Talk:Cleveland

Template:Vital article Template:OhioSA

Userbox

This user lives in or hails from the Cleveland area.

There is a user box available for your use shown at right.

Add the following to your user page if you'd like to:

{{user Cleveland, Ohio}} 

Unreferenced

This article had its last FAR in 2007. It has several passages without (enough) references:

• "History", paragraph 4.

• "Climate", paragraph 1.

• "Neighborhoods", paragraphs 1 and 2.

• "Performing arts", paragraphs 3 and 5.

• "Literature", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and even 3, if one gets strict enough.

• "Cuisine", paragraph 1.

• "Tourism", paragraph 3.

• "Sports", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.

• "Past teams", paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5.

• "College sports", paragraph 1.

• "Fire department", paragraph 1.

• "Roads".

Toccata quarta (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can try do take care of this in increments:

• "History", paragraph 4.

Done

• "Climate", paragraph 1.

Done

• "Neighborhoods", paragraphs 1 and 2.

• "Performing arts", paragraphs 3 and 5.

• "Literature", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and even 3, if one gets strict enough.

• "Cuisine", paragraph 1.

• "Tourism", paragraph 3.

• "Sports", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.

• "Past teams", paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5.

• "College sports", paragraph 1.

• "Fire department", paragraph 1.

• "Roads".

--Chimino (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the article

I read the article, fixed some text and improved the layout. I have a few comments:

1. "Public Square, less than a mile (2 km) inland, sits at an elevation of 650 feet (198 m), "

This is not correct. A mile measures 1.609 kilometers.

2. "winningest" ... is there really such a word?

3. "Cleveland State University hired a technology transfer officer to cultivate technology transfers from CSU research to marketable ideas and companies in the Cleveland area, and appointed a vice president for economic development."

What's the meaning of this sentence?

ICE77 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nickname yet again

There is a long established consensus not to list "Mistake by the Lake" as a nickname. One of the major arguments has always been that an often repeated pejorative does not make a term an accepted nickname. Are there current, reliable sources that contain the sentence (or its equivalent) "'Mistake by the Lake' is a nickname for Cleveland." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I will look for reliable sources for the nickname, but from what I can tell in the archives there was not consensus. There were two people disagreeing with another person. The edits also show there is not consensus as the nickname has been added many times. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You will find as you look for sources that the term was common in the 60s and 70s and is rarely used anymore except by sports writers. As far as consensus, the status quo is that the material was not in the article until an IP added it. It is not my recollection that past history simply reflects two people against one. Rather than adding it back, let's see if there is a new consensus to add the material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

PS I went through recent edits and found FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS (I make six) that have reverted this edit. See [1] [2] [3] [4] and [5]. The editors adding it back are you and a single IP. Seems to me like a fairly well established current consensus.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'editors' who keep adding it are non-registered 'IP address' users. And Just an FYI (for those who don't bother to read the article but just like to start trouble) the 'Mistake By The Lake' moniker is mentioned in the article. Regardless, it is a pejorative, not an official nickname. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryecatcher773 - IP addresses have just as much say in the constuction of this article as registered users. Moreover, the list of nicknames is (1) not just positive nicknames and (2) not just official nicknames. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken about the recent edits Tom. In the archives, the discussion in 2009 is between you, Calamitybrook, and Beirne and no clear consensus was reached in those discussions. Discussions before that died at requests for reliable sources. Given that, I have taken up your request to provide reliable sources that (1) either use the term MbtL in reference to Cleveland or (2) specifically say Cleveland is referred to as the MbtL. While I did see a few sites referring to the stadium as the MbtL, the majority of hits were referring to Cleveland directly. Those referring to the stadium were typically a few pages of results deep into Google and tended to be older. The sources below are more recent than the 60s and 70s, showing the nickname MbtL is indeed still used as a nickname for Cleveland and not just by sports writers.

Sources that use the term to refer to Cleveland:

• Episode of Food Network's The Great Food Truck Race that takes places in Cleveland titled "Mistake by the Lake" (2012)
• St. Louis Business Journal - No longer a `mistake by the lake': Cleveland -- a model for urban rebirth (1996)
• Boston.com (2010)
• NY Times (1995)
• Sports Illustrated (2013)

Sources that directly say Cleveland is called MbtL:

• Orlando Sentinel (1989) - Quote: "National embarrassments hovered over Cleveland like vultures waiting their turn to swoop down on defenseless prey. Its reputation went from the official slogan of "The Greatest Location in the Nation," to the maligning phrase "The Mistake on the Lake.""
• Forbes news (2010) - Quote: "The city has been dubbed with a less than endearing nickname: the Mistake by the Lake."
  • Forbes article quoted by Taipei Times/Reuters as well.
• Fox News (2011) - Quote: "Well, it has been called "The Mistake by the Lake". That's mean. And now Cleveland has been given the most unfortunate distinction of being the most miserable city in America."
• NBC News (2009) - Quote: "...showing the city is not really the "Mistake on the Lake"."
• ESPN (n.d.) - Quote from the HTML meta page description: "Cleveland was once called the Mistake by the Lake and its sports teams have suffered plenty of mistakes through the years." Also title of article refers directly to Cleveland.
• CNN (2013) - Quote: "And, as crime author Renner points out, the city was once famous for its burning river, once dubbed the "Mistake on the Lake" and branded with an outsized inferiority complex after decades of being the butt of national jokes."
• USA Today (n.d.) - Quote: "Once saddled with the nickname "Mistake on the Lake," Cleveland has dedicated millions to reviving..."
  • Also photo of the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame is captioned "Cleveland has worked hard to prove the "Mistake on the Lake" nickname inaccurate."
• Huffington Post/AP (2011) - Quote: "A comedian's sarcastic YouTube music videos trashing Cleveland have so unnerved tourism officials that they asked residents to fire back with videos of their own showing the city is not really the "Mistake on the Lake"."
• Cleveland.com quoting famous basketball player Charles Barkley (2009) - Quote: "There is no reason to live in Cleveland, that's why the call it the mistake by the lake."
• Cleveland.com quoting famous basketball player Charles Barkley again (2009) - Quote: "Sir Charles once again referred to our city as "Mistake by the Lake" (Original, Charles!)"
• The Gazette (Colorado Springs) (2013) - Quote: "In 1969, the oil and waste on the surface of the city's Cuyahoga River caught fire, causing many to label Cleveland the "mistake on the lake"."
• Notre Dame Magazine (2005-2006) - Quote: "But I will tell you that just about any ex-Clevelander you talk to will speak warmly about the city that those envious slanderers in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati term “The Mistake on the Lake.”"

Other supporting evidence:

• The Mistake on the Lake refers to it as a nickname.
• History of Cleveland also mentions the origin of the nickname, but does not have a source.
• 3 of 4 Urban Dictionary entries refer directly to Cleveland.

Given the large number of mainstream news outlets using the term MbtL (or the less common "Mistake on the Lake"), it seems clear that this is a widely known and accepted nickname for Cleveland. Moreover, a number of mainstream news outlets and even a celebrity directly refer to Cleveland by this nickname and/or say that it is a nickname for the city itself (and not just, say, the stadium). In light of this, I propose we add the term Mistake by the Lake to the list of nicknames for Cleveland in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Evergreen, Your proposal is duly noted, however, as you obviously have failed to read my own entry in the argument, the MbtL moniker IS mentioned in the body of the article under the heading History. It isn't an official nickname but rather a pejorative term (I'd expect that someone who has taken the time to note a list of sources regarding said nickname to understand the difference... I stand corrected if in fact you don't understand the difference). Inasmuch, regardless of your proposal, It's already in the article and not going in the lead. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryecatcher773, I do understand the difference and have noted why it does not matter. Its pejorative nature is not reason for its exclusion. Wikipedia does not censor and articles are to remain neutral. Your opinion on the issue is duly noted, but you do not have final say on this issue. I see no logical reason, nor have you given one, as to why it cannot be mentioned in the lead instead of or in addition to the history section. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, the phrase "mistake on the lake" originated in Cleveland's African-American community in 1964 as an expression of frustration with the city's response to civil rights concerns, particularly after the death of Reverend Bruce W. Klunder. It was a rejoinder to the city's slogan "the Best Location in the Nation." Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

