Talk:List of pre-World Series baseball champions

Baseball: Old-time Base Ball Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Old-time Base Ball task force (assessed as High-importance).

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

1899 post-season

If no postseason series was played in 1899, why is there an entry for the Beaneaters in the second column of the table? Is there some special reason for this, or is it merely an inconsistency with other years with no postseason, like 1893 and 1898?—Dodiad (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I or a previous editor had entered a series result (3-3) that was later deleted. The reasons for including or deleting that putative series result need to be double-checked against the sources (by me or someone else). —— Shakescene (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of pre-World Series baseball champions. 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/20071011005813/http://www.baseball-almanac.com/index.shtml to http://www.baseball-almanac.com/index.shtml

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) 23:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team nicknames need reformation

While no team "name" was official in the 1800s aside from club names like Eckford, Atlantic and Metropolitan, some were actually used (by reporters, not the clubs), such as "Giants", "Browns", and, towards the end of the century, "Pirates" and "Orioles." But most of the others never really existed at all, except as arbitrarily concocted by Turkin and Thompson (you won't find them in Lanigan, or contemporary newspaper accounts.) Artificialities like "Beaneaters," "Colonels" and "Bridegrooms" really need to be purged. Solicitr (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be complicated. It varies from club to club. The ones shown in the article are the generally accepted and sourced nicknames of the participants, even though some were unofficial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All well

God positive thing yes sauces 103.95.17.68 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]