Talk:Cleveland-Cliffs

Suggestion

Thought that Wikinvest:CLF might make a good external link -- discusses elements of CLF's business that are not encyclopedic (revenue, market share, competitors) but which are probably of interest to a lot of readers. Parkerconrad (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS:GEOLINK vs. MOS:SEAOFBLUE

Per that guideline, only the city name should be linked because as it says, "for a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit", which for "Cleveland, Ohio" or "Cleveland, Ohio, United States" is just Cleveland. Additionally, the article title for the city does not have the state name within it, thus we don't need to include it in the link. Because the title of the article is just "Cleveland", the correct example to follow is that of "Sydney" and not of "Buffalo, New York".

It is also not a SEAOFBLUE issue because it is not "Cleveland, Ohio". That would be a MOS violation because it is two consecutive links. "Cleveland, Ohio" does not have that issue, so it complies with both sections.

If editors unaware of our MOS rules attempt to link the state name, we should kindly educate them about that issue. We should not break one rule to prevent a possible violation of another. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

For U.S. cities its to link [[<city>, <state>]], and not [[<city>]], <state> to avoid a MOS:SEAOFBLUE of [[<city>]], [[<state>]].

• YCleveland, Ohio, ([[Cleveland, Ohio]],)

• N Cleveland, Ohio ([[Cleveland]], Ohio,)

  N Cleveland, Ohio ([[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]],)

Brotherbenz (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The article in fact was Cleveland, Ohio before it was changed to Cleveland, Ohio. If no consensus can be reached leave article to was it was before the edits began, which it was in fact until the article was edited

Please see: for more on the MOS:GEOLINK styling Brotherbenz (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, linking both the city and the state individually is a SEAOFBLUE issue. We agree on that one. That's the issue with [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]].

No, linking only the city and not the city and state is not a SEAOFBLUE issue, and saying that it is makes a disingenuous claim. [[Cleveland]], Ohio complies with SEAOFBLUE because it doesn't have two consecutive but distinct links. The fact that an editor that doesn't know better might come along and link the state (and break SEAOFBLUE) doesn't make the failure to include the state in a link a violation.

[[Cleveland]], Ohio is more compliant because it follows the text as currently written at GEOLINK, which says: "for a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit". The "first unit" is the city (Cleveland). It does not say "link only the first two units". This version also matches the current title of the article on the city, which is just "Cleveland", which is not like "Buffalo, New York". Thus, it should follow the example of Sydney, not Buffalo. The discussion on the talk page hasn't reached a consensus to actually change the text of the rule.

To summarize, [[Cleveland]], Ohio:

1. Complies with SEAOFBLUE because there aren't two links
2. Complies with GEOLINK as written because only the first unit is linked
3. Follows the title of the city article.

Compare with [[Cleveland, Ohio]]:

1. Complies with SEAOFBLUE because there aren't two links
2. Does not comply with GEOLINK as written because more than the first unit is linked
3. Does not follow the title of the city article

Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As the GEOLINK says for U.S. States, and not Sydney. "[[city]], state" as "[[city, state]]" should be an allowed option to practically avoid incessant churn, especially drive-by editors who invariably seek to "fix" and MOS:SEAOFBLUE to [[city]], [[state]].

To summarize, Cleveland, Ohio:

1. Does NOT comply with SEAOFBLUE

2. Does NOT comply with the GEOLINK

3. Encourages users to "fix" to [[city]], [[state]].

Compare to: Cleveland, Ohio

1. Complies with GEOLINK as written to avoid SEAOFBLUE

2. Complies with what the other users are saying on

3. AVOIDS SEAOFBLUE Brotherbenz (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Samuel Livingston Mather(s)

The 19th century subsection links to the incorrect Samuel Mather. Samuel Livingston Mather (1817-1890) was one of seven company founders in 1847. The referenced Samuel Livingston Mather (1851-1931) was the former's eldest son, and his half-brother William G. Mather later became the head of Cleveland-Cliffs.

I will either create a new article for Samuel Livingston Mather (1817-1890) or disambiguate the latter. Assthmatic1995 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Not a good article

This article is bad. Just plain bad. Badly written, badly structured, I'm pretty sure even a LLM could do it 10X better. What fraction of its income comes from "mining" (iron ore)? What fraction from steelmaking? You're not going to find that here even when it's obvious the company's core income is from those. If I had the patience, I'd run through this line by line and point out all of its multitude of flaws. I don't. It needs a complete rewrite. Some of the points I stumbled upon:1.The edit war over how Cleveland, Ohio should be presented is just plain unfortunate. The guy insisting only Cleveland and not Cleveland, Ohio should be blue-text needs to explain why it and not the 33 other Clevelands around the world (15 cities!) shouldn't have the same treatment. He's just plain wrong and more of a troll than a contributor, imho. 2. Based in Cleveland? Should be "with headquarters in", I don't know what "based" means for a company owning subsidiary companies. 3. The latest Fortune 500 list has it at 233rd place, not 221st.4.The term "EAF" is used but not defined/explained.5.There is virtually no information specific to its four divisions. Are the 8 blast furnaces in the "Steelmaking" division? Curious minds want to know. The article claims the Empire mine has been "idled" and later says its closing was announced. Which is it? There's a great, if not precisely defined difference, between an idled facility and a closed one.(in most cases) 6. The article throws in the abbreviation DR (for directly reduced) and never uses it again. Uh, do I have to spell out why that is not only USELESS but wasteful? The article defines and uses the abbrev. DRI which is efficient. Except it defines it twice. Once is enough.7. It's claimed that "in early 2001, CC "managed" LTV Steel but "later that year" LTV Steel was "forced" to permanently close. Why is that notable? (It isn't unusual for a conglomerate (like LTV) to farm-out management of its various pieces to competitors while it's in the process of dissolution. The question is why is this bit of trivia notable in the CC article? IDK). I could continue in this vein, but the narrative gets exponentially harder to follow. Is their disastrous "expansion" into coal worth more than 2 sentences? I doubt it. (I'm pretty sure (/sarc) that iron ore is a natural resource, btw.)~2026-39947-37 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)