EvergreenFir:Your long list fails to make your point. While the articles use the phrase MOTL, they generally refer to it as a term that arose in the 60s and 70s and is no longer applicable. Examples from your list:

• St. Louis Business Journal -- "No longer a 'mistake by the lake.'"
• NY Times -- " No more yukking about the Mistake on the Lake."
• Sports Illustrated -- "NO MISTAKE BY THE LAKE" (but it refers to the Indians, not the city)
• Orlando Sentinel -- "Cleveland No Longer 'Mistake On The Lake'"
• CNN -- " once dubbed the "Mistake on the Lake"
• USA Today -- "Once saddled with the nickname "Mistake on the Lake"

Other examples are simply sports references or of dubious reliability (Charles Barkley, The Food Network, a comedian's joke). The preponderance of the evidence FROM YOUR SOURCES clearly demonstrate that calling MOTL a current nickname would be factually incorrect. MOTL is a term related to a fixed time in Cleveland's past and it is properly discussed in an appropriate section in the body of the article.

It would be a gross violation of NPOV to include MOTL in the lead without putting it in its proper context (i.e. when it arose and why it is no longer an accurate term). Whether it belongs in the lead is determined by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Based on the article as written, the historical use of this term in Cleveland's history is a minor part of the article.

I agree with Ryecatcher's other arguments as well. Bottom line, MOTL belongs in the article but not in the lead. This point was made in a 2011 debate that you may have missed when going through the archives. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. First, the articles are not saying the nickname is no longer used. It is using the meaning of the nickname to demonstrate how Cleveland has improved. The articles still reinforce the existence of the nickname is in common usage. Moreover, by your logic, we'd need to remove other historical, obsolete nicknames like Sixth City. Second, it is NPOV to not include the nickname. We could add "Due to Lake Erie’s proximity to the city, the Cleveland area is sometimes locally referred to as "The North Coast" and pejoratively "The Mistake on the Lake". I am not making any claims to the quality of Cleveland (my hometown). But to exclude it because of its pejorative nature would be censoring and NPOV itself. Third, your claim that the nickname should not be included because it needs to be explained falls flat because all the other nicknames need it too. No one calls Cleveland "Metropolis of the Western Reserve" or "Sixth City" anymore and few know its context or history. In sum, your objections either do not hold water or imply that other nicknames need to be removed. We can hold a discussion about their removal if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing about context. "Mistake by/on the Lake" needs to be explained since it isn't a universally accepted or used nickname on top of being a pejorative (Cleveland is hardly unique having a negative nickname). The way it currently stands is sufficient. Bear in mind, anything in the lead must be in the body of the article as well since the lead is a summary of the entire article. Having mention of "Mistake by/on the Lake" needs explanation that really wouldn't be effective in the lead. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It is in the body of the article and it is primarily used for Cleveland. Urban Dictionary and Google searches attest to that. As mentioned above, brief but sufficient context can be added as it has been for other terms like The North Coast. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

To be somewhat blunt, I feel that I am encountering a conflict of interest here. Understandably the people following this page have interest in Cleveland, as with the 3 of you, live there or hail from there. I question your neutrality, especially given your objections about the pejorative nature of the term despite the fact that Wikipedia doesn't censor. For note, I am from Cleveland as well.

I think an outside, impartial opinion may be in order here. Not that I need to ask, but are there any objections to a RfC? I can only see it as beneficial as it may allow me to see that others raise the same objections and I am in the minority, point out a more convincing reason for its exclusion, confirm my feelings of COI, or simply show my stance is not the minority. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a censorship issue -- as I've already said, the MbtL nickname is already in the article under the history section. This has been argued ad nauseum a while back and the consensus was mediated by an Admin. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's not an issue of censorship, what's the reason for its exclusion from the lead? Tom mentioned some reasons above, but as I pointed out they are not sufficient or their adherence would result in the removal of other nicknames. I know this has been discussed in the past, but no one provided reliable sources explicitly stating MotL as a nickname of Cleveland. Given that I've provided those sources, I am suggesting we now include it in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Before I submit any RfC, let me see if a compromise will work. I would like to again suggest a wording "Due to Lake Erie’s proximity to the city, Cleveland has been pejoratively referred to as "The Mistake on the Lake" and the Cleveland area is sometimes locally referred to as "The North Coast." This would satisfy concerns of (1) context as it mentions the Lake, but does not go into depth of the history of the term, (2) NPOV as it describes the term as negative, (3) reliable sources from the list, and (4) historic vs. modern term by use of "has been". Is this any better? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right -- you don't need permission to request an RFC. However, in light of the fact that you are in such a distinct minority on the issue -- a minority that has persisted for years -- I don't see the purpose. This article has 213 watchers and only you and the previously mentioned (and now permanently blocked) Calamitybrook have bothered to contest the issue with any sort of prolonged argument. Your claim that there is some violation of Wikipedia's COI guidelines is more than blunt -- it is an uncivil charge and a violation of Assume Good Faith. You decided after less than 24 hours of discussion that everyone is dealing with you in bad faith.

You arguments that there is an attempt to censor something is not true. NOBODY has suggested that ALL MENTION of MOTL be eliminated. The issue that started this conversation is whether it should be included in the lead with no explanation and no context -- the way you have repeatedly reinserted it into the article. Your current suggestion ("Due to Lake Erie’s proximity to the city, Cleveland has been pejoratively referred to as "The Mistake on the Lake" and the Cleveland area is sometimes locally referred to as "The North Coast.") is an improvement, although I prefer your earlier suggestion for the removal of other nicknames -- I've lived in the Cleveland suburbs since 1980 and have never heard the two you referenced. Simply saying "has been" (it could mean last week or earlier today) does not provide proper context since it doesn't say when it was applied, why it was applied, and when and why did the reference become inappropriate and inaccurate. As far as your alleged sources, it is just plain bizarre that you claim when an article says "No longer" that it actually means still existing, especially since your suggested language acknowledges that it is no longer current.

The reason I don't find your suggestion acceptable goes to the fact that the article has 12 main sections and 29 subsections. You have failed to make the case why this reference to a former epithet applied to the city belongs in the lead -- the MOTL issue is a small part of an one 8 paragraph section. Why highlight this one part of Cleveland's history? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

PS The article lead is actually rather short for an article this long (three paragraphs with one only addressing nicknames). Any rewrite along the lines suggested might want to use this version [6] as a starting point. Despite the COI charges, I actually wrote all that "bad stuff" about the city. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I apologize for not assuming good faith and you are right to call me out for it. Mea culpa.

The reason I bring up the censoring issue is because users now and in past discussions seem to have rejected its inclusion solely based on its pejorative nature. I am trying, perhaps too hard, to remind us that its pejorative nature is not sufficient grounds for its exclusion.

Let me try again to make my reasoning less bizarre: the sources are not saying the nickname is no longer in use or that it's obsolete. If that were the case, I'd totally be on board with you. Their use of the term shows it's still a used nickname, but their are claiming the moniker is inaccurate as, in their view, Cleveland is no longer a "Mistake". They are pointing out that Cleveland has improved, even saying that the nickname may be inaccurate, but they are not saying that the nickname is gone/unused/obsolete.

