Talk:2007 Cleveland Indians season

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio. Baseball Mid‑importance 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. Cleveland This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I wanted to put something in the description about the CLE/LAA series in

Go ahead and do whatever you want to. I think this snow will be one of the memorable parts of the season and worth some description. Tytrain 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that an in-depth description of the snow storm is necessary in the article. Just the fact that there was a "heavy snow" should be enough to give a vivid image in the reader's mind. After all, if snow is the reason why a 4-game series was postponed and the following 3-game series was moved to another city, one could imagine how powerful the snow storm was. That's all that is needed in the article to give a quality description. --Ksy92003 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just the power, it was the unpredictability of the snow that is

lake-effect. Had it been a synoptic system, predictability probably would have been easier, the results probably would have been less chaotic, and the MLB-wide discussion on scheduling changes might have been kept on the back burner. See more at User talk:Ksy92003. Mapsax 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I should amend the above slightly - there have been so far this season other games affected by the cold, though not specifically snow (one game each DET/TOR and CHW/MIN), which also probably have contributed to schedule-making discussion, but the CLE/SEA series was the most extreme and got the most attention. Mapsax 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a better place to discuss this, but what is the appropraite level of detail for this article? Ksy92003, your recent additions were great, but it prompts this question. Should we describe each series in detail, like you have? That will result in a monstrously long article. What's the thought on this? Tytrain 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this scenario in the past couple days. What I was thinking we could do is have like a couple paragraphs for each month of the season about the month. Because there have only been 3 series so far this season, and one of them for the Indians was postponed, that only gives 2 series to write about. I was thinking that, as the season progresses, that we could limit how much we write and give a broad description. For example, for the Indians/Angels series, we could write something like:

"The Indians "home" opener in Milwaukee proved to be a back-and-forth battle, with the Indians holding on in the 9th for a victory. Pitching was the story for the other two games of the series, as the Angels won 4-1 in game two, but the Indians took game three 4-2 and the series 2 games to 1"

Something like that. Of course I just made that up on the spot; there are probably at least a thousand ways you could write that better. I think we should just limit it to a couple, maybe 2-4 paragraphs per month of the season to write about the month, maybe include two or three separate series within the confines of a single paragraph. This isn't that much of a problem now, as the season is only two weeks in, but we'll think about how to go about this as more games are played and as the need for improvement arises. --Ksy92003 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan sounds good. What do you think about adhering to this strategy right now? That is, shortening things up to follow this format as we write the article? That's the direction I was leaning. It avoids writing long articles and then trimming them a week later. Since the goal of this article is encyclopedic, I think it wouldn't be a problem to have recent events in this format. It sounds like we basically are debating particulars - good! Tytrain 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. One thing that worried about this was that if we are gonna, in the end, just have a couple sentences, if not one sentence, to describe the series, then we would have just a couple sentences about it now, which would make for a rather short paragraph. That kinda had be debating how much I should write when I did. I'm not sure which would be better: have a lot now so it looks good and trim it down later, and have still would look good, or put as much as we're gonna put in the end, but have it look small. Which do you think would be best for right now? --Ksy92003 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try to keep content in season context as we add it. Anyone who wants current events knowledge about the Indians will go to mlb.com or the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I figure that if this article is going to end up with one sentence for a series, it might as well be one sentence right now. If that's good with you, I'll keep my future additions in that style. I'll let you trim your bit as you see fit, since you added it. Tytrain 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, it does make sense to not add stuff that you're gonna delete anyway. After all, that's what I've always said. To the Indians, Angels, and Brewers articles that I've edited in a similar fashion, I will trim those down to size. However, I've a busy day planned tomorrow. First off, from 7:00-11:30 AM (PST), I've got soccer refereeing at the park near my house. I'm a linesman for AYSO 177 Belmont Shore, Long Beach, California. Then, I'm gonna go see Blades of Glory for extra credit for my psychology class. Anyway, my schedule is pretty much jammed tomorrow until the late afternoon/evening. If you can back me up when I fall behind on my work, I would greatly appreciate it. --Ksy92003 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Unless you're a big Tribe fan, you can leave this article to me and pop in from time to time to make sure I'm not screwing it up. I'll take good care of it along with all the other Indians nuts here on WP. Tytrain 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not that big of an Indians fan. I love the Angels. Anyway, if you're gonna work on the Indians article, at least please leave in the paragraph about the relocated series, the one that starts "Their home opener..." That's important enough and to accurately describe the situation, it needs to be stretched out that much. If you can find a better spot to locate that paragraph, then go ahead. But I feel that entire paragraph needs to remain somewhere in the article. By the way, technically the series averaged 17,498 fans, which I just rounded off to 17,500. If you think that we should give the precise average, then you can make that change, as well. --Ksy92003 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the paragraph about the series move needs to stay. I'll change the precise average - it shouldn't hurt. Have fun tomorrow! Tytrain 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sentence noting that the rescheduled game was the first AL one since the Brewers were AL necessary? This seems like it would be more appropraite at the

