more than any other home run call. To me, it's the fist pumping and limping that stand out about that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I mistakenly added the edit again, but removed it. I was going to post here first. Anyways, since it's been awhile and the survey leans towards supporting its addition, I feel its time to re-add it. As already discussed, it has support, it's cited properly, and it's in the appropriate section of the articleFiveOh1084 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)