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
I have just modified one external link on
Division 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
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.
Oppose - per previous opposes. Also, this sort of capitalization is normal in American English (and possibly CanE also) for names, and this apparent campaign is flying against the spirit of ENGVAR. Let's all remember the founders of Wikipedia were Americans, but wisely didn't impose one standard of English on English Wikipedia, so please stop trying to turn it into Britipedia.
BilCat (
talk)
05:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Since the truth, as revealed by stats and book search and such, is that these are actually quite commonly lowercase in sources, you should revise your stand. An opposed based on a counterfactual should not be left hanging around here.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
But the previous opposes were based on incorrect understand of either guidelines or usage statistics or both. You should revise your stand in light of facts.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
No. When I said "incorrect understanding of English", I was talking about you. Personally. You have proven dozens of times you don't understand the fundamental linguistic concepts behind capitalization in English, have major issues with accepting disagreement and acting collaboratively (as seen by the
bludgeoning here) and, frankly, you should just stop ever proposing a move based solely on capitalization. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia and is a useless time sink.
oknazevad (
talk)
00:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yup. Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules. Eventually, even "aircrafts" will become an accepted plural, no matter how bad it sounds to us old native speakers of English!
BilCat (
talk)
03:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that in Randy Kryn's n-grams, most capitalized uses of "Division Series" have nothing to do with baseball, as you can verify with a book search (e.g. many are about the Central Division Series of thriller books, and Mythos Division Series, and Multiplication and Division: Series G, etc.). It's hard to pin down the baseball ones via n-grams, but you can see some interesting stuff e.g.
here, where it's clear the uses of "League Division Series" are pretty much only in the context of "American League Division Series" and "National League Division Series". And
this one, in which it is clear that "the Division Series" (in its various uses) is capitalized more than not, but not by a lot. The corresponding book search verifies that many of the lowercase uses of "the division series" are in the context of MLB. Similarly, see
the n-grams for "the league championship series". And
this one for the various "League Championship Series". I don't know why Randy was being so misleading with his stats and claims, or why everyone else took him at his work without checking, or why some thought they should make personal attacks by saying I don't understand English grammar, but I realize it may be too late to recover from this SNOW unless some of you are willing to take another look. It's hard to say these are consistently capped in sources, or are proper names, when you find CBS Sports saying "time for the league championship series round" and ESPN writes of "the four teams heading into the league championship series." That and NYTimes talking about "the division series", and thescore.com says "heading into the league division series" in the same article where the capitalize "American League Division Series" and "National League Division Series". They know the difference between generic terms and proper names. I'm not sure what to make of NBCSports where they use "the League Division Series" and "the division series" in the same article; it does at least provide a little support for the LDS name, which is scarce elsewhere, in either upper or lower. There are tons of examples of lowercase usage of these title terms, but you have to look past headlines. Keep in mind that we use sentence case for titles, so what you read in headlines provides no data about that (but titles and headings and headlines do certainly up the counts of capped n-grams).
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. Have to concur with Dicklyon. If lower-case is good enough for CBS Sports and ESPN (for this specific and exact context, not the b.s. that Kryn's misuse of Google Ngrams barfed up), then it's good enough for WP. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Randy, what are you trying to ask? Nobody has claimed that CBS Sport or ESPN consistently uses uppercase (nor lowercase) for these terms.
Dicklyon (
talk)
17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Before emotions get the best of us. Let's remind ourselves, that the result of this RM (whatever it is) will be respected. No 'one' editor, or a possible group of editors, will be able to force their preference on these pages. In the meantime, let's be mindful of
WP:BLUDGEON, during this RM.
GoodDay (
talk)
17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see anything looking emotional here, but I do want people to look at guidelines and evidence before opposing, and I was sadly rather late in getting the evidence in to refute the claims of early opposers.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see anything concrete that makes me feel that there is common standardization. I'm not devastated either way. My gut feeling is the article describes formal events, which should be styled as a proper noun. Skipple☎00:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I stated my peace. I feel zero need to add to my !vote. Frankly, the ping is obnoxious
badgering because you clearly saw that there was no consensus for this move and any closer would clearly close this as no move, and it would be a perfectly correct close. Please don't ever ping me again.
oknazevad (
talk)
00:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I concur that the badgering needs to stop. It's bad enough that so many NCAA tournament pages were moved recently with very little publicity of the move discussions, and most of those were year titles of tournaments, which are clearly proper names. Now this. Enough is enough, and I'm considering how to challenge those other recent moves. Given the opposition expressed here, it should be quite easy to overturn them.
BilCat (
talk)
03:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. They are proper names in the context of MLB, which is what the article is about. They appear as such in the Official Baseball Rules of MLB, such as in the 2010 version
here and 2019 version
here.
