Talk:2008 Cleveland Indians season

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Game Log Formatting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Surprise, surpise, surprise 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607105643/http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fsports%2F1210926715191250.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 to http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fsports%2F1210926715191250.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified