Talk:Oklahoma City Thunder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conference

Are we sure that the team will be playing in the NW division of the Western Conference? I know that is the division the Sonics played in, but shouldn't we wait until there is an official announcement from the NBA before saying what division and conference the team will be in? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should wait. It wouldn't make sense geographically for the team to play in the NW division, but the NBA might not want to change the conferences just yet. But anything we could say is speculation at this point. We know nothing, and we shouldn't be a crystal ball. Okiefromokla ^complaints 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the NBA hasn't announced which division OKC will play next season (though presumably it will be in the Western Conference). Obviously at least one other team will have to move if OKC changes division, but the NBA hasn't mentioned anything like that. So, for now it seems fairly reasonable to me to keep OKC in the Northwest Division, if only as a place-holder. Quicksilvre (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, they are part of the Northwest Division, and will be until further stated. If they do indeed play in a different conference, no team is going to relocate to fix the divisions. They will go through a just division realignment if needed. Rackliffe

Temporary Logo

I added the official temporary logo as seen on the official website. Jbrown84 (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work to do

We need to add everything we know about the current team. That means players (e.g. Kevin Durant), coaches, and this latest NBA draft. Okiefromokla ^complaints 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I added an Under Construction template only because it seems like there is at least one or two editors currently working on the article substantially. Feel free to remove it at any time. Okiefromokla ^complaints 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This page needs a total overhaul, it is totally pro-OKC and needs to be NPOV. I'd fix it, but the page is "protected" to keep Sonics fans from telling their side of the story. The way this whole move went down is making your city look really bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.106.229 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Durant

Would players like Durant need to have the Sonics listed as a former team, with the new OKC franchise as the current one? --Madchester (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the best way to go. Okiefromokla ^complaints

"Shared history"

This changes the scope of the article. If the OKC team is somehow keeping the franchise history of the SuperSonics (or "sharing" it with them), the vast majority of the SuperSonics article needs to be copied over. But that would, of course, mean that we'd have two articles with duplicated information. How should we deal with this? Okiefromokla ^complaints 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Theyre not. as of now, this franchise is a clean slate. by the end of the year, Kevin Durant will be the leading scorer in history. You get it now? --Twlighter (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Summary here with {{main|Seattle SuperSonics#Franchise history}} at the top of the franchise history section here. Problem solved. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The team's official announcement states fairly clearly that the team is the successor to the old Seattle Supersonics, albeit under a new nickname. This is not a Cleveland Browns-type deal where the Baltimore Ravens pretended to be an expansion team. If Seattle ever gets a new team, they will be free to call themselves the Supersonics and to use the old logo and color scheme; also the new Seattle team will be free to "share" the "franchise history." It would be as if the old Seattle Supersonics team split into two successor teams. We don't even know if there will be a new Seattle team, let alone if that new team will in fact choose to call itself the "Supersonics." The only thing which has been made specific as of July 3, 2008 is that the nickname will change. (BTW, in the case of the Browns, the NFL was definitely planning to expand in the late 1990s, the city of Cleveland had plans to build a new stadium, and the ownership was already in place for the new Browns who emerged in 1999. Those factors are missing in this case: the NBA is not planning on expanding; no existing teams are openly planning to move; no new arena is being built; and no ownership group has been put together.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Timothy. That was my understanding to this point. Thanks for confirmation; I wasn't totally sure. Okiefromokla ^complaints 02:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Watching ESPN this morning (SportsCenter, approx. 12:00 UTC, 3 Jul 2008), and the mayor's announcement referred to Seattle keeping the "history" of the Sonics as well as the name. I'm not sure his comments would be exactly neutral, though. I know the culture of Wikipeida is to change everything right now :) , but I think we should proceed with caution about who has custody of the history of the team until the NBA makes some sort of definitive statement. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See #Franchise history. The OKC team and any future Seattle team will have a shared pre-2008 history per the settlement agreement between city and PBC. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If seattle is keeping all the histories then the championships should be 0 Rcollins03 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The OKC team is also keeping the history. Please see the banner at the top of this page. Okiefromokla ^complaints 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This "shared history" thing is complete nonsense. I don't get why they feel they have to hold onto another city's history sooooo badly. It's not like anyone in their right mind is gonna associate this new Oklahoma team with the Seattle SuperSonics in any way, other than under the scope of this relocation circus. But I suppose that unfortunately... very, very unfortunately, it is what it is. Stealth Matrix (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Championship template

Should the 1978-79 championship template be added. Erik93 (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the OKC team, not the SuperSonics. Much like the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns, it's a new team after relocation. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, add the template. OKC is taking the franchise history, and we are including such information in this article. I don't see why that template shouldn't be added. I think we need to make clear that the entire team is indeed moving (not creating a new team) and is only leaving the name behind. This is the same franchise that won the 78-79 championship. Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with conman. The Sonics heritage is being left behind in Seattle, so there is no need for the template on the OKC article. The Sonics championship template should stay with the Sonics article. Dknights411 (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really a matter of whether or not the team is taking the Seattle franchise history. And apparently, it is. We need to reflect that in the article. Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the settlement agreement, the "name, logo, and colors" stay with Seattle, but it doesn't say anything about the records.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it has been widely stated that the teams will share the history, and that includes past championships. Rackliffe —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roster

How about the players with the 10 day contracts, Wilks and Dupree? Should we keep them on the roster? I removed Gelabale because he is no longer with the Sonics. I know Dupree is still associated with the Sonics because he is with their summer league team in Orlando: [2] Dai from okc (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Franchise history

Can we all calm down with adding and subtracting franchise history? If they raise a '78-79 championship banner at the Ford Center, that's one thing. Right now we're just taking shots in the dark. Let's wait, see how this all plays out and then add what is necessary. -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the settlement was that OKC and any future Seattle team would share their histories (at the discretion of the new Seattle team's owners), so the franchise history should be included here. See Section 6 of the settlement.[3] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 13:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The situation seems similar to hockey teams in the 90's. Sure they legally are, but nobody will consider the Quebec Nordiques and the Colorado Avalanche the same team. I very much doubt this team will lay claim to anything more then the records of the Sonics, there will be no banner in the Ford Center and there will more then likely not be a Sean Kemp number retirement ceremony there. If we're keeping the articles separate, I'd say keep this one as if it were an expansion team and link people back to the Sonics article both in the intro and in the history section. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the majority of the Supersonics' history at Seattle SuperSonics is as far as we can go in that direction. Because the franchise history is officially being carried over (and then will be shared if a new Seattle team is formed), we have to aknowledge that the OKC team has the same history as the SuperSonics and that should be aknowledged in this article's infobox, etc. This "shared history" thing is mentioned in the settlement, but perhaps the NBA will make a direct statement regarding that soon and this will be cleared up. Okiefromokla ^complaints 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue of franchise history being a recurring issue of misunderstanding. I propose we create a talk page banner that informs editors that the franchise history of the Supersonics is indeed being carried over to this new OKC team. It could have a link to the settlement. Kind of like a FAQ, but with one question. What does everyone think? Okiefromokla ^complaints 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Okiefromokla ^complaints 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Okay.. Seriously guys.. Check out the importance scale of WP:NBA. The best known team in the league is the Lakers and the Celtics and they are only a High, there is no way in heck this team is a Top importance to the league. Outside of fans of the NBA, no one gives a crap about this team and even then its iffy. The Sonics were a mid, there is no reason why this team should be anything but a mid. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to C.Fred's comment, I think importance should be permanent and not influenced by something being in the news at the moment. But I have to admit that WP NBA's rating system is just downright odd and confusing. Why are the Toronto Raptors more important than the Lakers, or more bizarrely, the Celtics, who have the most championships in NBA history? It's hard to know what to rate teams under this system. Okiefromokla ^complaints 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Except the Lakers haven't gone through a major change like this. "The criteria used for rating article importance ... attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it)" (emphasis added). In the long run, yes, this is a mid-importance article. However, there's a greater immediate need for a good article, hence why I favor high. If you prefer, I can put in a request for assessment at the project page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The interest in this team is not in the team itself, but in the relocation. The average reader of Wikipedia is not going to be looking up this topic, most of the world is not overly interested in NBA. Even within the US, you're looking at a small percentage of the population of readers that will look up the team. Additionally, if someone is going to be looking for information on the relocation, they are not going to be coming to this article, they are going to be coming to Seattle SuperSonics. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, if they search for the information, they'll search the Sonics article. If they come via the NBA article, they'll come here, since the lists of teams now point here. At any rate, I think the critical information for now is probably in the article on the relocation, so this article isn't of unusual importance. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But seriously: The Toronto Raptors are more important than the Lakers and Celtics? Does anyone have an explanation for that? I should probably bring this up at WP:NBA, but there has to be something obvious that I don't know about or this would have been changed a while ago. Okiefromokla ^complaints 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Who merged the articles? Where was the consensus for this? What the hell is going on? -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It was someone who apparently didn't notice that a consensus was reached in the first place. I'll try to reason with him. Dknights411 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We do need to reach consensus on this merge. It might be hard since consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the article as is. Okiefromokla ^complaints 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion until the end of Schultz's lawsuit

This article should be deleted until Schultz's lawsuit ends and if the lawsuit becomes successful this article should be deleted until 2010, I will not delete it until it is approved. MrJanitor1 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. But the OKC team will play at least one season in OKC under a different name than the "SuperSonics" before that lawsuit's result is finalized. Therefore, this article is needed. Remember the legal system we're talking about: "innocent until proven guilty". We can't change anything until the time comes that the Schultz lawsuit succeeds. Until then, we have to treat this move as a done deal since that is the official situation with respect to the law and the NBA. Somewhat relevant is the fact that most legal experts don't give the lawsuit much of a chance at all at this point. Okiefromokla ^complaints 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty?" Didn't know we were dealing with a criminal trial. Oh wait, we're not. I guess the "legal experts" that you rely on so much should have pointed out that it is a civil case & the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." That is assuming there is a legal basis to the case in the first place of course. But "innocent until proven guilty" definitely does not apply. But, not that he (Shultz) is going to be successful, certainly no prudent and reasonable person would believe that the new ownership group had any intentions of, nor made any real efforts to keep the team in Seattle (I can't believe Shultz even believed it.....but now that he became villified.....he feigns outrage that he was not dealt with in good faith). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, the team's gonna unveil an entirely new identity in the coming weeks, so deletion is no longer an option. Dknights411 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to add that Oklahoma City's NBA team already had a summer league game earlier today. --Reezy (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be deleted. They are already in OKC, they already played in the Summer League, the relocation is done, they are choosing the team name. Seattle can do nothing, they lost their team. So, the OKC team is arleady a active team in the NBA. Don't delete it. Brady4mvp (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Name Speculation

The announcers from the Orlando Pro Summer League mentioned that the unofficial, speculative name for the new club would be the "Thundercats." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.183.176 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope not. Okiefromokla ^complaints 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, would that make Bennett Lion-O or Mumm-Ra? (Sorry, couldn't resist) Anywho, should really avoid discussion speculation about the new teams name until that speculation is supported by actual reliable sources rather than the announcers of a Pro Summer League... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it official that they team will be called the Thunder? Hanksummers (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is official... but this article should include the origin of the name. Anyone have any story behind why "Thunder" was chosen? The logo doesn't offer much clues or connection to that name. --Heavy (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tornado alley? Louis Waweru  Talk  21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Merged Sonics and new OKC team pages