To your point about the removal of other nicknames: this is a viable option. If we choose not to include MotL because its allusion to only a short period of the city's history, then the same would apply for those other terms (which I too have not heard). We could just move all nicknames into their appropriate historical sections. I'd be okay with that compromise too. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

PS - I'm okay with your PS. The lead is indeed short and your example edit would be a good compromise to the current discussion and expand the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem trimming the nickname list. I personally have found them to be problematic within the infobox and lead. There was a point when I edited the Akron, Ohio article and a local editor wanted to include every nickname ever used for the city, regardless of whether it was ever that common (including such well-known Akron nicknames as "Crossroads of the Deaf"...and yes, it had a reliable source) or still in any form of regular use. They really don't serve much in terms of helping the reader understand the topic better unless they're placed in context. Several of Cleveland's nicknames are historical too. For Cleveland, I've heard "Forest City" (which appears on a number of "Welcome to Cleveland" signs of course) used most frequently, though in all honesty, I don't see nicknames used all that often for Cleveland (beyond the generic "C-town" or "The 216"), certainly nothing close to the level of, say, "The Big Apple". In reality, the lead does need a re-write. This article is FA, but that was achieved in 2007 and standards have progressed since then. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with trimming the list. Who says "C-Town" other than Jim Rome and his clones? And wasn't "the Cleve" a fictitious nickname on the TV show 30 Rock? Piriczki (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Mistake" is a derisive term generally used by out-of-market media and has no place in a list of Cleveland nicknames. "C-Town" may have started w/ Jim Rome and his radio audience, but there are other current examples of its use.[7][8][9] "The Cleve" may be a bit of a stretch; Piriczki is right that it originated w/ the 30 Rock episode, though it does come up now and again w/o reference to that show.[10] "North Coast" can go as it extends beyond Cleveland to the larger region. As for the others, either move them to the infobox, as is the practice for nearly all other articles on U.S. cities, or leave them in the lead. Levdr1lp / talk 20:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

They need to be in the body of the article as well, not just the infobox or lead. The lead should never have information that isn't found anywhere else in the article, especially in a Featured Article like this one. Featured articles that have been promoted more recently than this one have the nickname(s) covered somewhere in the article, such as the history or demographics sections. I even had to make sure it was part of the Kent, Ohio article when I took that through FAR in 2010 (in that article, it's mentioned in the history section). New York City has an entire article on the various nicknames...not saying we need that for Cleveland, but to show that the nicknames are actually explained, not just listed in the lead. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate, the pejorative or "derisive" nature of the term is not at issue here. See WP:NPOV. I second JonRidinger's sentiments as well; a section in the body for nicknames might be more appropriate anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

JonR- The lead summarizes the body, so clearly the nickname content -- w/ added detail -- should be found in the body as well. My point above is that the better known nicknames should be summarized in either the infobox or the lead (I wasn't addressing the body).

Evergreen- Derisive terms like "Mistake" are not considered nicknames by convention. Cleveland is not the only place w/ a derisive term applied by outsiders, and yet I can't imagine the Wikipedia community ever using something like "Armpit of America" for New Jersey or "Detroilet" for the Motor City. If anything, elevating such terms to nickname-status itself violates WP:NPOV. See WP:WEIGHT. "Mistake" is rightly listed in the history section (I argued against others who wanted it eliminated from the article entirely). That's compromise enough. Levdr1lp / talk 01:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna need some citation for that claim that derisive terms are not nicknames. Tricky Dick was derisive but it was certainly a nickname. Also, your comparisons don't work well as those aren't commonly used terms by media or other reliable sources whereas MotL is. That said, I still think at this point we should either expand the lead like Tom showed in a past version, or remove the nicknames altogether from the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Derisive terms for cities or other populated places are generally not considered nicknames on Wikipedia by convention. In other words, consensus has determined over time that such terms should not be treated as "nicknames". If anything, it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise. As for "Armpit", there are plenty of reliable sources online using the term to describe either the Garden State or the city of Newark. "Detroilet" may have less coverage, but that's not really the point. Highlighting derisive terms in the lead or infobox works against WP:NPOV. And I don't follow your comparison to Richard Nixon. This discussion is on nicknames for cities/populated places, not politicians/people (though I think it's worth noting that "Tricky Dick" is not found in the Nixon infobox, Nixon lead, or anywhere else in the Nixon article). Levdr1lp / talk 21:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Evergreen: if you're going to cite WP policy then the Tricky Dick reference is a bit moot in this argument seeing as it A) isn't mentioned in the lead of the Richard M. Nixon article (and in fact isn't mentioned in that particular article at all for that matter) and B) Wikipedia isn't concerned with the contemporary media (perhaps you ought to re-read WP:NOT more closely). Again, the Mistake by/on the Lake' moniker is listed in the body of the article already. You already missed out on this exact same battle a year or so back , which was mediated by a neutral third-party Admin. I understand what you're getting at, but you're making an argument that resembles a legal case and this one has already been previously ruled on. At this point, you're coming accross as someone who is arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'd hope you'd be above that.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. So let's move on to the other suggestions proposed: (1) expanding the lead or (2) removing the nicknames paragraph. Shall I make a new section on the talk page? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Trim lead or expand?

