Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

edit

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aciccia93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Subject of June 2013 Cleveland Frowns blog entry

edit

The Cleveland sports blog "Cleveland Frowns" has posted an entry on this article. The blog's author is an outspoken critic of the Cleveland Indians' continued use of Chief Wahoo. Levdr1lp / talk 13:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Archived link to the now-deleted 2013 article: [1]. TJRC (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Split

edit

As recommended in the GA review, the controversy content can be moved to a new article, leaving this to contain the origins and history of the logo. In accordance with the similar article, the Washington Redskins name controversy, the likely title would be Cleveland Indians name and logo controversy. The content of both articles should be further reduced by summarizing.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

After cleanup, moving content, and checking links, I am now ready to create a new article from the entire Controversy section, and the other "Statements..." sections which are also about the controversy.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ironically enough, both the Indians and the Redskins were originally named in reference to the Boston Braves. And the Braves name had a connection to Tammany Hall, the NYC political machine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

FriendlyFred, thanks for your work on this article. I think there are good arguments to be made both for and against a split. The best argument in favor of a split is the length of the article.

But I think the situation with the Washington name/logo controversy is a little different. The naming controversy is a perennial issue, but most published sources that discuss the team are talking specifically and primarily about football, not the controversy. With Chief Wahoo, most published sources are talking about the controversy itself. Even sources that discuss the history and use of the logo are discussing it within the context of that controversy. If a split makes sense, I think the primary article should continue to reflect that context. Anotherpioneer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

After a week without opposition to a split, I have created the new article Cleveland Indians name and logo controversy and will proceed to remove most of the controversy content from here.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Done for now, both remain articles that are too detailed.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Chief Wahoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chief Wahoo. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply