Jump to content

Talk:New Orleans Pelicans/Archive 1

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

Untitled

The Hornets also used the Pete Maravich Assembly Center in Baton Rouge and a stadium in Norman Oklahoma this year as home stadiums. Should these be listed in addition to the others?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't anyone here find this whole NO/OK Hornets thing to be a TAD bit awkward? Dknights411 14:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Reminds me of the Kansas City/Omaha Kings back in the 80s... According to Stern, Oklahoma City was apparently chosen to be New Orleans' temporary base because of the two cities' shared experience of "recovering from tragedy".
  • I made a note that some media outlets still refer to them as the New Orleans Hornets. Apparently ESPN and the AP find the whole NO/OK thing awkward too. --Tubutler 16:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Hornets history section

If I may make a suggestion, since the New Orleans Hornets' history is quickly growing despite only being a few years old, we should move the Charlotte Hornets' history into its own section, such as perhaps History of the Charlotte Hornets with a short paragraph and quick link at the top of the page, so that it can be expanded upon, while at the same time the New Orleans (and Oklahoma City) history can be greatly expanded upon on the main page. Stealth Matrix (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it seem like the information on the page was massively reduced? 68.110.166.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

Troy Bell

User 68.91.13.38 has changed Contributions Troy Bell from the Hornets to the Rockets. It looks wrong but I can't find the necessary information at the NBA, Rockets or Hornets site. This user has made vandalistic edits to Tracy McGrady but I'm not sure about Bell. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To be forgotten section (neutrality)

Hah hah, just been reading through the acerbic "To be forgotten" section, and while as a fan of the Hornets I agree with what some of the disgruntled fan has wrote about Baron Davis et. al, it's hardly NPOV, and some of it is quite unverifiable. As such it is out of the scope of Wikipedia and needs to be gotten rid of or rewrote.--Knucmo2 20:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section, but I incorporated some of the facts into the team history, as the opinionated piece did have some important facts in it. I also added a recent player movements section, to distinguish it from what happened due to Katrina. Zorgon 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the attendance bits were certainly pertinent.--Knucmo2 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First sports event since the hurricane?

Or first professional sports event in New Orleans since the Hurricane (in reference to the three games in March). Is not Tulane playing games on campus now? I could be wrong. Could someone with more insight look into this and make the change.... Bsd987 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No current roster

What happened to the current roster table for the Hornets? They're my favourite team and I want to know who's on it!

"Big Four" edit

i know this goes under another article, but i didn't know someone considered Arena Football a major "Big Four" league Chalmation 01:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


This page needs to be locked

These edits by OKC fans are getting out of control.

I agree these OKC fans are inputting too much of their bias, and attempting to take away the fact that the hornets are NEW ORLEANS TEAM!!!

Neither of those are valid reasons for locking. Sasquatch t|c 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Just noticed the naming of this article is under dispute right now. The way I see it, the team as of right now is still the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets and it should remain that way until the 2006-07 season ends after which they will revert back to the New Orleans Hornets. If you have any clear and reasoned objections, you are free to state them here. Sasquatch t|c 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Let's wait until the season (i.e. NBA Finals) is over before we change it back. Dknights411 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
When you do decide to file an official move request, please be sure to follow the standard procedure at WP:RM, including creating a full discussion space here. Thanks! Dekimasuよ! 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't we'd need the procedures at WP:RM since the renaming would be relatively straightforward. --Howard the Duck 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Waiting for the NBA Finals isn't a good enough reason, I think the article should be changed NOW. The season is over, the team is returning to New Orleans... what more do you want? We can't keep the article name like this forever. 65.6.92.127 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the move can start right now. The Hornets' season is over, and all the OKC names/links/redirects need to be taken care of before the NBA Draft. Oklahoma City Hornets should remain as a redirect to New Orleans Hornets. --Mtjaws 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

the team's website is back to New Orleans Hornets Smith03 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm making the move per a request on WP:RM. Their website is even referring to it as a "relocation" back to New Orleans. That's good enough for me. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, the Hornets were refered to as simply the "New Orleans Hornets" during the draft lottery, so it seems like it's just "New Orleans Hornets" for now. Dknights411 05:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hornetslogo33.gif

Image:Hornetslogo33.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ED Reed Jersey
just add one guys information here

Fair use rationale for Image:OKCHornetsalternate.jpg

Image:OKCHornetsalternate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hornetslogo33.gif

Image:Hornetslogo33.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What if Gustav is Katrina II?

Nobody in their right mind wants it to happen, but, where would the Hornets go if NOLA is wiped out again? Oklahoma City now has a permanent team; I doubt Seattle fans would accept a "temporary" franchise regardless of how well they supported the (former) Sonics. Heaven forbid it happens; however, my "guess" is Kansas City, at it nearly lured an NHL team. 216.179.123.189 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Two cities: Kansas City and San Jose are competiting to have the Hornets franchise, but the team ownership insists San Jose is a better choice than K.C. or the California economy would prevent the relocation plans. I believe Kansas city and Seattle are the next two NBA team sites, because the Warriors will forbid the relocation of a second team into their market of the San Francisco Bay Area. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

George Shinn's birthplace

The official NBA web site for the New Orleans Hornets states that George Shinn was from Kannapolis, not Charlotte. Any objections to making this change? 166.82.108.62 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

First of all, let me plead ignorance of the customs on our Wikipedia sports pages. This is certainly not my territory. But I must admit, I am baffled by something. I was reading about Kobe Bryant, specifically to learn about how he got drafted. Found out that he was drafted by the Charlotte Hornets. What surprised me was that there was an extant article specifically on the Charlotte Hornets. And it says that that Hornets team is "defunct". I was baffled, as I thought they had moved to New Orleans. So I guess my question is, why is New Orleans Hornets a separate article from Charlotte Hornets? Aren't they the same franchise? I mean, when I type in Milwaukee Braves, I am automatically redirected to Atlanta Braves, and I get all their history in Boston and Milwaukee at that article. When I type in Minneapolis Lakers, I am automatically redirected to Los Angeles Lakers, and I get their Minnesota history at that article. Oh, I know there are exceptions to this rule; I can't expect to type in Washington Senators and go straight to Texas Rangers, because there has been more than one Senators franchise in DC, and I know that I can't expect to get the early history of Baltimore's NFL team because of the unique circumstances of that deal, but is there anything special going on with the Hornets like that? I just don't know why they aren't one and the same article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I also take note of the fact that the following articles:
are all comprehensive, covering team history both in Charlotte and New Orleans. The need for a merge is obvious to me, and it's been over three months with no one objecting.HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've merged the articles. There's still the matter of articles linking to the old page that no longer exists. I don't know much about these, but if anyone else does, I'd love them to weigh in on the matter. Currently, I've changed about 15 of them or so, but there are literally hundreds. Does anyone know if this sort of thing (which I have done perhaps once before, years ago) can now be done by a bot? And if so, do I need to put in a request, or does it happen automatically? I'm going to do a few more, and I'll keep coming back in the coming weeks, but it will take time (unless there are bots!). HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Links to the redirect shouldn't be bypassed as per WP:NOTBROKEN. For instance, it might be desirable to redirect Charlotte Hornets (NBA) to a specific section of New Orleans Hornets or a separate article History of the New Orleans Hornets. TDL (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
THANK YOU! On one occasion, perhaps two years ago, when I did a major change to an article, it caused a bunch of articles to go through redirects to get to the now-proper place. I was explicitly told that I had made a mess, and that I was obligated to clean it up. My fear of having to do this here is part of what made me hesitate to make the change. Thank you for showing me that policy page, which states what I believed then and know now to be common sense. User:Danlaycock, you are my hero! HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem! There are some situations where it's desirable to correct links to redirects (like say a redirect from a typo) but generally all you have to worry about are the WP:Double redirects. TDL (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Post merge comments

Hmm Had I noticed this discussion I would have objected. Standards have been swinging lately to have teams that move have separate articles. There are exceptions, as you have noted the baseball project had been keeping them together, but lately they have started to be split apart. The biggest reason for difference in most cases is teams that moved before there was a Wikipedia and teams that moved after there was a Wikipedia. Every National Hockey League team for example has separate articles for teams that have moved. The basketball project has started to split articles see the Vancouver Grizzlies and the Seattle Supersonics. The baseball project has begrudgingly began to split its articles Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. But they have also done things like redirect the name to specific history pages of the franchise during that time. The NFL I haven't looked into since they haven't had a lot of moves in recent years. But generally WP:SUMMARYSTYLE does indicate that eventually these pages should be split into individual pages. Of course some do disagree with that. I should note that the Charlotte Hornets team was defunct but the franchise was active. The two are often treated to mean the same thing but they are different. It is most likely where your confusion came from. In general people typing in Charlotte Hornets are not looking for information on the New Orleans Hornets. So making them go to a tangentially-related page with a lot of information not relevant to what they are looking for can cause equal or more confusion. In the end more information can be presented to the reader when split into two pages than being on a single page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you missed my post. I certainly hope you don't think I acted hastily. Now I will say that I'm glad you came here, because I have been trying to understand why these would be split. Reading through your explanation (not that I saying it's a comprehensive effort) you note:
The biggest reason for difference in most cases is teams that moved before there was a Wikipedia and teams that moved after there was a Wikipedia.
In my view this is a completely unacceptable "biggest reason" or reason at all for separating the articles. It reeks of WP:RECENTISM, and, even worse, injects a self-referential attitude into the articles. The decision to create a particular article should have nothing to do with when Wikipedia was created. That would be akin to saying that we should have one article that comprehensively covers all 27 constitutional amendments that were ratified before Wikipedia's creation in 2001, but any amendments passed afterwards will each get their own article.
Your point about the team and the franchise being separate entities is valid, but rarely applicable, as in most cases the two are kept together. In the NFL, only once has a team's records not followed the franchise to the new city (Cleveland Browns). In such a case, then of course the moving franchise needs its own article. But that's not what happened here. Every team record set in Charlotte is subject to being broken in New Orleans. Why? Because they are the same team. If I recall correctly, Chris Johnson, of the Tennessee Titans, just broke a team rushing record, one that dated to a player who wore the uniform of the Houston Oilers. Separating these can only cause greater confusion.
Of course, the powers that be have only confused things worse by resurrecting names of teams that have moved on (such as the multiple incarnations of the Washington Senators). And if, as rumor has it, the Hornets name gets moved back to Charlotte and placed on the current Bobcats, that will make things extremely murky. But unnecessarily creating extra articles will only multiply that confusion, in my opinion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
DJSasso, I've finally read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I find no support for your argument there. While it obviously does speak of splitting articles, it hardly dictates anything that pertains to sports teams relocating. Rather, it states,
The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split.
So the issue that determines whether or not to split is length, not the topic. Yes, once the article is so long that it needs to be split, then a logical place to split it is determined by topic (such as when a sports team changes to another city), but the "additional topic" of moving to another city does not require or even suggest a need to split the article. Now should the Hornets' article be split? The question that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE says must be asked is this: Is the article too long? Well, here's how I see it: If New York Yankees, at approximately 10,000 words, does not need to be split, then New Orleans Hornets, with less than half as many words, doesn't need to be split, either.
One last thing. You state above that, In general people typing in Charlotte Hornets are not looking for information on the New Orleans Hornets. On what basis do you make that statement? I disagree with that completely--if I want information on the team, I want all the information on team I can get, especially team history across all time. For me, looking for information on the Charlotte Hornets is no different than looking for information on the New Orleans Hornets, because they are the same team. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been looking at other NBA teams that have relocated, since you stated, "Standards have been swinging lately to have teams that move have separate articles.". So here's what I've found, about teams that have relocated (NBA only):
Single article teams
  1. Atlanta Hawks
  2. Los Angeles Lakers
  3. Detroit Pistons
  4. Golden State Warriors
  5. Washington Wizards
  6. Houston Rockets
  7. Brooklyn Nets
  8. Utah Jazz
Multiple article teams--one article per city
  1. Philadelphia 76ers
  2. San Antonio Spurs
  3. Memphis Grizzlies
  4. Seattle SuperSonics--while there are two articles (one each for the SSS and the OKCT), this is a very special case, given the condition that the NBA put on the team's move (the "shared history" proviso)
Inconsistent usage--see explanation
  1. Sacramento Kings; while the team's time in Cincinnati has a separate article, its time in KC and Sacremento are in the same article--simply inconsistent.
  2. Los Angeles Clippers; like the Kings, is inconsistent, with a separate article for the team's time in Buffalo, but with teams' time in San Diego and Los Angeles together in one article.
The first thing I note is most teams' articles do not follow the standard that you believe is the norm. And if you think that things are trending that way, I would simply that this is actually an indication of WP:RECENTISM; possibly younger readers, with a less developed sense of history, who are perhaps not fully cognizant of the fact that franchise relocation has been going on for over 100 years, and that creating separate articles for each stop of a team's journey will actually yield greater, not lesser, confusion. Imagine what confusion would be wrought by a standard practice of multiple articles in the case of the Oakland Raiders [1960-1981 in Oakland, 1982-1994 in Los Angeles, 1995-present back in Oakland.] Tell me, would you make that two articles or three?— Preceding unsigned comment added by HuskyHuskie (talk • contribs)
It is really quite simple, merging into a single article inevitably leads to undue weight and WP:RECENTISM. Because something ends up having to be cut in order for an article to stay the size that pages are supposed to approximately be which is 60k and more often than not it is the older information that is. In this particular case it isn't a problem now, but it will be eventually. And if you read my comments above you will see that I mentioned most that are merged together are articles where the teams moved before there was a Wikipedia. Which in the very large number of discussions I have been in involving this situation is usually explained that people just created one article for all of their locations because of the same reason you have laid out, they are the same franchise. And once they were that way it became hard to separate the articles into more than one article because its easier to merge than to split. Separating the articles makes it easier to follow the transition from location to location by keeping the majority of the information in its own encapsulated page while having a short summary linking it to the previous incarnations. It also allows for more detail on both incarnations which is of greater help to the reader than the help they might receive by being a single page. As for people searching for the old team name say Vancouver Grizzlies instead of Memphis Grizzlies. I know I personally if I am looking for the Vancouver incarnation I could care less about the Memphis incarnation. If I wanted the information for the franchise in general I would have searched for the Memphis team and then followed the wikilinks to the previous information if I wanted it. That is sort of the point of the wiki language. This isn't even bringing into the fact that fans generally don't continue to follow a team after it moves. With your Oakland Raiders situation, it is unique and would be an exception I am guessing. I personally would probably just split out the LA time to its own article and have the Oakland time together depending on the size of the resulting article. But I wouldn't object to two Oakland articles. Sort of like there is Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) except in their case they were two franchises so not the same situation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My replies to your comments:

  • merging into a single article inevitably leads to undue weight and WP:RECENTISM
I think I understand your point there, but if you're correct, then you should be calling for New York Yankees and Chicago Cubs to be divided as well. If those teams, which have existed for well over 100 years, can exist with only one article, then I think that the Grizzlies, which have existed for less than 20 years, can fit their history into one article as well.
  • if you read my comments above you will see that I mentioned most that are merged together are articles where the teams moved before there was a Wikipedia
If you read my comments above, I replied to that specific point. Making a decision about whether or not a team's article should be split or not based upon the incidental fact of whether it happened before or after Wikipedia was created is self-referential and, for lack of a better term, non-professional. See my point above regarding constitutional amendments for an illustration of how this idea comes across.
  • once they were that way it became hard to separate the articles into more than one article because its easier to merge than to split.
I couldn't disagree more. Splitting an article—especially when the split is chronological in nature—would seem to be easy as pie. You just cut and paste. But merging an article, given the issue of leads and sections on teams records, etc., would seem to be much more difficult. Granted, that's just my opinion. And your opinion is just that—yours.
  • Separating the articles makes it easier to follow the transition from location to location
This is completely untrue. While yes, with wikilinks, it is relatively easy to go to another article, it is certainly not easier than if the information is in the same article.
  • It also allows for more detail on both incarnations which is of greater help to the reader than the help they might receive by being a single page.
Of course you are correct on this point—more detail is possible in a longer article. But do you have an example of where, say, Memphis Grizzlies or New Orleans Hornets was hurting for room and information had to be left out until the article was split? Again, as I said, if this is true for a <20 year old franchise, then it must also be true for the Chicago Cubs.
  • I know I personally if I am looking for the Vancouver incarnation I could care less about the Memphis incarnation.
This is possibly the biggest difference between us. You say you could not care less about the Memphis incarnation if you are looking for information about Vancouver. But DJ, this presupposes that the person looking up the article already knows that the team has moved. We can't make such assumptions.
  • fans generally don't continue to follow a team after it moves
This, I fear, shows why we may never come to an agreement on this point. In my view, these articles are not written for "fans". There are hundreds of sports websites that cover the current team much better than Wikipedia can do, and that's fine, because that's not our job. We are not a fan website. We are an encyclopedia. If fans come here for information, that's wonderful. If we tailor our articles trying to please "fans" we lose sight of our encylopedic mission.
  • You say, regarding the NFL Raiders, I personally would probably just split out the LA time to its own article and have the Oakland time together depending on the size of the resulting article.
This is just my personal opinion, but that is amazing. Thank goodness no one over at Oakland Raiders sees it that way. It's one article, as (IMO) it should be, and I doubt anyone is getting lost.

Well, DJ, again, I thank you for your courteous replies. While I think your ideas are misguided, I respect you and the consistent way you present them. I'm undecided how much time I can spend on this issue, so I suppose, ultimately, you and your like minded editors will have your way everywhere. But I can't say that I look forward to seeing two articles on the Chicago Bears, three articles on the Oakland Raiders, and five articles on the Atlanta Hawks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed?

I'm sure this article could use some more citations. But that's probably true of 99.999% of our articles. When someone tags an article, like this one, with a "citations needed" tag, I'd like them to give us an idea of what specific concern they have. Because otherwise, we can add source after source without having any idea if we've corrected the problem. I mean, obviously the best thing would be for the tagger to find the needed sources themselves, but if they're not going to make that effort, then they at least owe the rest of us some guidance. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fleur de Bee

Just saw this logo for the first time. Needs to be incorporated into the article. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "official" logo for the team has not changed--the fleur thing is just an alternate (though I like it, too). HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Change to New Orleans Pelicans

The name of the team changed to the New Orleans Pelicans, but New Orleans Pelicans links to the former New Orleans Hornets name. Is there a reason why this is still the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahudson (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the 2012–13 season is still under way, so the team is still competing as the Hornets. See http://www.nba.com/hornets/ (or the lack of a page at www.nba.com/pelicans/). —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
IMO it should be changed to the Pelicans after the 2013 NBA Finals. 108.250.205.112 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, after the season the title of this article should be moved/changed to New Orleans Pelicans, as opposed to creating an entirely new article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The team is now officially the New Orleans Pelicans. http://www.nba.com/pelicans/news/new-orleans-pelicans-officially-adopt-new-namesake Please make the necessary changes. EvWill (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The page move request is below at #Requested move.—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

New Orleans Hornets → New Orleans Pelicans – The New Orleans Hornets officially adopted "Pelicans" as their new nickname on April 18.[1] In the past however, some have trumped WP:COMMONNAME over a new official name e.g. Talk:Metta_World_Peace/Archive_1#Requested_move. The move is inevitable, but since the page is move protected, I figure we should discuss this in lieu of an admin making an executive decision. —Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Move I don't think we need to worry about WP:COMMONNAME. The name change was expected to happen for some time, and we can be reasonably sure that all major sources will begin referring to the team as the Pelicans. No one calls the Washington Wizards the Bullets anymore (unless they're talking about the team in a historical context.) Zagalejo^^^ 16:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move. Actually could probably be requested as uncontroversial. May just do that.oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have seen where this could be considered controversial, as I explained at the already-existing RM proposal at Talk:New_Orleans_Hornets#Requested_move. While I support the move, as an admin, I didn't see it as a purely non-controversial move, else I would have done it myself. Be patient, it will be moved in time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Striking good faith merge of my comments from WP:RM/TR that are out of context here. The "oppose" was to a technical move request opened after this RM request. I did not see a need to have competing requests, especially when there was some doubt at the time that it could be controversial. I do not oppose this move (as I am the proposer of this RM).—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Move They're the Pelicans now. What's to debate? Raider Duck (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Move Kind of silly to open a move request. I would have just moved it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Different to the Metta World Peace issue. There was genuine concern there that the new name wouldn't stick, like the wide receiver formerly known as Chad Ochocinco. This is instead purely analogous to the Brooklyn Nets situation just about 1 year ago. No need to belabor the move just to fulfill some process (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). If it will be moved in time, then there's no good reason to delay the move and make the encyclopedia look worse (Yes, WP:IAR). oknazevad (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Note: This thread was merged here from WP:RM/TR by User:Steel1943—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • At the time of my RM request, nobody had initiated a technical move. It did seem possible (though I didn't support it) that a move would be contested based on the precedent I cited with people's name changes. I acted conservatively instead of using my admin powers to unilaterally override the sysop-only move protection. If any admin wants to declare WP:SNOW in that discussion and move it now, I certainly would support it. However, it seemed to add to the bureaucracy to add a new "uncontroversial" request, when a " potentially controversial" request already existed for the same article.—Bagumba (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment as the editor who merged these comments. Due to this discussion currently happening, and due to there being at least one "Oppose" vote, I moved the comments here. However, as the voting currently stands, I can see this being closed and moved per WP:SNOW. However, as a non-admin, I am unable to perform the move myself. Any admin who is not WP:INVOLVED sees this, if you feel this this is a WP:SNOW situation as well, feel free to do the honors. Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Charlotte Hornets logo caption

  • The caption below the Charlotte Hornets logo reads, "The original Charlotte Hornets logo used by franchise from 1990 to 2002. It will be used by the current Charlotte Bobcats renamed Hornets franchise beginning in 2014." While it's true that the Bobcats will rename themselves to the Hornets in 2014, isn't saying that they'll go back to this logo, still speculation at this point? ekedolphin (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Orleans_Pelicans/Archive_1&oldid=1139992191"