Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NCST)

RFC – WP title decision practice

[edit]

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for this "guideline"

[edit]

Could someone point to the consensus that led to this guideline being developed? Hack (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the work of just one editor, writing back in 2009. It does not look like there ever was an actual consensus discussion for it. I suppose one could say that it enjoys a "silent consensus" (a consensus that results from no one objecting to it)... however, checking "what links here"... it has been pointed to in very few article discussions... so it has not really been tested for consensus in actual discussion. It should certainly be reviewed, because it contradicts WP:AT in several places. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These conventions give no guidelines as to how ambiguous articles are to be named. It, too, makes no mention how to treat articles about sports teams that may be confused with other meanings of the term. For example, the term Toronto Rockets used to mean a football club from 1994 but is now forgotten about, and the term today now refers to a subway train, a completely unrelated topic. Since many of these trains are found today, it would only make sense that Toronto Rockets redirects to Toronto Rocket. With that, I have moved the page to a new, unambiguous title, Toronto Rockets (soccer team). Unambiguous, because Toronto Rockets (soccer) because Toronto may have other sports teams named Rockets and Toronto Rockets (team) might be used for teams in other fields, such as project development teams, called Rockets. I arbitrarily put that in brackets as there is no guideline on the page as to what should go in the brackets - I assume it is the name of the sport and the topic, which is a sports team. (A similar convention is followed by Toronto Maple Leafs (semi-pro baseball).) When I finish correcting the incoming links I will redirect the page appropriately, so please don't hesitate to contest. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it slipped through the cracks. See WT:AT#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and national sports teams

[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Gender and national sports teams for a proposal about naming conventions for sports teams. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue, which now is to be found at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 53#Gender and national sports teams, is interesting, but the discussion did not come to any conclusion. That's a bit sad. I would have liked to have a guideline. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Differences with general Article titles naming conventions

[edit]

As mentioned above this guideline was the work of a single editor and didn't come to be through consensus. I don't really understand why it strays from WP:NAME in that the it doesn't account for Naturalness and Conciseness, giving undue weight in my eyes to Precision and Consistency. Clear examples would be the naming conventions for football (aka soccer) and basketball clubs where FC and BC or other variations are added, hence lengthening the title and differing from what users would normally search for (eg. everybody would look for Manchester United rather than Manchester United F.C.). Of course I understand that the precision because a lot of those clubs use a town name with the suffix like Valencia CF amongst many others and that it is needed to differentiate club names from common terms as in Saracens F.C. and with others to differentiate between different sections of a multi-sports clubs (like Real Madrid Baloncesto). That said I don't understand why we don't just use the name that the media and the public in general use to refer the club, ie Virtus Pallacanestro Bologna should be Virtus Bologna (Pallacanestro means basketball) as is the case in most cricket clubs (of course not the English counties as they share the name with county), rugby clubs in the southern hemisphere and all entities in North America (albeit they often don't have Basketball Club or Football Club in their names unless to differentiate from a city). Its already possible to find a number of clubs (Gazélec Ajaccio, a number or German football clubs such as Eintracht Frankfurt or Borussia Mönchengladbach, a number of Spanish football clubs such as Real Betis and Atlético Madrid etc) that don't follow the specific naming convention, I don't see why that can't be standardised when possible. The caveat I would insert would concern clubs where the media often refer to the club using the city where they are based when that is not in the club's name (such as Sporting Clube de Portugal being called Sporting Lisbon), that gives examples like Stade Français Paris (football) though few would call the club anything but Stade Français. Hope I've been clear enough, it's not a massive change to make as quite a few clubs would keep the suffix for practical reasons but would make more sense that arbitrary guidelines. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if the sport is not part of the club's name but is needed for disambiguation, it should be written out within brackets after the club's name, e.g. (bandy club), (football club). If the hometown is needed for the same reason, it is often added without brackets and should be used the same way at Wikipedia. Skogsvandraren (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. and A.F.C. in article names for football teams

[edit]

