Talk:Trenton Titans
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ownership changes
[edit]Some of the recent changes to this article have given undue weight to non-notable details of the change in ownership. However, I do believe that the change of ownership is a notable event that is reasonable to include in this article in a simple, straightforward manner, without any artificial distinctions being made between owning and operating a team. I propose that the first sentence in the section "Trenton Titans (2011–current)" be changed to the following:
- Blue Line Sports LLC, managed by John and Eileen Martinson, took over the team, restoring the original Titans moniker and affiliating the team with the Philadelphia Flyers.
The last sentence in the section would be eliminated. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I was just trying to remove the undue weight and the minor details that really are unimportant. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Proposed changes
[edit]To any editor(s) who is persisting in restoring reverted changes: it would help greatly if you would discuss your specific proposed changes on this talk page, rather than continually restoring content that has been reverted, following the bold, revert, discuss process. Through discussion, we can reach a consensus on changes. For example, this edit seems reasonable to me, but since more restored changes came afterwards, which had issues with undue weight and lack of conciseness, it has just gotten lost. A little discussion will go a long way towards finding wording and content that make this article better. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- That edit and ones like it are the reason he keeps getting reverted. He is pushing a team vs franchise POV for no apparent reason. Either way at this point he is not able to discuss it on this talk page as he is blocked for sock puppeting with multiple accounts. Any edits would just get reverted and the IP blocked again. He has been reverted on that specific edit by atleast 3 editors a number of times that I have lost count of. It wasn't a lost edit it was an on purpose revert. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I propose restoring the edit; the specific uses of "franchise" in this edit seem in accordance with events, and do not unduly draw a distinction between "team" and "franchise" (they pretty much use the term as a synonym for team, as is the common practice for North American teams). I understand that in cases of edit warring, immediate reversion can be done. But in this case, I believe this specific edit (which is just one part of the original, overly verbose edits) is a reasonable copy-edit. The problem is when it is included amongst a set of other, less reasonable edits, then the tendency will be to revert everything (as I did when I reverted the change that introduced a number of grammatical issues; although a bit drastic, based on my evaluation, it was the best way to improve the article, and I made a few additional copy edits to improve the article's conciseness). isaacl (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Meh. While normally used synonymously, it seems that the use here was to push some sort of distinction. Honestly, I'm not even sure what that distinction was supposed to be; couple that with the useless "membership" redirects that were created (and already deleted), the bizarre claims of trying to figure out what was going to happen to the team's status when it was abundantly clear that the changes already happened, the general poor grammar of the edits, and the sock puppetry. The bottom line is the New Jersey Devils decided they didn't want to own the team anymore, the league found new owners, and the new owners reverted to the Titans name. The editor in question seems to want to create confusion (or is himself confused) as to this being the same team, not a new one. Whatever his motives, I don't take kindly to PoV pushing. oknazevad (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand and appreciate the concerns. However, in the specific case of this edit, I believe that usage is in alignment with general North American practice, regardless of what the editor's intent may have been when making the changes. I dislike failing to abide by community consensus, but I do believe this specific edit is an improvement. (I agree with the reversion of many, many other edits.) isaacl (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Meh. While normally used synonymously, it seems that the use here was to push some sort of distinction. Honestly, I'm not even sure what that distinction was supposed to be; couple that with the useless "membership" redirects that were created (and already deleted), the bizarre claims of trying to figure out what was going to happen to the team's status when it was abundantly clear that the changes already happened, the general poor grammar of the edits, and the sock puppetry. The bottom line is the New Jersey Devils decided they didn't want to own the team anymore, the league found new owners, and the new owners reverted to the Titans name. The editor in question seems to want to create confusion (or is himself confused) as to this being the same team, not a new one. Whatever his motives, I don't take kindly to PoV pushing. oknazevad (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I propose restoring the edit; the specific uses of "franchise" in this edit seem in accordance with events, and do not unduly draw a distinction between "team" and "franchise" (they pretty much use the term as a synonym for team, as is the common practice for North American teams). I understand that in cases of edit warring, immediate reversion can be done. But in this case, I believe this specific edit (which is just one part of the original, overly verbose edits) is a reasonable copy-edit. The problem is when it is included amongst a set of other, less reasonable edits, then the tendency will be to revert everything (as I did when I reverted the change that introduced a number of grammatical issues; although a bit drastic, based on my evaluation, it was the best way to improve the article, and I made a few additional copy edits to improve the article's conciseness). isaacl (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
To expand on why I believe the edits are an improvement:
- The first modification changes "In 2006, the New Jersey Devils brought the Trenton Titans and the team became the ECHL affiliate of the Devils for the 2006–07 season" by changing "team" to "franchise". Since generally speaking, ownership transactions are frequently associated with the term "franchise", I believe it is reasonable to use the term in this case.
- The second modification changes "In 2007 the New Jersey Devils announced that the Titans were changing their name to the Trenton Devils" to "In 2007 the New Jersey Devils renamed the Titans to the Trenton Devils." Because the second sentence is more concise, and the Titans did in fact change their name, so the news of the announcement is of lesser importance than the actual name change, I believe the sentence should be changed to the shorter version.
- The third modification changes "Blue Line Sports LLC, managed by John and Eileen Martinson, took over the team" by changing "team" to "franchise". In addition to the rationale given for the first modification, which is also applicable, making this change avoids repeating "team" twice in close proximity within the same sentence.
isaacl (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with most of that. I think its perfectly fine as it is, we can revisit it in the future but I want to see if the edit warring continues when the protection goes away to be honest. For the first one yes it probably could be franchise or team either way. For the second one I think the original sounds better. For the third one you would want to use the same word twice for consistency. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The reasons why I did those modifications and yes I'm back on here again is because there are Titans fans who define the team as the same team, but new franchise. I do agree with them, but I never heard of any hockey team being called both the same team and new franchise ever. If it's the same team, it's the same franchise. If it's a new team, it's a new franchise. I changed the word "team" to "franchise" to end that confusion that as been going on since August completely. Trenton Devils, LLC should be expanded on what that organization really is. We know it's a subsidiary of the New Jersey Devils, but why is it a subsidiary of the New Jersey Devils and why is the ECHL franchise associated with this organization and not the Devils themselves directly. Trenton Devils, LLC operated the ECHL franchise since their beginning until 2011 and became a subsidiary of the Devils in 2006. Those edits in the past I agree. If Trenton Devils, LLC can't be expanded further, well then it should be removed from the article completely. Now, is it possible a team can change their history page on their website? Yes, it's possible. The Rockford IceHogs changed their history page and so can Titans if they start thinking. Here are two versions of the Rockford IceHogs history page; one is an older version and the other one is the current version.
- Post and links by- 173.61.77.220 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your second sentence appears contradictory; you say you agree with those who say the team is the same but a new franchise, but then in the following two sentences you seem to say you don't agree. The current article makes no mention of a "new" franchise, which I believe aligns with your point of view, so I'm not sure why you think the article implies this. Please do not introduce edits that put undue emphasis on the behind-the-scenes paperwork, which has the opposite effect of maintaining the concept of one team, one franchise (which I think you are trying to do) and so creates confusion rather than reducing it. isaacl (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I do agree with the fans' point of view since they read the newspaper articles in the Trentonian and the Trenton Times and which I read those same articles as well, but since the team is operating like the same franchise, retained all of the records, the Flyers treating the team as the same franchise including the Philadelphia newspapers, the team automatically became the same franchise. I do appreciate that in the article says that Trenton Devils, LLC folded since both Trenton area newspapers say that the Trenton Devils folded and the new Titans replaced the team, but it should be expanded on saying that it was the franchise's operator as well. I don't like the fact that the first owner of the franchise Geoffrey Berman is not included in the article. 173.61.77.220 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your second sentence appears contradictory; you say you agree with those who say the team is the same but a new franchise, but then in the following two sentences you seem to say you don't agree. The current article makes no mention of a "new" franchise, which I believe aligns with your point of view, so I'm not sure why you think the article implies this. Please do not introduce edits that put undue emphasis on the behind-the-scenes paperwork, which has the opposite effect of maintaining the concept of one team, one franchise (which I think you are trying to do) and so creates confusion rather than reducing it. isaacl (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)