Jump to content

Talk:2008 Cleveland Indians season

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

Comment

[edit]

I personally think we should get rid of the "Notable Achievements". Yes, they are notable, but unnecessary, and aren't on any other baseball season articles. I'm not sure; what do others think?   jj137 (Talk) 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume you mean the "Noteable matchups" section. I think it is written like an advertisement(labor day, memorial day, etc.) but I like the concept of it so people can see the noteable games without looking through the game log <Baseballfan789 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Log Formatting

[edit]

I don't want to start a revision war, but I feel like the formatting I used in this revision should be kept. I pointing out other articles isn't always significant, but I do believe it is in a matter of personal preference. The table formatting used in my revision is found in 27/29 MLB teams. Majorpayne27 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is common sense to have March and April together because there is only one game in March. Also all of the official MLB schedules (except the ones that include spring training) list March and April together in years that games are played in March. Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Frank Anchor on this one. Just because most other teams have it like that doesnt make it right. It is stupid to have March listed separately for all teams (except Boston and Oakland, who played multiple games in March). NewYork483 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring more towards the formatting of the game log, such as the cell widths. Also, I have to disagree that it is common sense if it's not being used in 95% of the game logs out there. I also don't understand why it is understandable for Boston and Oakland simply because they play two games, the difference seems irrelevant to me. What is the downside of having the months listed individually? Majorpayne27 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the problems with the column widths. When I made the game log back in the fall, I just copied the style from their 2007 log and changed the games. It just looks better having six 25-30 game groups, rather than six large groups and one separate game. Actually, your claim that almost all of the game logs have March separate is inaccurate. In a recent check, six teams including the Indians have March and April together. Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to the column widths when I said nearly all the teams did it that way, I haven't really looked at the month separation, that was just my opinion. Majorpayne27 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season Summaries

[edit]

I like the idea of the season summaries but they need to be put together better, and I will continue to delete them if not. An example of this is the April section of this revision. The past-tense tone is incorrect and the section shouldn't be written as a continuation of March. These monthly summaries are always littered with trivial data and I'd like to avoid that. March is written fairly well but saying certain moves are "surprises" such as with Aaron Fultz should be avoided, as it is a matter of opinion. Majorpayne27 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major, I wrote a lot of the second half of last year's page, pretty much exactly the same way I am writing it now, following the style of those who preceded me last year. I am not sure why this year it's all wrong, moreover why you feel the need to criticize and delete rather than improve the deficiencies. I do not recall you working on the page last year, so perhaps how this page worked is new to you, but I would ask that you stop deleting things without trying to improve them.LightningMan (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the initial content hoping we could avoid those summary sections, only adding important content such as transactions and oddities (such as the snow games last year) elsewhere in the page. I say this because those sections are commonly, "the Indians won this series, then lost the next, then won the next" and really lack any real content, which is exactly what the game log is for. I know the page has been written that way in the past, but it certainly does not make it good. Working on these types of pages is not new as I have been part of WikiProject Baseball for a while (although I have not extensively worked on pages related to the Indians before).
I again deleted the April section yesterday because I honestly don't think it should be there. It currently reads "The Indians won the series with the White Sox then went on a two-team west coast tour to Oakland and Anaheim." I suppose if you wanted to talk about the Indians winning the opening series with the White Sox then I guess that wouldn't be so bad, but why are you talking about upcoming away games that haven't happened yet like they are in the past? I guess what I'm really asking is why is it there? Readers can decipher upcoming opponents in the game log. For what it's worth I do think that if we have to have a summary section like this, the March section is done well, only containing unique information, and in that case I think it's understandable to write about the White Sox series since it was the opening series. Majorpayne27 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I write the month past tense as it happens so that I don't have to consult my memory as to what happened nor write an entire month in one pop. Once the west coast series is over, this sentence will change, possibly drastically. And the first part is in past tense because the series against the White Sox is over. Again, this was a style that I developed in co-writing the page last year that no one took issue with and I am not seeing the necessity in doing it differently.LightningMan (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it hasn't happened. The West Coast series hasn't happened yet, so I don't understand why you're writing about it like it has. However, that really isn't the point. If that was my problem I probably would have just changed it. What I don't like about it (and yes, I know that this has happened in the past, but that doesn't make it OK) is that it contains no content. If you want to write about the three games that have been played so far, write about Victor Martinez's injury or Jim Thome's serenade of boos or something like that! Don't just write that the Indians won the series and have West Coast games scheduled in the immediate future. That is all material that the game log expresses already, and in more detail. I apologize if I have offended you but that is certainly not what I am trying to do. I simply want the article live up to Wikipedia standards. Majorpayne27 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surpise, surprise

[edit]

As to the use of surprise in regard to the cutting of Aaron Fultz, in the article I cited about the cut, the author of it said the following:

The Indians have said they like the idea of having two lefties in the 'pen. Rafael Perez, of course, is one of them, and Fultz's contract seemed to guarantee he'd be the other. But Sunday's move is certainly an intriguing development.

Surprise may be a matter of opinion but it is supported by the reporting on the matter.LightningMan (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that nobody thought it was surprising, I'm saying that you should try to avoid that kind of tone. You may want to check out Wikipeida Words to avoid. The problem is that encyclopedias are supposed to be about illustrating known information, and allowing the reader to form their own opinions. Majorpayne27 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're splitting a hair here. If I had said "the only unexpected move was..." instead of "the only surprise was...", would we even be having this conversation? That it was a surprise is a fact, an unbiased one, and one that would not create a bias one way or another.LightningMan (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! The only reason I'm pointing this out is because I don't want all these summaries popping up that are written like a newspaper column. I was asked to monitor some of these pages for this exact reason! That it was a surprise is absolutely not a fact, surprise is an emotion! No emotion is true for everyone! It's like saying that a murder was sad. Of course everybody that reads about it will probably draw that conclusion, but it has to be their conclusion, we should only be interested in the facts of the subject matter, you must let the reader decide. Majorpayne27 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Cleveland Indians season. 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: 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) 02:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Cleveland_Indians_season&oldid=1196514843"