Jump to content

Talk:Dynasty (sports)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

You have to win championshipS to be a dynasty! - usc edition

clearly, usc's performance in the early 2000's is not dynastic. one bcs championship does not equate a sports dynasty, nor do heisman trophies. if so, texas, oklahoma, and tennessee, ohio state, florida state, miami, and florida should be included as dynasties, also. LSU should be named a dynasty before usc, since LSU's is the only football team with 2 bcs national championships.216.136.104.2 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

unless someone has an argument, usc's early 2000's team will be removed from the page in one week from this post.YOUareTIGERBAIT (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to win championshipS to be a dynasty!

Someone on here added the Braves under MLB because they won a whole bunch of division titles. Yes, but they only won one championship in that span of time. This means that they were not the most dominant team for that period of time. Especially in major league baseball, a sport with no salary cap in which it's easy to win if you just have money. It woudn't surprise me if the Braves won the division every year from now on unless they get a salary cap. You are a dynasty when you're considered the best for a certain period of time, but you can't be the best without championships. If we want to base a dynasty on division championships, then we'd be adding a lot more teams to this list. I removed the Braves, but I'm just a poor user without a log-in. So, would any higher authorities of Wikipedia like to discuss this?

I also noticed that they were included as a Cryptodynasty (Sports). It's agreeable that they fit the standards for that category.

The 1990s Atlanta Braves only one world championship in 1995. On the other hand, they won 14 straight division titles. Hmm... maybe we should consider them an intradivisional dynasty. Hey, this article called the Buffalo Bills an intraconference dynasty, why not the same for the Braves? Just pointing out a point! Bigbrainkt (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada at the WJC?

Canada won 5 straight world junior hokcey championships between '93 and '97? COuld that be considered a dynasty? Also, they have won the last 3 in dominant fashion. Here are the stats to prove it.

  • Record: 18-0-0
  • Goals For: 86
  • Goals Against: 20
  • Shutouts: 6
  • Championships: 3

They also set an unofficial IIHF record by playing 234 minutes and 14 seconds withpout allowing a goal. Plus they've had many players on those 3 teams that are enjoying success at the NHL already such as:

Just something to consider... WallyRankin 08:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Patriots dynasty

Why are the patriots still listed as a dynasty? They haven't been to the last 2 super bowls. Its over - they had one, and now its over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MicroBio Hawk (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

You're a fucking idiot.

Um, I meant they had a DYNASTY, not a SUPER BOWL. I'm quite aware of the number that they've won. I'll rephrase: Why are the patriots still listed as a dynasty? They haven't been to the last 2 super bowls. Its over - they had A DYNASTY, and now its over.

Two things here - first off, it's debatable that their dynasty is over. Plenty of other dynasties have missed 2 straight Super Bowls (1970's Steelers, 1980's 49ers), and the Patriots were very close to making it to the Super Bowl this year. Until there is a significant drop off, you can't yet say that the dynasty is over. Secondly, is this not a list of various dynasties? Why not remove the Packers cuz they're dynasty ended 40 years ago? The Patriots are the dynasty of the 2000's and may still have another Super Bowl victory.


Football dynasties do not lose superbowls during their decade of dynasty. None of the other football dynasties, the steelers, 49ers or cowboys lost a superbowl during their reign. I won't do it myself right now, but if no one responds in the next month I'm taking them off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.145.198 (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Winner's cup

"When referenced in regards to "The Cup" a dynasty is when one member successfully wins any 4 events in a row. The winners name and achievement date is then engraved on The Cup. To date (February 2007) no member has yet to achieve a dynasty." Preceding phrase moved hither from the Dynasty article -- just in case its not merely an act of vandalism. Lethiere 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

San Jose Earthquakes/Houston Dynamo Dynasty?

Does 3 championships in 6 years really qualify as a dynasty? Clearly it establishes the San Jose/Houston team as an outstanding club, but is 6 years too long for 3 cups to make a dynasty?


"MLS Commissioner Don Garber has said that the Earthquakes' name, colors, logo, wordmark, history and competitive records would not be transferred." This was found on the Wikipedia page for the San Jose Earthquakes and, if true, would seem to imply that San Jose and Houston are considered two different teams entirely and so no connection could be drawn between the two championships of the Earthquakes and the one championship of Dynamo. If MLS intends to reinstate the San Jose club (as they have indicated), then all credit for the previous two championships would be given to the reinstated club and not to Houston Dynamo. Therefore, no dynasty could be claimed. If there is no objection I feel the San Jose/Houston dynasty should be removed from the article.


-- I agree. San Jose has officially been reinstated to MLS starting 2008. Houston is by that definition a new team and have only won one championship. Therefore, San Jose has two MLS Cups and the Dynamo has One. Neither are dynasties. AUburnTiger 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Iowa wrestling

Iowa wrestling won nine successive NCAA titles from 1978 to 1986. Does anyone else think this deserves mention on this list? Keep in mind that this streak would be one of the longest on the list. 12.214.89.153 21:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides Iowa's nine titles from '78 to '86, they also won 20 titles in 26 years from '75 to '00. They are consistently ranked highly as one of the greatest college dynasties of all time, ahead of some of the college football dynasties listed here. Iowa13 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma State is college wrestling. Iowa should not be mentioned ahead of them. Oklahoma State has won 32 titles in the sport and has produced more individual champions in the sport than any other school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma State Wrestling

The Oklahoma State University wrestling program is among the most storied programs in all of college athletics. OSU's 34 team titles are the most ever collected by a school in one sport. The Cowboys have also produced 132 individual national champions, including the sport's first-ever four-time champion, Pat Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.18 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to win consecutive championships to be a dynasty!

See also #You have to win championships to be a dynasty!

Anyone agree? --Howard the Duck 11:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, and this means the spurs should be readded to the list of disputed dynasties. And the Braves should a;so stay at disputed dynasty since since some in the media will argue they are one. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
dynasty: "A series..." the Spurs championships aren't a series. --Howard the Duck 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, then you have to count out the '80s Celtics because they never repeated.

According to the teams on this list, the spurs MUST be considered a dynasty. If you want to make the definition more strict (win half the chanpionships in 10 years). Then the list would look very different.

Spurs must go on or the list needs to be eddited. You can't have it both ways.

Spurs already considered a dynasty by most media outlets and most NBA viewers, even though they don't watch the Spurs. They are listed as a Dynasty on NBA.com.

Well, the 80s Celtics are repeat East champs, the Spurs can't even repeat as West champs. --Howard the Duck 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's because the '80s Celtics faced much less stiff competition compared to that which is present in the modern Western Conference. C'mon Howard, your Mavs love is shining right through (I saw what your "Go Mavs!" post on the Mavericks page. Don't let blind love fool you.
But the fact is the Spurs can't even win back-to-back WCF titles. Even the Lakers made a three-peat despite the West's superiority over the East. --Howard the Duck 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was wether back to back Championships, not Conference titles, is a requirement for dynasty status. Multiple conference titles indicates that one is a conference dynasty. But in terms of league dynasties, conference titles mean nothing, as evidenced by the Mavericks last year (WTF was up with Cuban not trying to raise conference banner at the Spurs game last year? As if the Spurs were going to get jealous over a conference title?). Anyhow, by your very definition of "back to back championships", '80s Celtics != dynasty. The Spurs are already being labeled a dynasty by the vast majority of the media. I predict that over time, this opinion will win out, just as the '80s Celtics have been granted dynasty status. It doesn't matter anyways. It's just a game, guys.
The main difference with the Celts was that they've won at least consecutive EC titles. Something S.A. can't do on the West, no matter how "competitive" the West is. It's that simple. There also some dissent among sportswriters and fans whether the Spurs are a dynasty. And if a team is a dynasty, it must be great; and the epitome for greatness is by winning a championship at least consecutively. --Howard the Duck 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Circular reasoning, my friend. You claimed, "You have to win consecutive championships to be a dynasty!" Exactly your words. The Celts never had consecutive championships. Again, conference titles != league titles. Please keep that in mind. As I stated before, consecutive conference titles == conference dynasty. By your very definition of "consecutive championships," the Celts are not a dynasty. I cannot comprehend how to make this any clearer to you.


- FWIW, you mentioned that a dynasty is a series of championships, and that the Spurs don't count as a series. Apparently, logical reasoning may not be your strong suit as a series, according to wikipedia, is "a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence)." That last part is key. It can be a sequence, which again as related by wikipedia, can be a relationship of odd number years. 2003, 2005, 2007. The Spurs have been perennial championship contenders. Every playoff series that has featured them versus another equally powerful team has been considered the "true NBA finals." It is not as if they have been lottery teams in between their championship years. They have shown continued dominance and greatness. In reference to the few who dissent among sportswriters and fans, as I have mentioned, it is my belief that the vast majority of people have accepted the Spurs as a dynasty. I suspect that time will wear down any resistance. You see, the key to collective opinion is inertia. Had the Spurs never won another championship in the TD era, the inertia would have remained steadfastly in the "non-dynasty" camp. There were a few rumblings as to wether the team was achieving dynasty status in 2005, but the vast majority of opinion at that time was "no." As it is, however, with their fourth championship in nine years, the inertia is most definitely in the "dynasty" camp. The cover of Sports Illustrated listed the Spurs as a "Quiet Dynasty." The Associated Press has bestowed upon them dynasty status. Several writers from ESPN have given them such status. Those are three huge media outlets, among others. I am sorry, but the inertia is solidly in the dynasty camp. Again, I must stress my belief that given time, the few remaining will give up their resistance or be brushed off.
LBJ wore tees at the end of the ECF bearing the word "Champions"; probably TD wore a similar shirt, too. Again, dynasty connotes greatness, and if you're great, you should at least win a championship consecutively, no matter how great the opposition is. As long as sportswriters agree, without significant dissension, that the Spurs are a dynasty, they can not be a dynasty. Out article has 3 cites saying the Spurs aren't a dynasty. Perhaps unless those 3 writers change their minds, with corresponding citations, then the Spurs can move in to the main sections of this article. Until then, as long as some sportswriters dissent the Spurs are a dynasty, they should stay at "Dynasties in question." --Howard the Duck 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Did someone from the Spurs organization steal Howard the Duck's girlfriend? When the most important sports magazine in the U.S. calls you a dynasty, you are a dynasty. I would like to see a reputable source that declares that you need to win consecutive championships to be a dynasty.67.169.199.143 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)VWolf
Come on now, no ad hominems. I may not have an Eva Longoria for a girlfriend *lol*.
With that said, as long as these SI, MSNBC (check out the subtitle) and ESPN writers don't change their minds, they can't be consensus dynasties.
(Also, after checkout out Talk:Dallas Mavericks, I haven't said a word about "Go Mavs". I did say "Go Sens" though. --Howard the Duck 14:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? You did not say a word about "Go Mavs"? Then what is this that I see on the Section named NBA Finals 2006 under the Dallas Mavericks talk page: <Quote> Perhaps the schedule can be replaced with game recaps? GO MAVS!!! hehehehe --Howard the Duck 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) </Quote>

So what has this to do with dynasties? Mind you, I abhor the Lakers more than the Spurs. I do not even hate the Spurs, I'm just, let's say, "indifferent." So anyone can come up with a cite that the Spurs are a consensus dynasty? --Howard the Duck 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hey, hey... Listen, I am only replying to what you posted. You claimed that you never said those words, and here I have proof that you did. It goes directly to your credibility. Also, knowing that you are a Mavs fan helps us to understand that this fact may affect your perspective. Anyhow, as far as contributions to this talk, yes I listed those three references from those contesting the Spurs dynasty that you so gleefully threw back at VWolf. Amongst the long laundry list of authors who claim that Spurs ARE a dynasty, I had to put some effort to find these three articles. I was too lazy to list all those who do consider the Spurs a dynasty. Perhaps, I should just list them now. By and large, the consensus in the media HAS begun to form that the Spurs are a dynasty. As has been mentioned several times already, there are only a few writers and fans that believe that Spurs are not a dynasty, which psychological momentum should take care of over time. As far as ad hominem attacks go, I would like to add one of my own in saying that it is indeed a sad state of affairs that a person as biased as you can have so much influence on a reference website as important as wikipedia.
  • "there are only a few writers and fans that believe that Spurs are not a dynasty..."[citation needed]
Also, NBA fans are most likely to question the Spurs inclusion, and some NBA fans aren't Spurs fans. There'll be a credibility problem if an Eredivisie fan (which is most likely, doesn't even know what the NBA is) starts editing the NBA section. And I fail to see consensus in the media, maybe since I'm not an American and do not read that much NBA-related content. But I'd say this: those who are claiming the Spurs are a dynasty are either Spurs fans or basketball purists. --Howard the Duck 12:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, I wish I could find the exact link to that ESPN Sportsnation poll. I will update the author citation lists as soon as I can get some time. As far as fans go, I wish I could find the original Sportsnation poll, but this will have to suffice. The best google search I could come up with was this Yahoo Answers page discussing the same Sportsnation poll that I was talking about. It cites the poll saying 62% of the people polled across the 50 states, ranked the Spurs as a dynasty. Of the 50 states, 49 had a majority for Spurs as a dynasty. I cannot believe that there exists such a large group of Spurs fans outside of South Texas to influence the informal poll in such a way. I could have sworn that I had posted the link to the poll earlier somewhere. Oh well, here is the yahoo discussion: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070617192632AAYLB0E (amateurish talk, I know, but the statistics from the poll are accurate).
ESPN Sportsnation? If the FEC sanctioned that, it can be better, lol. --Howard the Duck 10:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's very difficult to get a gauge of how the American public feels about this issue otherwise. Give me a break. I even mentioned that it was an informal poll. There is no way in hell that someone is sponsoring an actual scientific survey on this issue. And since the poll can break down which states a particular vote is coming from, it at least helps to eliminate the possibility of local fan bias. Relax, Howard, this is not such an important issue. The definition of sports dynasties is already very loose. I doubt that this discussion on this wiki page will end this debate. After all, wouldn't that ruin the fun of getting wasted in a pub on Friday nights discussing the issue with friends? :)
Compromise: place the Spurs both at the NBA and dynasties in question. I dunno why the 2000-02 Lakers are in the "dynasties in question" section, anyway. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I don't know why the Lakers are down there either.

New Jersey Devils and Detroit Red Wings of 1990s and 2000s

I dont know if either one is a dynasty. The Devils are in question but the Wings won 2 straight but not 3 in 4 years. The 2002 team was pretty different from the 1997 and 1998 teams.

Miami Dolphins of the early 1970's as a Dynasty in question

Super winners of 1972, 73..Division Championships 71-74...just a thought


--Winning 2 Championships in a row is not a dynasty. 3 in a row is a dynasty. 3 out of 4 years is a dynasty in some cases. Case and point, the New England Patriots are not a dynasty. They won 3 of 4, however in the year they didn't win they didn't even make the playoffs, so that can't be dynasty. 4 of 5 is a dynasty even if no playoffs in the off year. I would also consider 5 of 7 and 5 of 8 to be dynasties just because it is done over several years. The Spurs won 3 in 8 years, no way is that a dynasty. Even though they made the playoffs every other year they still did not win enough times to be considered a dynasty. Dynasty is a special word in sports and shouldn't be just thrown around to any team that wins a couple championships. My dynasties of the last 20 years in the 3 major sports would be Lakers (2000-2002) they won 3 in a row. Yankees (1996-2000) won 4 of 5, Cowboys (1993-1996) won 3 of 4 and made NFC title game in the off year. Lakers (1985-1988) won 3 of 4 and made West Finals in off year.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.105.110 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Why not consider the '70s Miami Dolphins as a dynasty? They were the first team ever to make 3 Super Bowls in a row. They repeated as Super Bowl champions in '72 and '73. PERFECT SEASON 17-0 IN 1972!!! HELLO!!! I can't believe there's so much negative talk about this. Hey, even though they only won 2 championships in that span and that the '70s were dominated by the Steelers, the Fins should qualify as a dynasty... at least a dynasty in question. Reason is because that is so far the only success this franchise has had in their history. Bigbrainkt (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate over the Spurs

Do we REALLY need 11 sources cited over whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty or not? We should have one or two of each, as an example, and no more. I'm going to change it. Don't get me wrong, I think the debate is good, but this amount of references is unnecessary for a minor debate such as this. One side says yes, one says no, we get the point. We don't need it re-iterated 11 times. (Remember "A Few Good Men?") littlebum2002 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1999-06 Oakland Athletics

I believe that the 1999-2006 Oakland Athletics could be considered a dynasty. Eight consecutive winning seasons. Twenty consecutive wins in 2002, an American League record. Four Western Division titles. American League Championship Series in 2006. They did everything but make the World Series. 24.4.131.142 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1999-present San Jose Sharks

The Sharks have been doing very well since 1999, having had eight consecutive losing seasons prior. Seven winning seasons in eight years, excluding the cancelled season. They were the Pacific Division champions in 2001-02 and 2003-04, making the Western Conference Finals for the first time in franchise history in 2003-04. 24.4.131.142 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Sox

Ok, because the Sox have won 2 titles this decade does not make them a dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators of Hockey

The NHL and HHOF consider the Ottawa senators to be the first dynasty of Hockey. I have removed them from the questionable section and placed them into the NHL list. Though they werent as succesful as modern dynasties for championships, they placed first in the regular season 7 times and included numerous HHOF members as well as their 4 championships between 1920 and 1927. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ASHL (hockey)

Does this league even exist? what does it stand for? Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reference I see on Icebreakers is a page in Swedish, which I can't read. The Icebreakers article makes no mention of the league in which they play or of any championships. The Swedish Ice Hockey Association lists all their leagues, none of which seem like candidates for the acronym "ASHL". Googling "ASHL hockey" returns several hits for the Adult Safe Hockey League, but that is a North American league. Also Alberta Senior Hockey League (again, North America). Icebreakers are not listed in the SIHR database. Cmadler (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the team appears to be Swedish, I posted a request for help on the Sweden Ice Hockey task force. Cmadler (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's your answer Scarborough Ice Breakers of the Adult Safe Hockey League. Swedish Icebreakers consist of NHL players and MODO Hockey players who play exhibition games during the summer to raise money for handicapped children. --Krm500 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cycling And Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France Anyone?

Read subtitle.

If you can cite a reliable source calling what he accomplished a dynasty, be bold and add it. Cmadler (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Bears of the 1930s

The only reference I can find for the Bears of the 1930s as a dynasty is http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/1930schicagobears.aspx, which doesn't appear to be an acceptable reliable source. I'll give it a little while, but if no one else can produce a reference for this, I'm going to remove this one. Cmadler (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been three months. I'm removing that one. Cmadler (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Steelers

I moved the steelers of the 2000s to the "Dynasties in question" section because I believe they have not accomplished a dynasty yet but there is the possibility of one with another championship in the next year or two. I am currently looking for a source with this point of view. Disagree? change it. Frank AnchorTalk 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I think the Yahoo! Sports source supports the idea of them as a dynasty in question. cmadler (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Definite dynasty! - oh wait, I'm from Pittsburgh .. POV .. nevermind - carry on ;) — Ched (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mount Union College Football

I realized that Mount Union College is not included in this page under division III football. They won 10 championships from 1993 to 2008, as noted at http://www.mtunionfootball.com/. I would edit it but I'm not sure how to cite things and I don't want to get into any trouble mis-citing things. I believe they have a few other records regarding undefeated streaks and they are on that website. If you could look into this and edit it that'd be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.227.102 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can point out a reliable secondary source meeting Wikipedia's standards that calls them a dynasty (it is unfortunately not sufficient to give a citation for the championships), I will add them to the list and take care of the citation formatting. cmadler (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have found an article written by an AP writer discussing Mt. Union's dynasty. See discussion under "Non-Div. I-A NCAA Football Dynasties," as I am unfamiliar with citation formatting. Appalachianeer (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-Div. I-A NCAA Football Dynasties

Some time ago, several NCAA teams below the Div. I-A level that had won numerous titles were removed due to a lack of sources using the term "dynasty" to refer to their successes. I have found such sources for all but one, and provided the links below because I do not know how to format citations on Wikipedia and don't have the time tonight to figure it out. Any help in getting these in the article would be greatly appreciated!

The one that is missing is Div. I-AA's Youngstown State. I found numerous sources referring to its teams in the 1990s as a "powerhouse", but nothing yet that calls it a "dynasty" despite winning championships in 1991, 1993, 1994, and 1997.

The list of teams, relevant links, and quotes follows. Please feel free to discuss if any of these would be considered unreliable sources.

Appalachianeer (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this at the moment, but I'll look at those and get them added late this week/early next week, if no one else gets to it before then. Thanks for the sources! cmadler (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research

In order for this article not to run afoul of Wikipedia's prohibition of original research and synthesis, it seems that each team/club listed as a dynasty should include a citation, not just for their championships, but showing that they have been called a dynasty elsewhere. Cmadler 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations seem unnecessary here, as most people would consider it common knowledge. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations are never unnecessary in Wikipedia. Read the policies. Cmadler 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added templates displaying a note that citation is needed, for each listed dynasty that does not have a citation showing that it has been identified by a reliable source as a dynasty. See also WP:OR and WP:SYN. Cmadler (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The sections for the NFL, NAIA football, NBA, WNBA, cheerleading, NHL, and NCAA women's lacrosse are now sourced. Cmadler (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The section for CFL is now sourced.Terry Chapman (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed all unsourced claims that have been tagged as needing a source for at least six months. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned up again, as per previous. cmadler (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation???

Which one of you j-holes keeps putting [citation] in the college wrestling section?

The FACTS are indisputable ....and have been supported via the linked NCAA Wrestling Championships History page for each entry (Iowa and Oklahoma State).

Either remove the [citation] challenge or prove your claim that the information submitted is not correct. Only way you can do it is by discrediting the referenced NCAA link, so until you can accomplish that remove the [citation]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm the j-hole in question. You're right that the facts are indisputable, and you've clearly given reliable source confirming that those teams have won a whole bunch of championships. But that's not enough. What's needed is a citation from a reliable source stating that those teams are considered dynasties. Otherwise it's synthesis to call them dynasties. I do think that, given the numerous championships won, they probably are considered dynasties, but unless someone else has said that first, we can't say it here; that's the standard being applied uniformly on this article, and that's just how Wikipedia works. It's the exact same situation for Minnesota ice hockey as well; we have a citation telling us that they won championships in the late 1970s, but we still need a citation saying they are/were a dynasty. cmadler (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, allow me to ask this: What constitutes a "reliable" source for citing that a team is a DYNASTY? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that previous [citations] for other teams listed as a DYNASTY have a "standard" for making such a claim? If so, why isn't that the standard used here in this discussion? Sports Illustrated made a list of DYNASTYs for last Century....Iowa's wrestling team was on it. Not sure if it's still hosted online anywhere so that I can cite it, but I will see if I can find it. However, that begs another question, why does a [citation] have to be linked online to be credible?? There are hundreds of reputable and distinguished newspapers and magazines that have described teams as DYNASTYs in the past (even before the Internet) and they shouldn't be discounted imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What constitutes a reliable source for citing that a team is a dynasty? For starters, look at WP:RS and discussion higher up this page. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that previous citations for other teams listed as a dynasty have a standard for making such a claim? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're suggesting that citations say a team is a dynasty if it meets X criteria (N consecutive championships, for example), then no, there is no such established standard, and I'd be surprised if you can find reliable sources agreeing on a clear-cut standard. Why does a citation have to be linked online to be credible? It doesn't. Claims have to be cited, but they don't need to be linked online. If you have access to a reliable offline source on the topic, please add it - just be sure to give enough information that someone else could duplicate your research. cmadler (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)-->
  • Comment directly above is non-sense imo; comment two above makes far more sense. Are Wikipedia citations only valid if you can link a source stated somewhere on the Internet???

1940's St. Louis Cardinals?

Why aren't they here, they won the 1942,1944, and 1946 World Series, and were NL champion in 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.45.215 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source calling them a dynasty, and add them to the article. cmadler (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Red Wings dynasty?

Ever since 1995, the Red Wings were a dynasty. they won 4 stanley cups (1997,1998,2002,2008)also a 1995 & 2009 stanley cup app. They won 6 President's Trophies, got the best record in Nhl history in 1996 (62-13-6)and won several central division titles many times. The mid 90s to 2000s Red Wings are a dynasty--72.183.200.78 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is too few championships in too long of a stretch to consider them a dynasty. The Wings went three seasons between 1998 and 2002 without a Stanley Cup and five four (forgot about the Lockout) between 2002 and 2008 without one. Maybe consider the team from 1997-02 one but there is too long of a break and too much player turnover to consider the 2008 club as part of the dynasty Frank AnchorTalk 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, the NHL has an official list of dynasties, and the 1997-2008(09?) Wings are not on that list. Frank AnchorTalk 14:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think their exclusion from the NHL's official list is much more compelling; the other arguments are original research or synthesis. cmadler (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Yankees from 1995-07, a dynasty? It was the same length before 2007, and thats called a dynasty? They won 4 WS titles that period, the same as the red wings. So if the 95-07 Yankees are a dynasty, the 95- Red Wings are a dynasty--72.183.200.78 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two key differences. 1. The NHL maintains a list of "Stanley Cup Dynasties" (which does not include the 95- Red Wings), while MLB maintains no such list (or if it does, no one has pointed it out here). 2. In the absence of an official list, we look to reliable sources saying that a team is (or isn't a dynasty). We have such a source for the Yankees (ESPN), so we call them a dynasty. If you don't think they are, I encourage you to find a contrary source, add it, and move them to the "Dynasties in question" section in a similar manner to Buffalo Bills and San Antonio Spurs. Or, if you have an appropriate source calling the Red Wings a dynasty, you might add it, and list them in the "Dynasties in question" section with a note that although some people consider them a dynasty, they are not (yet) recognized as such by the NHL. cmadler (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm,that sounds like good advice. The Bills are NOT even a dynasty in question. To me, the Spurs are because 1.i like them and 2.Tim Duncan and Tony Parker are a good duo.--72.183.200.78 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Players on the '08 squad who were present for '97/'98 as well: Draper, Maltby, McCarty, Holmstrom, Lidstrom, Osgood. Chris Chelios and Dominik Hasek were there for both '08 and '02. The three seasons after 1998: First in Central Division, Second in NHL, First in Central. The four seasons after 2002: First in Central, First in NHL, First in NHL, Second in NHL. I think you should look at regular season numbers as well when determining a dynasty. If they had a bad year in there, that would be different. Unless they win the Stanley Cup in '11 or '12, I think this past season would be bad enough to end the dynasty though. I don't know what's up with the NHL not including them on their list. Obviously the best team since the Oilers had their downturn. The longest listed time by the NHL is 7 years. This is either 11 or 13 if you count the '95 finals loss. That might be the problem. But they do have 4 championships, 5 Finals appearances, 8 Western Conference Finals appearances, nearly 20 years of making the playoffs. Just my thoughts. (EDIT: Oh yeah, 6 Finals and 9 WC Finals in 14 years. Forgot 2009. I'm used to the Red Wings being bounced early in years they don't win the Cup. That loss was worse than the Tigers losing to the Twins in game 163.) Ypsidan (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As always, find a reliable source terming them a dynasty and add it. But keep in mind in this case, the source will need to be a little better and more unequivocal than it might otherwise, because the NHL has published a list of "Stanley Cup dynasties" [1] and they aren't on it. If you have a beef with that, take it up with the NHL. cmadler (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias template

Regarding the template at the top of the article expressing the need for this article to take a more world-wide perspective, I asked the editor who posted it to comment on why and whether it is still needed. Here's the response. cmadler (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that was a long time ago. I think I was concerned about
  • The lead, which discusses the concept from a North American point of view. It also doesn't mention that the term 'dynasty' is relatively uncommon in e.g. Europe, but the concept exists under different names.
  • The geographic range of examples in the list, which was heavily biased towards North American leagues, light on European leagues, and almost non-existent for sport in any other location
  • The relative coverage of different sports e.g. there's only one entry for cricket, which isn't even the Australian team of the late 90s, whilst college american football has a huge section which is actually longer than that for the NFL! Rugby has only one entry, despite being one of the world's most popular sports. Some sports are missing entirely e.g. darts, snooker (admittedly those are individual sports where the term 'dynasty' probably isn't used much, but again the concept exists under different names)
  • At the time, there was sectioning out of 'European teams', as if they were an afterthought (this has now gone)
  • There's a section on 'indoor football', which actually refers to indoor american football, which is a very different sport to what 90% of the world would use that term to refer to.
I could go on, but that's enough to deserve keeping the tag IMO. Feel free to copy this to the talk page if you think that would be useful. Modest Genius talk 10:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Stanley cup

Im thinking of adding two teams based on some books written (not as strong as the NHL reference) The NHL section (which would need re-naming to stanley cup i think) would add the following;

  • Montreal Victorias of the late 1890s (3 Championships at seasons end in 4 years) 1895, 1897, 1898, (finalist 1896, defended championship in series in 1899 but lost season title)[1][2]

and

These refs are avilable from google books and could be re-organized. Any thoughts (re-writing of additions to make more sense?) for or against or other referenced inclusions? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a third team the Montreal Wanderers as well (essentially 4 in 5 years). Nether the less the issue is we have an great ref via the nhl recongnizes its own dynasties, but prior to the nhl formation, many books state what they consider a stanley cup dynasty to be- should we use them, or are we just opening a can of worms. Ottawa4ever (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I say if the soure is good, add them. cmadler (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Andrew Podnieks, Sheila Wawanash, Dmitri Ryzkov, Pavel Barta. Kings of the ice: a history of world hockey, NDE Pub., 2002, 1023 pgs
  2. ^ Dan Diamond, James Duplacey, Eric Zweig., The ultimate prize: the Stanley Cup, Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2003 186 pgs
  3. ^ Michael McKinley, Putting a roof on winter: hockey's rise from sport to spectacle., Greystone Books, 2000, 280 pgs

Detroit red wings

Im inclined to disagree that they are in question; the nhl and hockey hall of fame either recongnizes a dynasty or doesnt- theres really no grey in their listings. I also dont think a detroit media source is really a adequate citation arguing for them as a dynasty, they would have a certain amount of biasy. Thoughts? Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine if there's a reliable source, but a one-person self-published blog that was around for 5 months (July 2011 to November 2011) doesn't cut it -- that's pretty much the opposite of "reliable source". In fact, I'm taking the link off and marking it as citation-needed. cmadler (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ive added a citation needed to the devils, the ref given doesnt call them a dynasty either. I do recall Dan diamonds total hockey or at least one of his playoof complimation books defining a dynasty by the criteria the nhl has used. Ill post this shortly when i find it, which may help with dynasties in question in the future Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
a vague definition of Post war dynasty's for NHL teams in Dan Diamonds' Total Stanley Cup 2008 edition. He uses 3 criteria and confirms the teams that the NHL already recongnizes (Note the Ottawa Senators are a pre-war dynasty and do not fit these criterias)

quote;

a) Three-or-more consecutive Stanley Cup wins
b) Five or six consecutive playoff appearances including four Stanley Cup wins
c) Seven consecutive playoff appearances including five Stanley Cup wins

It may make a interesting claification that wouldnt amount to original reserach in the text and may stop the dynasties in question being added. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alabama Crimson Tide

In the opening paragraph the Alabama Crimson Tide is listed as an example, 2009-present. Should this still be included as an example? At the very least, it probably should not say "2009-present," given the most recent NCAA Football Season. Dusty8807 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Heat

While they could become a dynasty they clearly are not one yet. One of the defining characteristics for most people of a dynasty is atleast 3 championships. Otherwise they are just a repeat winner. Getting in to the final doesn't make one a dynasty or the Buffalo Bills would be considered a dynasty as well. There are plenty of sources such as TSN that mention that they needed to win this series to become a dynasty such as this one. It just isn't there yet. There are lots of teams throughout history that have won two championships and you can probably dig up a couple sources that would call them that. But there are probably equally as many that don't. Our article specifically mentions that a couple good years doesn't make a dynasty and that it often takes winning over a period of a decade to be considered one. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

SF Giants

I don't understand why people keep removing the Giants from the Baseball section. There are a huge amount of reliable sources calling them a dynasty. They have won a majority of the championships over the last five years. Do we need five sources? Ten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, two of the above listed sources do not use the word "dynasty" outside of the title and can hardly be considered "reliable" for that reason, but the last one (the one from FoxSports) explains why the Giants are a dynasty. This source is why i did not delete it and will not in the future. The objection that many people (including myself) may have to the Giants' dynasty is that the Giants didn't win or even make it to the World Series in consecutive years. They didn't even make it to the playoffs in 2011 or 2013. While this is opinion and possibly original research, many people (generally anons) will probably remove the Giants because they do not believe it to be a true dynasty. Frank AnchorTalk 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The Giants were also ten games under .500 in 2013. 50.136.160.251 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no horse in this race (Red Sox fan), but this whole "it's a dynasty, no it isn't" thing has made the news. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Handball

There have been several great teams in handball but the Men's French national team was the first ever to reach 5 world championships in 2015 and the first to win back to back Olympic titles in 2012. As of February the 2nd of 2015 this team has won the last three major titles (for the 3rd time in the decade!).

This dynasty also comes down by numbers:

  1. REDIRECT [[2]]

The Men's French Handball team has won seven of the last nine major titles (78%) as well as 67% (8/12) of the last 12 titles played. No team has ever dominated the game as the so called "Experts" is presently.

  • 2015 World Championships 2015 - Qatar - Winner: FRANCE (holds the last three major titles and back to back olympic gold)
  • 2014 European Championships - Denmark - Winner: FRANCE (holds two major titles out of the last three in play)
  • 2013 World Championships - Spain - Winner: Spain
  • 2012 Olympics - London (UK) - Winner: FRANCE (holds two major titles out of the last three played)
  • 2012 European Championships - Serbia - Winner: Denmark
  • 2011 World Championships - Sweden - Winner: FRANCE (has won four major titles in a row)
  • 2010 European Championships - Austria - Winner: FRANCE (has won the last three major titles
  • 2009 World Championships - Croatia - Winner: FRANCE (holds two major titles out of the last three played)
  • 2008 Olympics - Beijing (China): Winner: FRANCE
  • 2008 European Championships - Norway - Winner: Denmark
  • 2007 World Championships - Germany - Winner: Germany
  • 2006 European Championships - Switzerland - Winner: FRANCE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FR SportsGuy (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

1990s Atlanta Braves

The 1990s (1991-1999) Atlanta Braves as a dynasty in question? See facts below.

  • NL Dominance - Won 5 consecutive NL East titles (1995-1999), appeared in every NL championship series, won 5 NL pennants and one World Series in eight seasons (no playoffs in 1994).
  • Dominant Pitching - Their pitchers won 6 CY Young awards in those nine season (Glavine 1991 & 1998, Maddux 1993-95, Smoltz 1996). CY Young top 5 finishes: Glavine 2 in 1992, 3 1993 & 1995. Maddux 5 in 1996, 2 in 1997, t-4 in 1998. Smoltz t-4 in 1998.
  • Other: MVPs (Terry Pendleton – 1991, Chipper Jones – 1999). Averaged over 100.3 wins in the seven full seasons. Managed by Bobby Cox every year. Steelpulse90 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Simple. You have to win championships to be considered a dynasty. The Braves only won one. Frank AnchorTalk 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dynasties in question (NHL)

For the sake of history and context, I strongly believe that other "non official" dynasties should be listed here, with a note that they are not "officially" recognized by the NHL. This provides a much better context for this section as readers and researchers are able to see "dynasties in question" according to sports writers and analysts in addition to "official" dynasties. For example: Boston Bruins 1970-1978, 2 championships and 3 runner ups in 8 years Detroit Red Wings 1995-2002, 3 championships and 1 runner up in 8 years (some analysts stretch this to 2009) Chicago Blackhawks 2010-present, 3 championships in 6 years Alligatorwine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


I would argue that any NHL team in this section should be removed based on the fact that the NHL and Hockey hall of fame (HHOF) have offical dynasties classified. Any other team mentioned is not considered to be a dynasty by recongnition by the league and by the HHOF. There are many teams like the detriot redwings to win back to back chanpionships, which according to the NHL, and HHOF are not considered dynasties (pittsburgh penquins 91, 92 etc). If any exception is to be made for teams like New jersey and Detroit a credible source on par with the league itself and the HHOF should be named. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ANY team listed anywhere on this page should be sourced. Personally, I've been loose so far on what constitutes an acceptable source (accepting, for example, articles in Sports Illustrated and the New York Times), on the theory that any reasonably reliable source is better than nothing. I suspect that gradually, as the sourcing on this page improves, we'll need to start being stricter, but at this point, I have not yet removed any unsourced claims, much less claims that are sourced but not by a reliable source. Cmadler (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
To expand even further about what type of source would be credible (reliable), what would you think of a teams home page claiming them as a dynasty?, any thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of such a claim coming directly from the team like that, although I think that is better than not having a source at all. Also, for the time being, I think sourcing should probably be weighed against the claim. For example, if we can verify that a team won 10 consecutive league championships, we should probably continue to include them even without a source specifically calling them a dynasty -- removing such a team would probably cause more problems than leaving them in.
In the long run, I think listings from a league or the league's hall of fame are probably good. Articles from media covering sport in general (ESPN, Sports Illustrated) or the particular sport in question in particular (The Blood-Horse magazine for thoroughbred horse racing) are probably good, though listings based on fan voting or polls might not be acceptable. Articles from other normally reputable sources known to have generally good fact checking and editorial control (The New York Times) are probably OK also. Personal sites, fan sites, and wikis are probably not acceptable. That's my sense from reading Wikipedia's policy, guidlines, etc. on what is or is not an acceptable source. Cmadler (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Another issue I've been pondering is the point at which a "dynasty" becomes trivial. For example, Mount Saint Charles Academy claims 26 consecutive Rhode Island state championships in ice hockey. Lafayette High School (Lexington, Kentucky) won 13 consecutive Kentucky state championships in marching band. Someone added the "Icebreakers" of the Adult Safe Hockey League, which seems to be a recreational league, to this page. I could go on. There's some point at which a team no longer merits inclusion, for example, recreational leagues, middle school/junior high, etc. but I'm not sure exactly where that point is. On another note, technically this page is an article, not a list; the list is only valuable in as much as it illustrates the concept of a sports dynasty. We might consider moving the list to a new page, "List of sports dynasties" or something similar, and leaving just the stub article text here. Cmadler (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


My initial thoughts would be that we could steer away from a list by making each sport section include a blur about what regulatory boards recongnize dynasties and how they are reconginzed as this does vary from sport to sport. This would also allow for discussion of teams which are considered a dynasty in question. This would probably reduce some 'lists' from growing and encourage more sourcing of teams, but its just an initial thought. As for rec teams and highschool teams, outside the regions where they play it seems as trivia. An example is that a highschool team in ontario canada won its 4th consecutive volley ball championship making them a local dynasty; however, outside of canada few are famillar with WOSSA and OFSSA championships and the trivia information is more adapt to fit the highschools wiki page. These are just a few thoughts but indeed there is a point to consider when the information posted on the page is trivial. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dynasty (sports). 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 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dynasty (sports). 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of eSports

Should we really have a "League of Legends" section here? Do we really consider eSports a legitimate sport? Jith12 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Dynasty (sports). 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) 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Need to crack down

There are a lot of unsourced entries here. Some of them can obviously be sourced (1999–present Spurs), but in any case this article shouldn't list any teams without accompanying sources specifically calling said team a dynasty. Until that happens this article will forever be a war zone for people adding in their favorite teams and removing ones they don't agree with. Lizard (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks 2010-5 again

While they are not on the official hockey hall of fame list (nor on the sourced NHL page, but that one predates the Hawks' 2015 win), it should probably be noted somewhere on the page that after their latest cup win, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman explicitly referred to the team as a dynasty. see here --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what the "Dynasties in question" section is for. They are not officially recognized by the NHL hall of fame, so the Hawks should not be included in the NHL section (with the 1980s Oilers, 1960s and 1970s Canadiens, etc.) unless and until they are officially recognized by the NHL HOF. I actually thought they were already listed in the "Dynasties in question" section, but they must have been removed. Frank AnchorTalk 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of sports dynasties. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dynasty (sports). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Dynasty

i didnt realize that there was a debate over what a dynasty was, i always thought the definition of a dynasty was at least 3 championships in 10 years, doesnt that sound right? why is there even a debate over this? --Redskies08 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Do you have a source for that? cmadler (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I suspect the person who posted this question is a Redskins fan. The definition of a Dynasty SHOULD be: a minimum of three consecutive championships, or, three championships within four or five years. A ten year timeframe to win only three championships is not really Dynasty worthy. At minimum, it should be no less than four championships spread out over a ten year timeframe if none of them are consecutive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Im still a fan of finding verifable and reliable sourcing that indicate a team is a dynasty (I think that is indication enough).Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Ottawa4ever, per previous discussions here. Anything else is either original research or synthesis. cmadler (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree, especially if you're looking for some "official source" that actually uses the word DYNASTY to describe a team. That is hardly any more reliable than the cold hard facts of how many championships have been won over a certain period of time. We can sit here all day long and debate what constitutes a DYNASTY, but common sense should prevail at all times. THREE CONSECUTIVE championships is the traditional standard (imo) in order to be considered a DYNASTY...and I suspect that is a universally acceptable figure. It's non-consecutive championships where the the debate begins for what is considered DYNASTY worthy. Is it 3 in 5 years? Is it 4 in 10 years? That is where the "grey area" is in this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • This is just my opinion. Its possible that someone with a job at a newspaper could say that a team that just won their second championship in a row IS A DYNASTY. Like the mid-90's Houston Rockets. Haven't done a thing since, and only won because Jordan wasn't playing. Just because they work at a newspaper, their word is gospel? I'm sure there are wikipedia contributors who know better than that, and just because they write on here and not for a paper, they don't know anything? No I don't think so. Sometimes you just have to take the pornography angle: "You know it when you see it". A lack of corroboration could be just because it is a fairly obscure team, like Mount Union for instance. But come on, like 13 championships in 20 years or something? Say no more. In the end, I think the Wikipedia standards are more like guidelines and can be stretched at people's educated discretion. Ypsidan (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)-->
        • I agree with Ypsidan 1000%. Please see my comment above in the College Wresting section.

I have a new idea: that a dynasty should be considered as the winning of four championships within a 20 year time frame. None have to be consecutive, yet the team needs to play reasonably well within this period and that there is some continuity with players or management. If this is accepted, the 1970 A's would not be, yet the Islanders of the early 80s would barely make it... Other teams to be so defined: The Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s, the 49ers of the 1980s and 90s, and of course the N.E. Patriots of today. I take the word "Dynasty" as meaning supremacy *along with length of time.* So then, the early 70s Oakland A's would be a key example against, for yes they won three consecutive, but after this the team quickly disintegrated as free agency entered baseball. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC))

Sourcing and cleaning up

I'll be making an effort over the next few days to add refs to all currently unsourced entries. If I can't find at least one reliable, independent source explicitly labeling it a dynasty, it'll be removed. Lizard (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

California Golden Bears Rugby

Why isn't the Cal Rugby team on here?? they've won 26 official national championships in a 36 year span ETchilembe (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Other wrestling teams

There are other wrestling teams that I would throw into the mix as well, such as Oklahoma State and Minnesota. Also I saw mention of some high school teams on this page. If that is the case you should include Granby High School of Norfolk, Va, Great Bridge High School in Chesapeake, Va, and Blair Academy in New JerseyJzcrandall (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree 100% that Oklahoma State needs to be listed, I'll work on that. Minnesota, ehh, not so much...back-to-back titles in 01-02 and a third one in 07, but not quite enough to justify 'dynasty' status when compared to Iowa and Oklahoma State's accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma State removed from the college wrestling dynasties section?? ...WTF?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgasmic (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • No, some dynasties don't require an article/blog/blurb/etc to proclaim them a "dynasty"...they just are. With the removal of OSU from the Collegiate Wrestling section this wiki page is officially now at ZERO CREDIBILITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgasmic (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Without referencing there is zero credibility and just opinion. If a team is a dynasty, itll be mentioned in a valid and reliable source somewhere. Find a reliable source stating the team as a dynasty and you will not see an objection to inclusion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ottawa4ever. If you disagree, you'll need to seek a change in Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)-->

I have to agree with previous comments by Olgasmic; much like the Jacobellis_v._Ohio pornography case and its most famous opinion by Justice Potter Stewart, "I may not be able to adequately define pornography, but I know it when I see it." - a dynasty label is often times just accepted by the public due to a teams run of success, and is not required to be stated by some blogger, writer, author in order to "officially" proclaim it. For example, many sports fans consider the NFL Buffalo Bills run in the early '90s of appearing in four straight Super Bowls (i.e. four straight AFC Championships) to be a dynasty, even though they never won a Super Bowl. While I'm sure I could find a Buffalo area sports blogger/writer who has put that in writing, thus making it "reference-able", it shouldn't be necessary, as the majority of sports fans would already agree with labeling that Bills run of success as a dynasty without it.

Oklahoma State has been re-added to the Collegiate Wrestling section ...and a dynasty reference added. Debate over and the Mod should apologize to everyone with common sense and already knew that they deserved to be listed. In the future, perhaps the Mod should simply do a Google search and link one of the dozens of source references that popped up instead of removing someones entry like a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.66.69.75 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Calgary Stampeders 2008-2018?

Since 2005 the Calgary Stampeders have made the playoffs every year while having 14 consecutive winning seasons since 2008 and going 203-95-4 overall with a winning percentage of .680 during that span. Between 2008 and 2018 the Stamps have 7 1st place finishes (2008, 2010, 2013-14, and 2016-18), 10 Western Final Appearances (2008-10, and 2012-18), 6 Grey Cup Appearances (2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016-18), and 3 Grey Cup wins in 2008, 2014, and 2018 led by head coach John Hufnagel, Henry Burris, Bo Levi Mitchell, and latter by Dave Dickenson.

Even though the Stampeders have made the Grey Cup 5 times throughout the 2010s in (2012, 2014, and 2016-18) they only manage to win two in 2014 and 2018. Right after they won the Grey Cup in 2018 the Stampeders have continued making the playoffs for the next 3 years losing in the West Semi-final each time. 2001:1970:5C9C:D900:FC0B:8DAA:79E8:16AD (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders??

The Seattle Sounders have been one of the most successful franchises since joining the MLS in 2009. They have made the playoffs for 13 consecutive seasons (2009-2021) with an overall record of 199-124-99 during that span. The team has even won trophies as they have: 4 U.S Open Cups in (2009-2011, and 2014), 1 Supporters Shield in 2014, 4 Western Conference Championships in (2016-2017, and 2019-2020), 2 MLS Cup Wins in (2016, and 2019), and they also won the CONCACAF Champions League in 2022 over UNAM.

The team was led by coaches are Sigi Schmid, and latter Brian Schmetzer, and their notable players such as Fredy Montero, DeAndre Yedlin, Eddie Johnson, Osvaldo Alonso, Brad Evans, Chad Marshall, Obafemi Martins, Kasey Keller, Stefan Frei, Clint Dempsey, Cristian Roldan, Román Torres, Nicolás Lodeiro, Jordan Morris, Victor Rodriguez, Will Bruin, and Raúl Ruidíaz.

Meanwhile the Sounders were in the playoffs for 13 straight seasons, they made the MLS Cup final 4 times in 5 seasons in: (2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020), but they would win two in 2016, and 2019 against Toronto FC both times. After the Sounders lost the MLS Cup final to Columbus Crew in 2020, they would lose in the 1st round to Real Salt Lake the following season, and the year after that the Sounders have missed the playoffs entirely.

2001:1970:5C9C:D900:4CDC:F994:5D28:ECB3 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dynasties are subjective in nature, but it is generally established that three championships (i.e. MLS Cups) is a minimum criteria for a dynasty. That being said, if you can find multiple reliable, independent sources that establish the Sounders are (or were) a dynasty (and not that they "might be" or "could become" a dynasty), then go ahead and add them in. Frank Anchor 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Buffalo Bills

I think we should mention that the Bills had 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances in the 90s with some considering them a dynasty of sorts. Would like others opinions though before it is added.-->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguyinchair3 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I feel that they should, and many already do; please see my comment above in the College Wrestling section.

Golden State Warriors

  • This also relates to the 'Dynasty' section below and what actually constitutes a sports dynasty run.

Personally, I feel the dynasty run was from 2015 to 2018 ...the 3 league titles/championships in 4 years conforms to how most people ordain dynasty status. Three league titles/championships over 5 years could possibly qualify as well. However, to claim that their dynasty run continued through 2022, let alone is still an active dynasty through 2023, doesn't seem like an acceptable standard and the entry should be updated. Having a gap of 3 or more years between league titles/championships should end that dynasty run. However, if they were to win league titles/championships in 2024 and 2025, then a second dynasty run (2022-2025) would be appropriate. One could also successfully claim a full dynasty run from 2015 - 2025 (6 total league titles/championships over 11 years) qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.109.82 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs

The present-day Chiefs need an entry under NFL dynasties. They have a record of hosting something like 5 straight home conference championship games, making the Super Bowl twice, and winning a Super Bowl. 103.141.232.152 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

should it be linked to USA/Canada only?

As a European I've literally never heard of anyone use the term "Dynasty" for dominance in any sport other than American ones. Seems really odd to have Association football referenced in the article as it's not a term used. 78.149.135.14 (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is it's not even a debate. No-one uses it as a term in any shape or form, evidenced by the fact no topics register any Europeans clamouring for their team to have this 'title'. As it doesn't feature. I don't think by trying to shoehorn in European sports to this article to seem Worldly actually has the opposite effect. It assumes non-North American sports should buy into a uniquely American term/idea when they clearly do not. 78.149.135.14 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting Removal of Dynasties In Question Section

I feel, as it stands, the "Dynasties in Question" section no longer fits with the content of the article. There are only twelve entries in the section, compared to how extremely exhaustive the rest of the article is, and some of them even appear both in the In Question section and their respective sport's section. I feel we should integrate them into their respective sections, while also indicating why people call them into question in order to emphasize the debate about their dynasty status outside the confines of this article. Mumbai0618 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Mumbai0618

Original research

Since there is no internationally agreed upon definition of a level of dominance needed before a "dynasty" is/has taken place, any entry to this list must have a citation that verifies it is considered a dynasty, not just a citation verifing their success. If a citation does not exist calling their success a dynasty, it's precense on this list is WP:OR, as we are including it based on our intepretation of what does/does not constitute a dynasty, which is exactly why we end up having disagreements about what should and should not be included on this list. Most recently, see the discussions about the Kansas City Chiefs (resolved after the outcome of Superbowl LVIII) and the Golden State Warriors. With this in mind, over the coming days I will be going through and removing all the original research from this page, even if it means getting rid of most of it (which will probably happen as dynasties seem to be an almost exclusivly American concept). I just thought I would give this heads up now, so that when I remove half of the entries, my reasons are spelled out here in full rather than just a limited edit summary. SSSB (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I would be astonished if you find any association football or European sport called a Dynasty, capital D, like an additional title bestowed. Dominance in sport is shown by what titles they win, I don't think Europeans buy into this idea there needs to a supra-title too. Uniquely North American. 78.149.135.14 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This whole article is super weird. The lede is mainly a stream of consciousness that fails to establish that there's any workable definition of "dynasty" upon which to base a list of dynasties. I'd chuck the entire list and reduce this thing to two or three paragraphs. Townlake (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I significantly reduced the size of the article. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Townlake (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've completely gone in the opposite direction. I agree that the article was getting unwieldly, but to imply that NO era in ANY sport should be listed as a dynasty - just because of fans being fans - is not helping the problem, it's just turning that problem into a new one. Now, the article is a stub, which makes it woefully incomplete. I will save my thoughts on a middle ground for a new section, but for now, I will say that we should (at the very least) create "History" and "Definition" sections, the former describing how the term has formed and evolved over time, and the latter discussing the scope of the term both at its most loose (e.g. 90s Braves) and its most strict (Core Four Yankees). Just my two cents, feel free to discuss.Mumbai0618 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Mumbai0618
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As I and several other editors here saw it, this was an unmanageable opinion-driven list masquerading as an article for years in its prior form, so the reset was justified. To my knowledge, officially recognized "dynasties" don't exist outside the NHL, so we didn't lose much by just starting over. I like your ideas and would encourage you to add them, to the extent they are not original research and are based on reliable sources. (I don't know how you'll distinguish between "loose dynasties" and "strict dynasties" without adding impermissible original research, but I look forward to you proving me wrong.) Townlake (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking out loud here, but a strict dynasty would be where there is no debate amoungst sources that it qualfies as a dynasty. Whereas a loose dynasty is where there is some debate about whether it can be considered a dynasty. This also means that (making up an example) that team X However, even I also think we should avaoid falling into a trap of blinding listing every dynasty even when they are reliably sourced. This article is clearly called "Dysnasty (sports)", not "list of sporting dynasties". I would also argue that the later would become an unmanageable long list (the evidence for this being that the previous article contained many sourced entries) and would probably benefit from a series of sub lists ("list of baseball dynasties" etc.) where this central page can list the most notable for each sport. SSSB (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
There aren't many reliable sources that discuss what isn't a dynasty, so I don't think the "no debate" approach would work. Maybe instead there should be a "Usage" section that describes how American sportswriters, clickbait creators, and ESPN employees declare certain teams "dynasties" for American readers' entertainment, despite most major leagues not formally recognizing that title and non-Americans having no use for it. Townlake (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, you are wrong. First, the influence of American culture is so strong throughout the world that most people are at least aware of what a 'dynasty' in the context of sports represents. While it is true that the concept originates from America, it does not mean that the term cannot be utilized elsewhere. For example, here a British radio station uses the term for Manchester City, as does no less British Guardian here. Monerals (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
America is neither the source of everything benevolent in this world nor the source of everything evil. Stop denying agency to the outside world. The term 'dynasty' is now widely utilized in European football (in English and other langauges). Monerals (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not widely used in European football, it is sparingly used used. And the fact remains that the declarations of dynasties is still predominantly seen in American media and only occasionally in European media. SSSB (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, it baffles me that periods of sustained competitive excellence that meet notability guidelines cannot be displayed here, but I guess you guys have already made your mind. Monerals (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Rather than complain, why don't you actually make your case? To summarise the discussion so far and to adress your comment: Because they often don't meet the WP:VERIFY requirements and this isn't List of sporting dynasties so it would be inappropriate to list sporting dynasties. Theoretically we could list a couple of examples, but then the question becomes justify those we do pick. SSSB (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If I may place my two cents. A similar discussion was held at Talk:Winning streak and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winning streak about how these types of articles become WP:INDISCRIMINATE with list-type articles. Ideally, the article in its current state ought to be renamed as suggested above, but if we would rather discuss the topic of a dynasty, then this article should be WP:TNTed, keeping the most notable dynasties. Conyo14 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what we tried to do, based on a (at the time) unanimous consensus here. Since then, only one person has come to this discussion to (implicitly) argue against such a move. SSSB (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
There was never unanimous consent. In the relevant conversation there were two editors in favour of the changes and two against with no convincing arguments made by either side. This article does need improvement, though the actions taken so far can best described by WP:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!. Reach out to the relevant sport WikiProjects and see if anyone will improve their groups subsection of the article. This article needs surgery, not an execution. Deadman137 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Deadman in getting more support. It might be best to do an RfC since this is a huge change to the article. Conyo14 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Concur, RfC seems necessary. I object to the unnecessary interim restoration of loads of WP:OR in clear violation of sitewide standards, but for now I know I'm fighting a losing battle against local consensus. Townlake (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


I would like to add my two cents and just say that while the concept of a dynasty may predominantly be a North American invention, North American do indeed watch international sports too. That it's a North American invention can be established in the article without erasing the bulk of the article.

I think the page as is has a lot of historical value to it that you can’t really find anywhere else in such a compact and concise structure. If people are going to remove it, then I think those same people need to also be willing to make not only a list of argued dynasties article, but also make an article for every single one of the individual dynasties listed. And that all should be finished before it’s removed on here. If not, keep it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.208.43 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynasty_(sports)/Archive_1&oldid=1248273121"