Talk:2011 World Series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The correct image for the 2011 World Series logo had been added in full color and doesn't need to be changed. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Joe Buck's Game 6 calls[edit]

I'll keep this trivia here. These two homers are both walk-off, both in Game 6, both in the 11th inning, and both called by the Buck family.--NULLSPACE (Φ) 23:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Buck's game-ending call, "We ... will ... see you ... tomorrow night!", matched the one made by his father, Jack Buck, on a Kirby Puckett 11th-inning walk-off homer that ended Game 6 in the 1991 World Series.[1][2]
These are mentioned on both Jack and Joe Buck's articles. — Michael J 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe should've done go crazy, after game 7. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Joe Buck said after Game 7 was notable, because he did not say what his father said after the Cardinals won the 1982 World Series or what he said after the Cardinals won in 2006, echoing, "And that's a winner!" – SNIyer12, (talk), 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC0
I don't see how this exact wording is notable. Let's see if it "stands the test of time" before including it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is notable because it was said not only to describe the scene, but as an obvious homage to his father. Had anyone other than Joe Buck repeated the line, it would have sounded silly. — Michael J 08:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are referring to Game 7, whereas you are talking about Game 6. Efyeahimamarxist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Joe Buck's "We Will See You Tomorrow Night" Call Was the Exact Same as His Father's in Game Six the 1991 World Series". The Big Lead. 2011-10-28. Retrieved 2011-10-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  2. ^ Jack and Joe Buck's Game 6 calls. MLB.com. 2011-10-28. Retrieved 2011-10-28. {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

The Squirrel?[edit]

Very big culturally ;) 82.41.25.250 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The below statement is biased and needs to be deleted from the article[edit]

The umpires were in favor of the Cardinals the entire game as they continuously made bad calls and squeezed the Rangers pitchers. Being one strike away, Scott Feldman threw a pitch that should have ended the World Series as a win for the Rangers, but the umpire disagreed and decided it was a ball. Though, the K-zone showed the ball was fully in the strike zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.181.237 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then be bold and fix it. Two editors already have. As a side note the editor who added that material has been indefinitely blocked from editing. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Six[edit]

Does it deserve its own article? Vidor (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation now but eventually I'll make one. I have it written up through the 4th inning on my sandbox. What would be good is sources with analysis and quotes from players. If you find good articles, link them here. Vidor (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For. instance, here is an article I will use as a source. Vidor (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made the article and a lovely individual chose to nominate it for deletion. Anyone who wants to help save it needs to go to the talk page. Vidor (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith and stay civil. I did. If I had seen this discussion section, I would've advised against creating it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we appear to be losing that argument because some folks who presumably don't follow the game of baseball and thus don't understand that this game is notable are itching to delete it. I ask anyone who comes to this page in time and wants to kep that article to help save it. Vidor (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing baseball-related articles for most of the 5+ years I've been on Wikipedia and have come across Muboshgu (talk · contribs) many times. Just look at the number of FA, GA, and DYK he takes credit for on his user page; to say that he "[doesn't] follow the game of baseball" is just asinine. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what other conclusion to draw when someone states that this game is not notable. Vidor (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can start by looking through a user's contribution history before making summary judgments about them. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no FA's yet, just FLs. I've failed on getting Derek Jeter to FA standards a few times, but am gearing up to try again. Indeed, given that most of my edits are on baseball articles, it's inaccurate to say I don't follow the game. I watched Game 6 of the 2011 WS, and it was definitely a better game than most. I don't see evidence of it being notable enough to deserve its own article based on wiki policy, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure another data point is required. Not sure how anyone can convince himself that Game 6 was not historic and memorable, especially when many sources were provided backing up that point, many more are available if required, and there are obvious facts that back this up. Four times in World Series history, a player has driven in the tying run with his team one out from elimination, and two of those four times were in this game. Four players have hit a walkoff home run with their team facing World Series elimination: Bill Mazeroski, Carlton Fisk, Kirby Puckett, and David Freese. I suppose we'll be told now that the home runs of Mazeroski, Fisk, and Puckett aren't noteworthy or memorable either. In any case, I learned from the Game 6 nomination for deletion that this person had previously deleted a longer series of text in this article relating to Game 6. I wonder if, should he succeed in destroying the Game 6 article, he will then provide some indication here of how many bytes we are allowed to devote to Game 6 before he deletes our work again. Vidor (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Muboshgu won. I suggest that his action of November 2011 in which he deleted material recounting this game in the 2011 World Series page is proof of bad faith. I suggest all interested parties watch the page and see whether, after claiming on the AfD page that the solution was to expand the Game 6 subsection of that page, he actually deletes material on that page as he did in November of last year. Vidor (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goody, we got a whopping two new paragraphs. Wow, what a great merge. Vidor (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Game 6[edit]

Still deserves its own article. But I'll only start one again if I have helpers to assist in defending it against that Muboshugu guy. Vidor (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_World_Series&oldid=1196602229"