I felt it was best to merge these pages, as teams such as the Vancouver Grizzlies, Charlotte Hornets, New Orleans Jazz, and others also redirect to the current franchises. --Jdrouskirsh (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unmerged, per discussion here (Merger section) and at Talk:Seattle SuperSonics. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please attempt to gain consensus before making such changes. --- (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

• Charlotte Hornets redirects to New Orleans Hornets
• Vancouver Grizzlies redirects to Memphis Grizzlies
• Rochester Royals, Cincinnati Royals and Kansas City Kings redirects to Sacramento Kings
• Buffalo Braves and San Diego clippers redirects to Los Angeles Clippers
• New Orleans Jazz redirects to Utah Jazz
• New York Nets redirects to New Jersey Nets
• Dallas Chaparrals redirects to San Antonio Spurs
• Baltimore Bullets redirects to Washington Wizards
• San Diego Rockets redirects to Houston Rockets
• Tri-City Blackhawks, Milwaukee Hawks, St. Louis Hawks redirects to Atlanta Hawks
• Chicago Zephyrs redirects to Washington Wizards
• Philadelphia Warriors redirects to Golden St. Warriors
• Minneapolis Lakers redirects to Los Angeles Lakers
• Fort Wayne Pistons redirects to Detroit Pistons

So why should this be any different?

If you wanna look at other sports:

NFL:

• Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans
• Since the current Cleveland Browns are considered a continuation of the team that left for Baltimore and the Ravens are considered an expansion team, there is no seperate page for the two incarnations of the franchise
• Los Angeles Raiders redirects to Oakland Raiders
• Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams redirects to St. Louis Rams
• St. Louis Cardinals redirects to Arizona Cardinals
• Baltimore Colts redirects to Indianapolis Colts
• Chicago Cardinals redirects to Arizona Cardinals
• Boston Redskins redirects to Washington Redskins
• Portsmouth Spartans redirects to Detroit Lions
• Decatur Staleys redirects to Chicago bears

MLB:

• both versions of the Washington Senators redirects to the current MLB franchise (Twins and Rangers)
• Seattle Pilots redirects to Milwaukee Brewers
• Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics redirects to Oakland Athletics
• Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves redirects to Atlanta Braves
• New York Giants redirects to San Francisco Giants
• Brooklyn Dodgers redirects to Los Angeles Dodgers
• St. Louis Browns redirects to Baltimore Orioles

I think this list says it all as to why the two pages should be merged....either split up all these articles, or merge the sonic and the okc nba articles. --Jdrouskirsh (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the recently completed discussion here. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, it's more than a cut and dried split all/merge all rule. The Montreal Expos, as noted above, have a stand-alone article, as do the Atlanta Flames, Baltimore Stallions, Colorado Rockies (NHL), Hartford Whalers, and Winnipeg Jets. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping anyone from splitting those articles. By all means, make a Brooklyn Dodgers article. I doubt you'll get too much resistance. -MichiganCharms (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that fans of the former incarnations of the above mentioned teams either don't care enough to split those teams into seperate articles, or the history in the prior cities is so short and unmemorable that nobody has yet to bother seperating them. Add the fact that the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals and Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Name Pendings relocations have taken place after Wikipedia's beginnings (plus both teams experienced name changes upon relocating), and thus the OLD team articles were already in existance; there was no article splitting required from either. Besides, who in OKC other than a few former Sonics followers really cares about the prior history in Seattle, anyway? Stealth Matrix (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Shared team histories

With the possibility very great that an NBA franchise will return to Seattle in the upcoming years, I think it's going to be very hard to continue this line of thought. If the history and legacy of the Sonics is left in Seattle, it can't be shared with what is now a completely different team. Stan Simmons (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the NBA's problem to address, since from what they've stated so far, the history will be shared. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends of course on what the new team, if any, feels will aid its marketing efforts the most. An existing team moving into the Seattle market would most likely prefer to use its own history. A new team might possibly prefer to make a fresh start. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

A user has expressed interest in moving the page to Oklahoma City National Basketball Association franchise. Personally, I think it's a good idea. What does everyone else think? Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to move at all. I think the current name is good already.—Chris! _ct 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Team seems clearer than franchise to me. I say stay with the simpler word. No move. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think team sounds better than franchise, keep team.--CPacker (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I like "franchise" because the article's scope is more than the team itself — it includes actions by ownership. Complete NBA entities (players, personnel, owners) are usually referred to as "franchises" by the league and sports authorities. Either way, this is a temporary name. Not a big deal to me. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt we'll need this name very much longer anyway, If franchise is a re-direct here then I don't see an issue. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I think, unlike other pro sports teams, this one won't even play a single regular-season game without a mascot in place. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about protecting this page so that it doesn't get moved anymore without consensus? Just because a blog said that it was going to be named the Thunder does not make it so. Let's just wait until David Stern makes an announcement and www.nba.com shows a name. Cacophony (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The page is being constantly attacked by vandalism. Brady4mvp (Talk to me) 22:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur.—Chris! _ct 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference anyway? It sounds like a OCD diagnosed wikipedia editor doing stupid crap again. --Twlighter (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT ADD THE NEW NICKNAME UNTIL IT HAS BEEN REVEALED BY THE TEAM ITSELF!!!

That is all. Dknights411 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

+1. The name, logo, and colours will like be revealed together by the team sometime in the near future. We generally don't jump to conclusions based on info leaked by a "source". --Madchester (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There are reports now that the team will be called the Thunder.-DANO- (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Most notably, here and here. The articles note that the NBA registrar has secured okcthunderbasketball.com and okcthunderbasketball.net. Still, an announcement needs to come from the NBA or the team itself before any changes are made. Stan Simmons (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree perfectly with what you said, Dknights411, but try to keep a more civil tone next time. Such yelling will not convince many people of anything, except to think that you're extremely angry and might need to take a vacation from Wikipedia. Tom Danson (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean for it to be yelling. I put it in all caps as an attention grabber. I'm sorry if others thought otherwise. Dknights411 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the announcement has to come from the NBA? What Wikipedia precedent defined this? Last time I checked, several major newspapers and publications was enough to satisfy WP:V.↔NMajdan•talk 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because major newspapers and publications won't publish anything stating the team's name without an announcement from the NBA. Without that announcement, it's speculation, and reliable publications will report it as such. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only one source has reported that the name will be "Thunder". Since then, news organizations have only been relaying the report. Nothing has been confirmed by the NBA; all that we know is that an anonymous source, which KOCO in OKC calls "close to the ownership group", has said that the name will be "Thunder". We need to relay what KOCO has reported, but it's jumping the gun a bit to move the article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Move protected

I have move-protected this article for one month. When the NBA makes an official announcement of the team's name (which will be covered by many reliable sources), I or another admin will remove the move protection and the article can be moved to the new location. Until that time, it will remain at Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team. Horologium (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was actually going to request move protection anyway. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks to Cacophony for doing it first. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection, as I still see IP and newly-registered editors attempting to change the name. Hopefully the NBA will release a statement soon. Horologium (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error with new trademarks?

It's not a spelling error. I've looked at multiple news sites and all have used the spelling "Marshalls" (like the department store), and not "Marshals" (like the U.S. Marshals). Either news services are repeating one report that has the spelling wrong, and no one has noticed, or the NBA really did file for "Marshalls". I'd say, at this point, let's keep it "Marshalls" and see if we can find a news service that has the correct spelling. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Glancing through the dictionary, it appears that "Marshall" is actually a plausible variant of "Marshal". [4] False alarm. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not merge?

I don't get why we shouldn't merge this article with the Seattle Supersonics. they're both the same franchise but different names. That's it. There's no article for the Minneapolis Lakers, San Francisco Warriors, etc. They're all merged into the current team of the franchise. -- K. Annoyomous24 02:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the current consensus. -MichiganCharms (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by consensus. -- K. Annoyomous24 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that it would be best to keep the articles separate. Those discussions are here and here. Cacophony (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But consensus can change. So if you feel you have something new and valid to add to the discussion, please feel free to do so. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But if I made a article like persay, List of Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team (which I maybe will), can I only put coaches who coached for the Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team or can i put both the coaches of Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team. -- K. Annoyomous24 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the Oklahoma City team history will include history back in Seattle, the list should contain all the coaches back in Seattle.—Chris! _ct 05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seattle held on to the naming rights and all colors, etc of the SuperSonics. So it is very possible that in the future, the SuperSonics could reform. In that case, would it be treated as a separate entity since the real Supersonics moved to OKC, or as a continuation?↔NMajdan•talk 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason for the non-merger: if Seattle gets a new franchise, the old Sonics history will (per the NBA) be shared among the two franchises. So you'd have a tree with two branches, and it's easier to have the base of the tree in one article, and separate articles for the branches. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History

Okay, this new OKC team has no championships or anything. All of that remained in Seattle if you understood the deal. When Seattle gets a new team (probably Memphis), then they will be called the Sonics and have all of the history back. OKC is just creating a new franchise from scratch basically. Go read up on the deal and see for yourself. It is not a shared history whatsoever.

Hell, in an article cited here, it says: "As a result, the SuperSonics are headed to Oklahoma City with Bennett leading the way, leaving behind the team name, colors and 41 years of history."

XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet it also says Oklahoma City is getting duplicates of, among other things, the Sonics' championship banners and trophy. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Bennett owns the rights to the Sonics' names and colors. He's just agreed not to use them. That source [5] is cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even then, nothing is even finalized yet. The article (Wiki) states it as fact, when it isn't. They are still trying to figure out what they will do with the history. But besides that, the NBA and Bennett robbed Seattle of a perfectly good team. They'll pay for it (going to an extremely small market with as horrible franchise). XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sonics won 20 games last season. To be honest, Bennet is saving seattle. besides its over with. they signed a contract. get over it. --Twlighter (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of getting over something. It is a matter of how best to treat the subject and content of this article. If you have nothing constructive to add, please move on.↔NMajdan•talk 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad there's professional wikipedians out there. I still won't get over it. I'm staying out of this article 'cause I can't be neutral! I simply, humbly, add to the consensus that Seattle should keep its own page, for the time being at least. Khirad (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tulsa 66ers Purchase

The PBC purchased the Tulsa 66ers on July 31, 2008, however the OKC NBA Wikipedia page still lists the 66ers with Milwaukee as their affiliate, when OKC is now the sole affilaiate per the purchase agreement. Can you please update this? Thank you. Okcguy1 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Okcguy1

 Done. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparent nickname leak?

The Oklahoman reported today that the NBA may have leaked the nickname of the franchise.[6] "When the league released its schedule on Wednesday, the NBA web site linked to a page that listed the 'Oklahoma City Thunder schedule' and clicking on any of the Oklahoma City’s 82 games took you to the url — www.nba.com/thunder."

Still speculation, or is this concrete enough to warrant a mention in the article, in the context of a leak? —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to add this. Once the name is released later this month, it wouldn't be necessary to keep this event in the article, and Wikipedia isn't a news service. If absolutely necessary to include this, we have to make sure no conclusions are made by us. That is, we can't say something like "it appears more likely that 'Thunder' will be the name because of a leak that...". In fact, I would shy away from calling it a “leak” at all, as that would be drawing a conclusion. If anything, one informative sentence would say something like “for a brief time when the schedule was being posted online, the name 'thunder' appeared in URL links”. To avoid original research, we would need to attribute any conclusions (like this being a leak of the soon-to-be name) to secondary sources like The Oklahoman. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not worth mentioning, but whereas previously www.nba.com/thunder led to a blank page, it now leads to a "File Not Found", along with the other five nickname possibilities. Additionally, the links in the schedules have been fixed and now point to www.nba.com/oklahomacity. The name will probably turn out to be the Thunder, but that'd be pretty wild if they just dropped those hints to throw people off the scent. 72.129.0.10 (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shared history revisited

An editor just removed the titles, etc. from the article. He did not cite a source, but I went online and found this news story. Most key quote: "While Seattle gets to keep the Sonics' trophies and banners, Clay Bennett's ownership group reserves the right to borrow or copy them."

That sure sounds like OKC still has the right to claim the shared history; they just don't get the actual artifacts. That also sounds like what's been said all along about the artifacts. I don't see anything that justifies stripping the shared history from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Logo

I recently went on this website and saw that there is another logo for the team which I think looks better than the one used right now. I currently don't have a computer which can upload the image. Just want to point that out to the main contributors of this article. -- K. Annoyomous24 01:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to a newspaper article on the 19th, the ownership plans to release the name and logo sometime in the span between today and five days from now, so I don't think we'll have to worry about the temporary logo too much longer. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's really great to hear! I'm really excited about the new nickname and logo. --Reezy (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its the OKC Thunder. The NBA Store has leaked the logo design by including in on apparel for sale.↔NMajdan•talk 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I just admin-deleted the previous redirect page and moved this page there. This is solid evidence, and the official unveiling is in less than an hour. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be a secondary logo(my god, if it's not, I might as well be dying inside), I would wait until 6 just in case.--209.6.228.181 (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll wait to put up the logo for another 45 minutes or so. At least, until they release a copy on the OKC Thunder website that can be used. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This news story was released by the Oklahoman 10 minutes ago. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo all OKC fans, beg that team to PLEASE change the logo!! 99.140.240.146 (talk)BigBoi29 —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

Team color on templates

I think the orange texts on blue background on both Template:Oklahoma City Thunder and Template:Oklahoma City Thunder roster are very hard to read. So I went ahead and changed the orange color to white on Template:Oklahoma City Thunder to improve readability, but was reverted twice by User:8-Hype with editing summaries like "Orange is also a color." Since I don't want to start an edit war, I want to bring it here and see what others think.—Chris! _ct 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But orange really is either the primary or the secondary color, and therefore should be included. Unfortunately, it indeed is hard to read, but that's just the way the Oklahoma City Thunder owners wanted it to be. ● 8~Hype ^@ 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you can switch it with the tertiary color or even another color to improve readability. This is Wikipedia so we don't have to follow exactly what colors the franchise used.—Chris! _ct 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so now we will use red and blue for the Celtics. ● 8~Hype ^@ 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being sarcastic and try to focus at the problem at hand. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't. This is a serious discussion.—Chris! _ct 20:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about like this? -- K. Annoyomous24_{Need to pee...} 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better than the previous version —Chris! _ct 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's alot easier to read.--CPacker (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now all we have to get is 8-Hype's reply. Lets just hope he approves this version and if he does, I'll change all the templates related to the Thunder to this version. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 07:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks very similar to the Golden State Warriors, but until the jerseys are released, this will do. But please change all the templates to these colors and take the colors from Template:NBA color. But I thinklight blue should be the main color and dark blue the secondary for now. ● 8~Hype ^@ 07:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have another version that I think you guys will like. Since 8-Hype wanted light blue to be the primary color, I just thought if this one. Sorry if this is making you angry. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ether one is fine as long as it is easy to read.—Chris! _ct 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll go right ahead and do it. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

The 5th word in the first paragraph should be "is", not "are". Thunder is a singular term. Check out the pages for the Heat, Magic, and Jazz if you don't believe me. I posted this yesterday and not only was no change made, but my comment was deleted. Does somebody here hate good grammar or something?

 Done I agree that it should be singular in most cases, but I'm also fairly confident that the AP's guideline for "singular" team names is to refer to them in the singular. Anyone have a link to the AP stylebook to confirm? Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the net, I'm getting some conflicting signs. This Q&A on APStylebook.com, for example, says that team names should always be plural, but looking through news articles from major newspapers about teams that have singular names, they all (except for articles about the Jazz) seem to refer to them in the singular. On Google news, I found a few articles that say "The Oklahoma City Thunder is" and none that use "are". Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the internally consistent usage is "is". I knew this issue happened in the last few months for the Atlanta Dream; that article uses "is". So, for any article in US English, it stands to reason that singular-mascot teams take "is". —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I changed it back to "is" again. When I first started reading the article, I stumbled on "The . . . Thunder are . . ." -- it didn't sound right at all. Also, note that in the second paragraph, it says, "the Thunder was established in 2007," not "the Thunder were established in 2007." DylanW (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Team color on template 2

User:8-Hype has changed the color on Template:Oklahoma City Thunder and Template:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons without consensus even though we had a discussion already (see 2 sections above). Anyone want to comment on that?—Chris! _ct 04:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I want to comments on that. The consesus was that the colors stay as pictured above until the release of the jerseys. The two main colors of the team are light blue and orange, with navy as the third color (proof: Kevin Durant's home shoes). I know, it may be hard to read, but that are the team's colors and we don't want to represent wrong colors. ● 8~Hype ^@ 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagreed. To say that the template is representing wrong colors is not correct since all four colors are used. I also don't see the need to follow the colors on jerseys exactly. Let's see if others want to comment on this issue.—Chris! _ct 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the home and away jerseys, it looks clear to me that the colors are light blue and orange. Also, I don't feel that the colors are hard to see, though it does look better on my version of colors.[7] -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But why do we have to follow the same set of colors on the jerseys for the templates? I don't understand.—Chris! _ct 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, I dont think we should follow the same set of colors on the jerseys for the templates. Also it is hard to read the with the new colors combinations. I think it should be changed back to the way it was.--CPacker ^{talk to me} 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to revive this problem. According to KV5 here, "Per WP:ACCESS, avoid color combinations that are difficult to read, such as the colors you have chosen for the Oklahoma City Thunder row. Something easier to read would be much more welcome.". So 8-Hype, Chris, and others, should we revert it back to my version, or keep it the same to disobey WP:ACCESS? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to keep the blue/yellow combination on List of Oklahoma City Thunder head coaches as it is nominating for fetured list. As for the templates, I would prefer using the original color due to readability and WP:ACCESS.—Chris! _ct 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The blue/yellow version is too similar to the New Orleans Hornets template. Navy/yellow or navy/orange would almost be identical to the Golden State Warriors. Here are some suggestions: ● 8~Hype ^@ 09:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While this is being decided, I'm going to temporarily change orange on blue to something more readable. The temporary colors aren't a vote for any particular combination. Louis Waweru  Talk  11:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Any one of these is fine as long as it is easy to read.—Chris! _ct 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll change the colors to the third version. ● 8~Hype ^@ 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Use the third suggestion, since I think it is the most clearest to read. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem anymore after User:8-Hype has changed the color using the third suggestion. I guess we can end this discussion.—Chris! _ct 19:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Why do we have to put the title of the template for this article, "Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Thunder"? The Pistons template don't put "Fort Wayne/Detroit Pistons". -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a consistency issue. For example, Template:Philadelphia 76ers says "Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers". Maybe we need a discussion on WT:NBA.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we do one page for the Sonics and Thunder

Just like we've done with the Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts, and probably more.--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First, the Baltimore Ravens have their own article. That's the issue here; there could be another child team of the Sonics that plays again in Seattle. That's one reason that the Sonics and Thunder are in separate articles.

Second, the precendent doesn't hold. See Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SEPERATE

Shouldn't the Sonics and Thunder have completely different achievements and such?