Dmoore5556 (
talk)
04:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Additional context: Major League Baseball holds an active trademark on "League Championship Series" along with active service marks on "American League Championship Series" and "National League Championship Series". Registration numbers 3732837, 1541956, and 1541948, respectively, with USPTO.
Dmoore5556 (
talk)
04:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Out of curiosity, would you mind taking a look to see what trademarks are active for Wild Card, Wild Card Game, and Wild Card Series and how these trademarks are stylized? I'm not sure where how you are searching on these registration numbers, or I would do it myself. Courtesy ping for @
GoodDay.Skipple☎16:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
Service mark
Dmoore5556, thanks for finding a guideline-based reason for the capitalization of Division Series. Not that it's a proper noun, but that it's a trademark of MLB for "G & S: entertainment services in the nature of baseball exhibitions." (that's for registration number 3628857; the other is for apparel like hats, tee shirts, and visors). So per
MOS:TM, we cap it.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
On "League Championship Series", on the other hand, their only active trademark is for "G & S: Clothing, namely, caps, hats, shirts, T-shirts, [ sweatshirts ]". So while the full names with American and National are service marks for entertainment baseball exhibitions, League Championship Series is not, so should really be rendered according to the rest of
MOS:CAPS, no?
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
No. Just stop already. Your crusade is tiresome and empty-headed. This is what I mentioned above about not accepting disagreement. Enough with the useless time sink. Move on with your life.
WP:DEADHORSE territory.
oknazevad (
talk)
09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what your "No" refers to. Are you disagreeing with my statement that there's no trademark on "League Championship Series"? Or just disagreeing with th idea that we should follow guidelines? It would be easier for me to accept disagreement if I could get a clear idea what we diasgree on.
Dicklyon (
talk)
22:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
No, you shouldn't bother trying to re-litigate something that was just decided with clear consensus. No, you should not waste everybody's time. And most importantly, no, you aren't the only one following guidelines. Your interpretation is not automatically correct.
oknazevad (
talk)
02:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree with @
Oknazevad. League Championship Series is the name of an event and a proper noun as far as I'm concerned. The English language isn't a physics equation. Sporting events are considered proper nouns in American English so attempting to impose some rule on these articles is a huge time sink and time should be applied somewhere else.
Nemov (
talk)
00:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
There are no reasonable grounds for "Wild Card Series" to not be treated as a proper noun at the moment. The series starts in a week, so at the very least, we should wait to see how it's covered by sources. O.N.R.(talk)11:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
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
I have just modified one external link on
Division 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
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.
Oppose - per previous opposes. Also, this sort of capitalization is normal in American English (and possibly CanE also) for names, and this apparent campaign is flying against the spirit of ENGVAR. Let's all remember the founders of Wikipedia were Americans, but wisely didn't impose one standard of English on English Wikipedia, so please stop trying to turn it into Britipedia.
BilCat (
talk)
05:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Since the truth, as revealed by stats and book search and such, is that these are actually quite commonly lowercase in sources, you should revise your stand. An opposed based on a counterfactual should not be left hanging around here.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
But the previous opposes were based on incorrect understand of either guidelines or usage statistics or both. You should revise your stand in light of facts.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
No. When I said "incorrect understanding of English", I was talking about you. Personally. You have proven dozens of times you don't understand the fundamental linguistic concepts behind capitalization in English, have major issues with accepting disagreement and acting collaboratively (as seen by the
bludgeoning here) and, frankly, you should just stop ever proposing a move based solely on capitalization. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia and is a useless time sink.
oknazevad (
talk)
00:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yup. Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules. Eventually, even "aircrafts" will become an accepted plural, no matter how bad it sounds to us old native speakers of English!
BilCat (
talk)
03:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that in Randy Kryn's n-grams, most capitalized uses of "Division Series" have nothing to do with baseball, as you can verify with a book search (e.g. many are about the Central Division Series of thriller books, and Mythos Division Series, and Multiplication and Division: Series G, etc.). It's hard to pin down the baseball ones via n-grams, but you can see some interesting stuff e.g.
here, where it's clear the uses of "League Division Series" are pretty much only in the context of "American League Division Series" and "National League Division Series". And
this one, in which it is clear that "the Division Series" (in its various uses) is capitalized more than not, but not by a lot. The corresponding book search verifies that many of the lowercase uses of "the division series" are in the context of MLB. Similarly, see
the n-grams for "the league championship series". And
this one for the various "League Championship Series". I don't know why Randy was being so misleading with his stats and claims, or why everyone else took him at his work without checking, or why some thought they should make personal attacks by saying I don't understand English grammar, but I realize it may be too late to recover from this SNOW unless some of you are willing to take another look. It's hard to say these are consistently capped in sources, or are proper names, when you find CBS Sports saying "time for the league championship series round" and ESPN writes of "the four teams heading into the league championship series." That and NYTimes talking about "the division series", and thescore.com says "heading into the league division series" in the same article where the capitalize "American League Division Series" and "National League Division Series". They know the difference between generic terms and proper names. I'm not sure what to make of NBCSports where they use "the League Division Series" and "the division series" in the same article; it does at least provide a little support for the LDS name, which is scarce elsewhere, in either upper or lower. There are tons of examples of lowercase usage of these title terms, but you have to look past headlines. Keep in mind that we use sentence case for titles, so what you read in headlines provides no data about that (but titles and headings and headlines do certainly up the counts of capped n-grams).
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. Have to concur with Dicklyon. If lower-case is good enough for CBS Sports and ESPN (for this specific and exact context, not the b.s. that Kryn's misuse of Google Ngrams barfed up), then it's good enough for WP. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Randy, what are you trying to ask? Nobody has claimed that CBS Sport or ESPN consistently uses uppercase (nor lowercase) for these terms.
Dicklyon (
talk)
17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Before emotions get the best of us. Let's remind ourselves, that the result of this RM (whatever it is) will be respected. No 'one' editor, or a possible group of editors, will be able to force their preference on these pages. In the meantime, let's be mindful of
WP:BLUDGEON, during this RM.
GoodDay (
talk)
17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see anything looking emotional here, but I do want people to look at guidelines and evidence before opposing, and I was sadly rather late in getting the evidence in to refute the claims of early opposers.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see anything concrete that makes me feel that there is common standardization. I'm not devastated either way. My gut feeling is the article describes formal events, which should be styled as a proper noun. Skipple☎00:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I stated my peace. I feel zero need to add to my !vote. Frankly, the ping is obnoxious
badgering because you clearly saw that there was no consensus for this move and any closer would clearly close this as no move, and it would be a perfectly correct close. Please don't ever ping me again.
oknazevad (
talk)
00:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I concur that the badgering needs to stop. It's bad enough that so many NCAA tournament pages were moved recently with very little publicity of the move discussions, and most of those were year titles of tournaments, which are clearly proper names. Now this. Enough is enough, and I'm considering how to challenge those other recent moves. Given the opposition expressed here, it should be quite easy to overturn them.
BilCat (
talk)
03:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. They are proper names in the context of MLB, which is what the article is about. They appear as such in the Official Baseball Rules of MLB, such as in the 2010 version
here and 2019 version
here.
Dmoore5556 (
talk)
04:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Additional context: Major League Baseball holds an active trademark on "League Championship Series" along with active service marks on "American League Championship Series" and "National League Championship Series". Registration numbers 3732837, 1541956, and 1541948, respectively, with USPTO.
Dmoore5556 (
talk)
04:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Out of curiosity, would you mind taking a look to see what trademarks are active for Wild Card, Wild Card Game, and Wild Card Series and how these trademarks are stylized? I'm not sure where how you are searching on these registration numbers, or I would do it myself. Courtesy ping for @
GoodDay.Skipple☎16:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
Service mark
Dmoore5556, thanks for finding a guideline-based reason for the capitalization of Division Series. Not that it's a proper noun, but that it's a trademark of MLB for "G & S: entertainment services in the nature of baseball exhibitions." (that's for registration number 3628857; the other is for apparel like hats, tee shirts, and visors). So per
MOS:TM, we cap it.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
On "League Championship Series", on the other hand, their only active trademark is for "G & S: Clothing, namely, caps, hats, shirts, T-shirts, [ sweatshirts ]". So while the full names with American and National are service marks for entertainment baseball exhibitions, League Championship Series is not, so should really be rendered according to the rest of
MOS:CAPS, no?
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
No. Just stop already. Your crusade is tiresome and empty-headed. This is what I mentioned above about not accepting disagreement. Enough with the useless time sink. Move on with your life.
WP:DEADHORSE territory.
oknazevad (
talk)
09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what your "No" refers to. Are you disagreeing with my statement that there's no trademark on "League Championship Series"? Or just disagreeing with th idea that we should follow guidelines? It would be easier for me to accept disagreement if I could get a clear idea what we diasgree on.
Dicklyon (
talk)
22:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
No, you shouldn't bother trying to re-litigate something that was just decided with clear consensus. No, you should not waste everybody's time. And most importantly, no, you aren't the only one following guidelines. Your interpretation is not automatically correct.
oknazevad (
talk)
02:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree with @
Oknazevad. League Championship Series is the name of an event and a proper noun as far as I'm concerned. The English language isn't a physics equation. Sporting events are considered proper nouns in American English so attempting to impose some rule on these articles is a huge time sink and time should be applied somewhere else.
Nemov (
talk)
00:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
There are no reasonable grounds for "Wild Card Series" to not be treated as a proper noun at the moment. The series starts in a week, so at the very least, we should wait to see how it's covered by sources. O.N.R.(talk)11:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply