Talk:1884 World Series

Requested move 13 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a fairly clear consensus against the proposed move, and no further activity in this discussion. BD2412 T 03:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

---

• 1884 World Series → 1884 World's Championship Series1884 World's Championship Series
• 1885 World Series → 1885 World's Championship Series1885 World's Championship Series
• 1886 World Series → 1886 World's Championship Series1886 World's Championship Series
• 1887 World Series → 1887 World's Championship Series1887 World's Championship Series
• 1888 World Series → 1888 World's Championship Series1888 World's Championship Series
• 1889 World Series → 1889 World's Championship Series1889 World's Championship Series
• 1890 World Series → 1890 World's Championship Series1890 World's Championship Series
• 1892 World Series → 1892 World's Championship Series1892 World's Championship Series

– These are not World Series. The first World Series was held in 1903. See World Series. 162 etc. (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose moves. Although the modern World Series did start in 1903, these 19th century championship series are commonly known as World Series as well. O.N.R. ^(talk) 10:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral – While nobody in the 1880s–1890s called these series the "World Series", they are known as such retroactively. Alternatively, they were also known as the "World's Series". Take Super Bowl I. The game was called the AFL–NFL World Championship Game at the time (and IMO, the top of the infobox should say that and not the retroactive name of "Super Bowl I"), but yet the article is called "Super Bowl I". The same goes with Super Bowl II. It's in the same vein of 1903 Major League Baseball season. Nobody had termed "Major League Baseball" for several decades after the fact, but yet, the article is still named as such, for convenience sake (it could technically be "1903 Organized Baseball season", though this is an archaic term that's ambiguous in meaning and has racial overtones). I'm in favor of using "World's Championship Series" over "World Series" in the articles themselves, but perhaps the page title should remain "World Series". Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 16:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the xxxx Major League Baseball season titles are problematic - I'd argue that the first singular "Major League Baseball" season was in 1997, when interleague play was introduced - but that's beyond the scope of this RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'd personally argue 2000, when the two leagues became one legal entity, but that's neither here nor there! Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 18:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support, lowercase 'world's championship series, "World Series" is not a catch-all name, it refers to the specific series of games between the American and National Leagues which began in 1903. The proposed name may not be the best, but if used this wouldn't it be lowercased as it is not a formal or proper name? Was it used at the time of play? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  There's no one consistent name that was used by primary sources. Even the teams in this early era were often referred to by different names. 162 etc. (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject New York City, WikiProject New York Mets, WikiProject Baseball/Old-time Base Ball task force, and WikiProject Baseball have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are commonly referred to as World Series in modern sources. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Contemporary sources, including this, used terms such as 'World's Championship'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that the way it is referred to in modern sources is the common name for our purposes. Article can mention the contemporary name as well. Spanneraol (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Lean Oppose B-R refers to them as World Series and WP should follow rather than lead. Could be persuaded if other sources differ. Agree that the contemporary "World's Series," etc., should be bolded in the lede. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Suggestion, close this and get back to editing da Bears blow-out 1940 Super Bowl. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment, a search on newspapers.com finds zero instances of "World's Championship Series" in 1884, and only single digit instances in 1885 (all in Cincinnati papers). Wide(r) use of that naming first appears in 1886. SABR uses "World Series" naming, in quotes (such as here). The other term I've seen used, which is quite accurate and descriptive, but somewhat cumbersome, is "pre-modern World Series". Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Dmoore5556 The Dauvray Cup was awarded for the '87-'90 & '92 championships. Are there any mentions of "1887 Dauvray Cup," similar to 1897 Temple Cup? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  • • @BX, I did a search on newspapers.com for "Dauvray Cup" (case is ignored) for 1887 and it gets 81 hits. The first one showed up in May and is viewable here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

      @Dmoore5556 In your estimation, is "18xx Duavray Cup" common enough to consider as an acceptable article title? Does SABR reference it at all? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    • • @BX, a search doesn't find any article on SABR.org specifically about the Dauvray Cup. It's mentioned in a few articles (such as here and here), and there is a page here that links to a three-part blog writeup about it, which is now defunct. Wayback Machine has the blog content archived: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. I'm not familiar with the Dauvray Cup (although I'm now interested to read the preceding blog content), but it seems rather niche. Dmoore5556 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

        Thank you for your insight. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.