Baseball Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cleveland NA‑class

This template 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 NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Problem with this template. I like that it now collapses and gives you the option to "show" or "hide" but in the "show" option it wipes out the bottom portion of the page. The same thing happens with the Indians franchise box. Is this a problem with the browser or the box or just me? Thanks.69.68.238.142 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave Mike Hargrove as part of key personnel.

The Tribe is making a big deal out of bringing Hargrove on board, thus it's justifiable to include him on the list.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 03:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may be doing that for PR purposes, but we keep "Key Personnel" strictly defined as Owner, GM, President and Manager at most, or else it could become a slippery slope with everyone in the entire front office being included in the template. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key personnel equates to those who have high ranking positions and are high profile personalities in the front office. Hargrove is a high profile figure with a long history with the club. Joe Blow office assistant isn't the same as a Cleveland baseball legend. This isn't a slipeery slope. Hargrove's addition to the list does have merit.

Vjmlhds 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman's death should be included in the culture and lore section.

There's the historic nature of being the only player to die in a game, and the effect on the team is also very important...it opened the door for Joe Sewell to come in, and he went on to have a Hall of Fame career.

Vjmlhds 02:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate how this is a part of the team's "culture and lore" section. From History of the Cleveland Indians, it seems to have made little to no impact on the team. Simply paving the way for Joe Sewell isn't sufficient, or else Wally Pipp's "headache" would be entered in ((New York Yankees)) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Indians, who at the time were locked in a tight three-way pennant race with the Yankees and White Sox,[19] were not slowed down by the death of their teammate. Rookie Joe Sewell hit .329 after replacing Chapman in the lineup

No. 455 was never used by a Cleveland Indians team member, and the team website via mlb.com also does not recognize No. 455 as an officially retired number. Listing a PR move on the part of owner Larry Dolan — who, ironically, had little to do with the sellout streak in the 1990s under Richard Jacob's ownership — only diminishes the "retired numbers" section which is actually intended to highlight legendary players like Bob Feller and Larry Doby.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I can verify that charlesaaronthompson's color codes are accurate. I found an alternate source (from the team's own MLB.com sub-site) for the official red & navy team colors and compared it to hex codes #002B5C & #E31937. They match. Levdr1lp / talk 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Levdr1lp: Good enough for me. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing the question here.

Frank Robinson was a major part of Indians (and MLB) history, when he became the first black MLB manager while with the Tribe.

Robinson is as big a part of the culture and lore of the team as anybody because of the historic nature of his managerial stint.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument for Robinson's individual notability, not a reason to include him in the team template. During his time as manager, the team had a losing a record and never played in the postseason. He was fired barely into just his third season. Levdr1lp / talk 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Indians themselves consider it a major part of their own history, thus it most certainly belongs here. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, if Larry Doby wasn't already listed in the retired numbers section, he'd be listed in culture and lore as well. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being the first black player in the American League, Doby was an all-star who helped the team win two pennants and a World Series title; he also played for Cleveland more than any other team. Being the first black manager is historically significant. However, aside from that noteworthy fact, Robinson had a mostly unremarkable career as manager. His overall impact on the team and its fanbase is limited. Speaking as a fan, and based on the type of (& contents of) coverage available, Robinson is simply not on the same level culturally as the other subjects already listed in the culture/lore field. Levdr1lp / talk 01:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crux of your argument - aside from inventing the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell didn't do too much. Please. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get a third voice in here? I don't have the desire to constantly go back and forth with somebody who is merely just trying to pick a fight. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I disagree with with you on two points here: content and process. Personally I do not think Frank Robinson belongs in this template's culture/lore section (Cleveland.com itself admits that "his peak years were with the Cincinnati Reds and the Baltimore Orioles") -- you either AGF and take me at my word or you don't. Second, and based on that point of contention, I think you ought to wait for the process to play out here rather than unilaterally forcing through your view w/o discussion. Convince me I'm wrong. Convince other editors you're right. Thus far your argument rests solely on Mr. Robinson being the first black manager. Again, I think that fact itself is historically significant. But that alone does not prove he has had a lasting impact on the team, its culture, or that of its fanbase. Levdr1lp / talk 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You...I need to convince of nothing. It's the same old song and dance - I make an edit, and you proclaim yourself judge, jury, and executioner in that it has to pass YOUR smell test before it can go through. People who ride the highest horses tend to fall off more often. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Robinson really belongs in the template. I think this would be similar to adding Pumpsie Green or Hank Thompson to the Red Sox or Giants templates because they were the first African-Americans to play for the franchise. Neither had any long term success with those clubs, and I think the same can be said of Frank Robinson with the Indians. Penale52 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have requested input from other editors at WikiProject Cleveland and WikiProject Baseball. Please bear in mind that I support noting FR's role as the first black manager in both the Cleveland Indians main article and in the History of the Cleveland Indians article. I simply don't think it's appropriate to include Mr. Robinson in the culture/lore field. That section can quickly turn into a laundry list of team trivia w/o any clear understanding of why any one particular subject is present. Levdr1lp / talk 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair is fair – a third voice chimed in, and agreed with Levdr. Robinson is out, and the issue dropped. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I sincerely hope that if/when we have another disagreement that you won't be so quick to throw out accusations that I'm trying to stir up conflict or single you out. I assume good faith on your part -- that your views are sincere and that you are trying to improve the content of this encyclopedia. Please do me the same courtesy. Levdr1lp / talk 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC) I'm moving my post to Vjmlhds' talk page as this discussion is drifting away from improving this template. Levdr1lp / talk 01:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Levdr1lp: Considering the fact that you CONSTANTLY seem to pop up whenever I make such an edit, I have the right to feel singled out. Let's be honest...from the outside looking in, people would think you're kind of a Wiki stalker - other editors have gone on record in past dealings with us implying that it does appear that we are joined at the hip in a weird way. And our interactions almost always start the same way...I make an edit, you cry foul. Where there's smoke...Vjmlhds (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far away I watched on TV the ends of a few late September 2013 games and the entire playoff game. It's astonishing to me that "2013 AL Wild Card Game" may be an aspect of Cleveland Indians culture and lore worth mentioning.