Yeah, after I saw that you had removed it, I thought to myself Why did I put that in the first place? That has nothing to do with the Indians, so let's keep that out. --Ksy92003 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This popped up buried beneath another discussion, and I want to make it its own discussion here. As I've been writing this article, which will be rather lengthy by the time it is finished, I thought it appropriate to break up the monotony of "the Indians," "the Indians," "the Indians," "the Indians" all the time when referring to the team, so I thought it might be nice to throw in a couple "Tribe" mentions to even things out. Ksy92003 reverted this, so I know how he stands. What do other people feel about this? I assume his rational is that it's informal. With all due respect, Ksy92003, you're no Indians fan by your own admission. I understand that this article should be for all readers, Indians fan (or baseball, for that matter) or not, but the "Tribe" is almost as common a nickname for the Cleveland club as "Indians". I think it's okay to call them that occasionaly. Thoughts? --Tytrain 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view on this, Tytrain. I believe that, as this is an encyclopedia, that we should only refer to them by their official name, which is the "Indians". I understand that "Tribe" is a popular, common nickname around Cleveland and Major League Baseball. And although it is used just as often as "Indians", it isn't their official name. I, too, refer to the team as the "Tribe", the same way I refer to the

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim as the "Halos" and the Oakland Athletics

as the "A's", as well as other teams by their common nicknames. But in an encyclopedia, I feel that they should be referred to as their official name, not by any common nickname they go by.

However, as I have gotten in numerous debates about these articles in the first two weeks of the season, I don't have the intention of getting in yet another one about something as trivial as this. I removed reference of the team being referred to as the "Tribe" not thinking that there would eventually be a discussion about it. I simply don't want to get in another debate about this. --Ksy92003 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Indians" is kind of a nickname, too, as for their official name is "Cleveland Indians", btw.

I have to agree with Ksy92003 - not just because of wikipedia being an encyclopedia, but to prevent "perpetuating Native American stereotypes" (see last paragraph in 1.1 on the main article) the article shouldn't get too informal on that matter. -- Robin479 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever keeps saying that Cliff Lee and Jeremy Sowers are on the active playoff roster is simply mistaken. Yes, Lee and Sowers were called up in September, but when the playoff roster was trimmed back to 25 members, Lee and Sowers were dropped.^[1] Lee is traveling with the team in case of injury.LightningMan 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to the re-creation of that table we used to keep track of the games against New York? It wouldn't make too much more text on the page, and would probably be useful to readers looking for a quick game summary without digging through the per-game reports. It appears to have been swept away by some vandalism. Shadow1 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who made it go away, but if I had to guess the thinking, a detailed chart such as that was better served in the 2007 ALDS entry which was added to this one around the same time, IIRC. It was gone when I did my reorganization yesterday.LightningMan 13:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense to keep it in the main ALDS article, now that I think about it. Shadow1 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]