Moving on to get some consensus built. In previous sections on this talk page two potential avenues have been brought up: (1) trimming the nicknames from the lead and placing them solely in the body of the article and (2) expanding the lead per North Shoreman's comment above. These are not mutually exclusive. For note, the second avenue arises from the fact that the lead is quite short compared to others articles of this length. Any suggestions/opinions? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:LEADLENGTH. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine as is. Regardless of recent debates, it is still listed as a 'feature article' and there are examples for precedent found in leads for other major American cities (e.g. Chicago, Philly and NYC) This article's lead is both similar in length and contains much of the same info (including nicknames). There are plenty of other tasks in articles under the scope of WikiProject Cleveland that are in great need of the time and energy. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what is done with the lead, the nicknames must be placed in the body of the article somewhere. That isn't an optional thing. The lead is a summary of the article, so shouldn't have any unique information. Most leads don't even need to have citations unless they contain actual quotes or highly controversial statements. As it currently stands, the lead needs expanded to be a better summary of the article. It mentions nothing on demographics, education, sports, media, government, or transportation, and very little history or culture. If this went through FAC today, that would be something reviewers would look for and want.

Be careful with "the article is featured". Many larger city articles have been FA for some time, but achieved that several years ago. This article was first listed as FA in 2005 and hasn't had a FAR since 2007 despite quite a few changes. Articles don't get demoted without a FAR, but the absence of any since 2007 shouldn't be automatically interpreted as the article is fine as is. Standards for FA have changed quite a bit since then and it's unlikely this article would remain FA if it had a FAR again or went through FAC now as the article appears now. The fact that the nicknames are currently mentioned only in the lead is just one testament to how things have changed since this achieved FA status almost 9 years ago. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Jon. Those other articles that I mentioned also include nicknames, albeit a very trim list. And the point I am making regarding 'FA" status is that the Cleveland article is on the list and was deemed so when the lead was essentially the same as it is now (there have been polishes here and there). This whole arguemt is stemming from whetehr to include MotL in the official nickname list. That is no reason to reinvent the wheel. There could be a section on nicknames, but that doesn't mean that 'Forest City' should be left out of the lead -- any more than Windy City or City of Brotherly Love, etc. should be left out of their respective articles.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded to summarize every major aspect of the article. Accordingly, everything in the lead should, ideally, be found in the body. That said, there are plenty of other things that could be improved upon in this and other Cleveland articles, and I don't see why the lead must be dealt with right now. As Ryecatcher points out, this ongoing discussion was never really about the lead in general, or even how to handle the placement of nicknames. It was about the term "Mistake on the Lake", whether it's a city nickname (it's not), and where to place it in the article (the history section seems most appropriate). This "new" discussion feels somewhat like somewhat of workaround -- Evergreen can't get MotL into the lead, so Evergreen proposes eliminating nicknames from the lead entirely. Our time is limited, and I would prefer we stop wasting it on this nonstarter. Levdr1lp / talk 20:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My intent here is not for a workaround. It's to address points brought up in previous discussions that I felt needed their own discussion. I've given up on the MotL. To answer your other question, there isn't a rush, but we can at least talk about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)