I suggest that a couple entries be revised, "Chief Wahoo" => "Chief Wahoo logo" and "Slider" => "Slider mascot". The latter should target the Slider section, not the entire mascots article. (Yet it may be that every current MLB official mascot should have its own page --that is, those without articles should be represented by redirects that target sections of the mascots article.)

Along the same lines, Frank Robinson should be a part of culture and lore as "Frank Robinson managerial debut" or something of that ilk, targeting an appropriate section or anchor somewhere ...

• List of Major League Baseball player-managers --not a good target (altho one of 15 list entries represented also by an image) BTW, was he a Cleveland Indians outfielder rather than DH or 1B?
• List of Cleveland Indians managers --not a good target (not one of six represented by images)
• Cleveland Indians#Franchise history --no, manager Robinson is a couple sentences in the middle of one paragraph in the middle of "1969 Move to the East Division"! (BTW that subsection is nearly a copy the below:
• History of the Cleveland Indians#1969 Move to the East Division --no, manager Robinson is identical to the above (This section appears almost verbatim as subsection above; they differ only by above deletion of the first two sentences, ie 1969 itself, and two late sentences on the 1986/87 promise? or Sports Illustrated jinx)
• 1975 Cleveland Indians season --no, essentially nothing about Robinson as manager, merely two-line mention of the #Offseason transaction
• Frank Robinson#Managing career --perhaps the best available target but it says next to nothing about the integration --no historical background at all, merely "he had his heart set on becoming" you know what-- and next to nothing about that stint as manager

--P64 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion (supported by sources) that the Cleveland Indians' history dates back to 1901. My sources are MLB.com (seen here, here and here), and Baseball-Reference.com (seen here). Both MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com state that the Indians' history is as follows:

• Cleveland Blues (1901)

• Cleveland Bronchos (1902)

• Cleveland Naps (1903–1914)

• Cleveland Indians (1915–present)

There is no evidence to suggest that the Indians were ever at one point in history known as the Grand Rapids Rustlers [a team that may or may not have been a member of the Western League (WL)]. Also, the WL [the forerunner of today's American League (AL)] was a minor league when it was in operation (this has been confirmed by Major League Baseball (MLB)'s official historian, John Thorn, an article discussing the topic is seen at Thorn's blog, OurGame.MLBlogs.com: [1]). My goal in writing this message is to reach consensus with other editors on this topic, and to re-write the article that reflects that consensus. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're looking very hard. Here's the first search result I found using Google Books:

"... the Cleveland Indians were playing baseball in Michigan as the Grand Rapids Rustlers of the Western League. They were established in 1894. The next year, they moved to Cleveland and became the Cleveland Lake Shores. Then, they were the Bluebirds, then the Broncos and the Naps. In 1915, the nickname was changed to the Indians."

While it's certainly true the team did not enter the *majors* until 1901, the club existed for 7 years prior as a minor league team. Maybe this is why MLB.com lists 1901 as the team's start date -- it began that year in the majors, and it began that year in the American League, but it not come into existence in 1901. And there are at least two sources in the team article which note that "Broncos/Bronchos" was never an official name (it's not hard to imagine the players' dissatisfaction w/ "Bluebirds", even if they tried to mask it w/ the abbreviated "Blues"). Levdr1lp / talk 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Levdr1lp: OK, but the main article is about the Cleveland Indians as a major league franchise. It would be fine with me if the main article included a blurb about the team's history prior to becoming a major league franchise in 1901, but the template shouldn't include the team's history prior to it becoming a major league franchise in 1901. Also, your Google Books source and this source from the Indians state that the team was known as the Cleveland Broncos. The source from the Indians states: "Initially known as the Blues (1901) and Broncos (1902), Cleveland's nickname became Naps, in honor of Lajoie, in 1903." In my opinion, the name Cleveland Broncos should be kept in the main template. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesaaronthompson: I'm ok w/ the Broncos content for the time being given the sources you have referenced. However, there's absolutely no reason to limit the team's history. I see nothing to support your claim that the Cleveland Indians article must strictly cover the team only "as a major league franchise". Levdr1lp / talk 16:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The common, long-standing convention for listing rivalries in team navboxes is to pipe the rival team's name in a link to the rivalry article, regardless of the rivalry article's title/name. Please review Category:Major League Baseball rivalries- you will see that all MLB rivalry articles, regardless of title/name, are listed in team-specific templates in this manner (Subway Series is an exception as it has historically applied to more than one rivalry). Levdr1lp / talk 17:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Trevor Bauer's bloody finger to the culture and lore section because it was an iconic moment of the Indians' playoff run. The Indians themselves have put his blood soaked jersey on display at Progressive Field, so it shows that the team itself considers it a part of their lore. Should be no issues here. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my position regarding Frank Robinson's inclusion in the "Culture and lore" section (see previous discussion here). The team's on-field performance during his tenure as manager is more or less irrelevant w/ respect to the historic importance of his hiring (i.e., the first African American manager in Major League Baseball). Adding wikilink accordingly. Levdr1lp / talk 21:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]