Talk:Broughton Rangers

Rugby league Mid‑importance

	Broughton Rangers is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Rugby union Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Demerge

Should there be separate articles for the old and new entities with links to confirm the shared lineage?Fleets (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The new Manchester Rangers club is patently an entirely different one to Broughton/Belle Vue Rangers. I know it's fashionable to consider replacement clubs for those that have been liquidated as one and the same, but goodness me a sixty-year gap is pushing it. There is no contunuity here at all. Can we create a new article for Manchester Rangers and let the old Broughton/Belle Vue article stand as an article about the famous historic club? Mooretwin (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we rectify this? Mooretwin (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The modern day amateur club probably isn't even notable enough yet for its own article, considering the division they play in (North West Mens League Division 2). I'd say move the article back to Broughton Rangers, but keep the section of the article which mentions the re-formed club. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about doing that? Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just thought I'd mention that there is a parallel discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Manchester_Rangers.Fleets (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to have been originally created under the Broughton Rangers name, but was moved a couple of months ago without any discussion. I would request an admin at WP:RM to move it back. If the new club becomes notable, it can be created in a separate article. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've filed a technical requested move here. Mooretwin (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Manchester_Rangers decide which revision to return to Broughton Rovers and then leave the rest here - it this article is subsequently deleted then so be it but at least no-one's contributions since the move will have been wiped out. Nthep (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This version seems to be the last one before the Manchester Rangers editing began. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be very little that will need stripping out once the page moves back to Broughton Rangers: one sentence in the intro, one sentence in the History section, part of the infobox and two sentences about the Manchester Regional Arena. Nthep, am I missing something? Mattlore (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know I haven't read the article to have an opinion. But there doesn't appear to be a consensus on whether there should be two articles, in which case an accredited split is needed or whether Manchester Rangers are a notable subject in which case just a move is needed. Nthep (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with the two issues separately. There is consensus that Broughton Rangers and Manchester Rangers should not be a single article. Can we move this page article back to "Broughton Rangers" and then leave the "Manchester Rangers" article with a deletion notice and see what the arguments are for keeping it? Mooretwin (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with that, move the page and there is no Manchester Rangers article. Nthep (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, move the page and create a new Manchester Rangers article, and someone can put a deletion notice on it, if they think it's not notable. Mooretwin (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which brings us back to where I stated previously, I'll move the page as long as someone undertakes to create the M'Cr Rangers article. Nthep (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the new article in my userspace (User:J Mo 101/MCR), from what little content there was about the new club in the article. Obviously it can be improved later if it's deemed notable, but can the main article be moved back to Broughton Rangers now? J Mo 101 (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Mo 101: thank you for that. On that basis I have moved the page back to Broughton Rangers. It now needs tidying up to remove the M'cr Rovers content and for a new M'Cr Rovers page to be created - preferably before someone else suggests they should be one article! Nthep (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankts, Nthep. I've restored the article to the pre-Manchester Rangers editing. J Mo 101 - all set for you to create the Manchester Rangers page as per your user space, and put a notability tag on it. Mooretwin (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]