There is a naming convention that F.C. or A.F.C. (as the case may be) is included with dots (full-stops) in at least some article titles for football teams. The discussion about a requested move for one such article at Talk:A.F.C. Bournemouth#Requested move 27 July 2018 refers to that convention. The convention is not yet described in these Naming conventions (sports teams). Could someone who knows the convention and where it is applied please document it here? For instance, does the convention apply only to clubs in Britain or to clubs outside Britain as well? Does it apply to association football club articles only, or also to rugby union and rugby league club articles? Does the convention apply for other varieties of football as well? (If so, which?). Thank you. --Frans Fowler (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This I think refers to this !vote of mine. AFAIK there is no formal convention. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the deafening silence here and the further arguments put forward at that RM, I'm now suggesting that we eliminate the stops from the affected article title, and regard it as a precedent. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, but more importantly, you can't create consensus from silence. SportingFlyer talk 23:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Consensus takes work!
But more importantly, exactly what are you disagreeing with? Do you think the convention should say something on this, if not why not, and if so, what? Andrewa (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst there's not a Wikipedia convention, there is a Wikipedia consensus that British association football club article titles abbreviate "Football Club" to "F.C." and "Association Football Club" (or similar) to "A.F.C.". This is traditionally how the abbreviation has been written in Britain, and use of "FC" and "AFC" is generally used for convenience of typing or as a design aspect. That's my understanding, anyway. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Wikipedia consensus documented anywhere? Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly not in a formal sense, but check out the usage of "F.C." in pretty much every single one of the thousands of articles covered by Category:Football clubs in England, Category:Football_clubs_in_Scotland, Category:Football_clubs_in_Wales, and Category:Association_football_clubs_in_Northern_Ireland. I get the impression that this is a result of a consensus being formed organically. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you mean here by Wikipedia consensus is consensus as assessed by yourself?
That's of course perfectly valid, see WP:consensus#Through editing, but not applicable here... please read the rest of the policy if you have not already done so. We are long past that stage, as several different opinions have been expressed, and mine is not the only one in conflict with others, it's even been argued back at the RM that started this You never really get a real consensus for football article, they change their point of view everytime. And so we need to build consensus.
We have no reply yet from SportingFlyer, but I'll ask you the same questions: Do you think the convention should say something on this, if not why not, and if so, what? As they pointed out, we can't create consensus from silence. So let us get this particular discussion (which I did not start but welcome) back on topic. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't a consensus, all the articles in Category:Football clubs in England wouldn't be at the titles that they are.
As for what a convention would say, I would go for "For British football clubs, articles should be named "Footown United F.C." or "A.F.C. Footown" in cases where is known that the initialism is a shortening of a full name (e.g. Football Club or Association Football Club), or "Footown United FC" or "AFC Footown" in cases where the letters "FC" or "AFC" do not stand for anything. Number 57 09:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree - with AFC Wimbledon being a key example of the letters not standing for anything. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know some "recent" vote move change F.C. Porto to FC Porto despite Portuguese club's WP:article titles had long (since circa 2007) convention of dots. For UK clubs certainly WP:ENGVAR problem, which dot should be kept unless both official name of the club on their website, on Companies House and in common name are without dot, such as AFC Wimbledon. As per WP:ENGVAR, abbreviation of in UK English have dots, so Manchester United Football Club (the name shown in their official website) should have dots. For clubs outside US, UK, AUS, India (and other primarly English speaking countries), it should form a new consensus on whatever dot should be kept, but it seem Retaining the existing variety of WP:ENGVAR may applies. Matthew_hk tc 11:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Liverpool FC use without dot, https://www.liverpoolfc.com/ Everton use full name http://www.evertonfc.com/. Matthew_hk tc 15:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Bournemouth's parent company was Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Limited prior to the company entering administration in 2007,[1] which makes me somewhat uneasy about using Companies House as a source, as otherwise it could open up Pandora's box as to what a club's full name is. However, it seems to be the most credible source that I've found that suggests that the A.F.C. in the club's name does stand for Athletic Football Club. Even more bizarrely the club's parent company was called Victoria Park Football Club Limited for the 1999–2000 season.[2] Clyde1998 (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clyde1998: Just to clarify that the Victoria Park club is Bournemouth F.C., which isn't AFC Bournemouth. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clyde1998: For whatever reason the club itself erased the meaning of AFC in their official website (just AFC not an abbreviation "A.F.C." nor the appearances of the full name), and why just AFC may be probably due to re-foundation due to bankruptcy. Liverpool F.C. is actually a trading name of the company. but Liverpool F.C., Liverpool FC and Liverpool Football Club are shown in the official website and secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 04:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed by this proposed distinction between for example A.F.C. which stands for something and AFC which supposedly doesn't. Wikipedia has made similar distinctions in other places admittedly, but does it make sense here, and most important, does it assist the general reader? I think that AFC and A.F.C. are in practice used interchangeably, that AFC did stand for something in the past and in this sense still does (where do we draw the line?) and that insisting on some correct usage here is unhelpful. Rather, we are free to make our own style decision and should. That's why we have topic specific naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should ditch the dots across the board. Consistency is already nonexistent with the Wimbledon, Porto examples and AC Milan etc. Neither the argument that dots imply a specific abbreviation, nor the argument that British English favours dots while other variants do not, have any evidence attached to them. With a new convention and a wholesale move of articles (not in itself difficult, using automated tools) the new level of consistency would be greater than the current level.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, the "AFC" in Wimbledon is consistent, same as AFC Rushden & Diamonds - the club's title is actually AFC, not Athletic/Association Football Club. We've now gone away from consistency with the A.F.C. Bournemouth thing. SportingFlyer talk 03:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is actually generally pretty strong within most countries' sets of articles and there are usually only a tiny number of exceptions (for example, I believe Inter Milan is the only Italian club that does not follow that country's convention). Number 57 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget, redirects are cheap. If A.F.C. Bournemouth moves to AFC Bournemouth as proposed (and reversing 13:18, 19 February 2004‎ SimonMayer (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (33 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (moved to "A.F.C._Bournemouth")), there would be no justification for suppressing or deleting the resulting redirect, any more than there was last time. So, what's the problem? Andrewa (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who initiated this discussion and the move request at A.F.C. Bournemouth, I hope it's okay if I comment and express a preference here. But first, I must say I had no idea this would generate two such interesting discussions (or, indeed, much discussion at all!). And secondly, I'd like to mention and thank User:SimonMayer, who seems to have been a very hard-working editor and who may have done much back in 2004 to establish the practice of including F.C. or A.F.C. (with dots) in the names of football-club articles. The question now seems to be: Do we (a) Document SimonMayer's practice by amending the naming convention, or (b) Move F.C. and A.F.C. articles to FC and AFC and document the preference for FC and AFC in the naming convention, or (c) Leave everything as it is, or (d) Choose names for articles case by case? In theory, option (d) would enable editors to comply with the current documented convention by choosing article names that reflect each team's official name. On the other hand, it might lead to protracted discussion about the name of each individual article because consensus on the official name is not easy to reach (Bournemouth being a case in point). I don't much like (c) because we would be left with a formal naming convention but possibly many noncompliant article names. Option (a) would leave a documented naming convention with a documented exception carved out of it; Number 57 has suggested a way the exception might be worded. To me, option (b) looks the most elegant, and it has the advantage that article names would not look old-fashioned (as A.F.C. Bournemouth does). I wouldn't recommend drawing a distinction between letter clusters that either do or don't stand for something, again because consensus may be elusive. - Frans Fowler (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comply with the current documented convention by choosing article names that reflect each team's official name (my emphasis)... Exactly where is that convention documented? I was under the impression that the common name was preferred.
But agree that option (b) has advantages. Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ Andrewa - I meant these WP:NCST, near the top - Frans Fowler (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There's some doubt in my mind as to exactly how official this particular naming convention is (I did initially assume it was legitimate, but haven't found the discussion that approved it), but you're quite right, that's what it says. Andrewa (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is perfectly official as it turns out (whew), see this post. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Limited". Companies House. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
  2. ^ "Bournemouth Football Club Limited".

RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to update the Guideline with the proposed language. There were 10 supports: 4 arguing simplicity, 2 aguring less confusing, 2 arguing the NHL articles are handled best. There were 3 opposes: 2 arguing removing "History of" could imply the teams are entirely separate entities and 1 arguing for a case-by-case discussion. In the discussion about the separate entity issue, it was suggested that that chould be addressed with hatnotes and utilizing the alternate city/name/venues in the infobox. It can also be addressed by re-writing the lede sentence, using consistent language across the articles, clearly stating this team is still playing but is now based in X city.
Since all of the redirects require admin tools, all of the move requests will be made at WP:RM#Technical requests to keep them all in one location. I'll provide a link there shortly. link
Regarding the fact that the initiator of this RfC is also closing it, it is allowed per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. The RfC was also listed at WP:Closure requests to no avail. If the close is contested, there is no need to discuss with me, please take to WP:AN as per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Note that per the proposal, the Cleveland Browns & Charlotte Hornets are not affected by this proposal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Propose implementing new language for article titles of relocated North American sports teams, which would limit the use of "History of" article titles as being too precise. --Bison X (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Proposed new language for article titles of relocated North American teams:[reply]

When a franchise relocates to a new metropolitan area, the old city's article will either:

  • If there is sufficient content, the article will remain at the old city and team name and a new article will be created at the new city and team name.
  • If there is insufficient content to justify a stand-alone article, then
    • a redirect to the section of the "History of [new city and team name]," mentioning the former city/team name, or
    • if there is no "History of..." article for the franchise, then a redirect to a section of the newly moved article mentioning the former city/team name.
  • The argument here is: "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" is too precise, as "Brooklyn Dodgers" is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. (Assuming both articles do not exist.)

Currently, relocated teams have the old team article do one of five things: 1) retain the old city and team name, 2) redirect to an article titled "History of [old city/name]," 3) redirect to an article titled "History of [new city/name]," 4) redirect to a history section of the new team's name, or 5) redirect to the new team's article (no section linked).

From what I can tell, once a team's page became unwieldy in the mid to late 2000s, the history was split off to a new article, using (for example) "History of the Los Angeles Dodgers" as the article title. "Brooklyn Dodgers" would have been created in the early days as a redirect to "Los Angeles Dodgers," and then later redirected to "History of the Los Angeles Dodgers." When the Brooklyn redirect was turned into a stand-alone article, that is when some discussions (I don't have specific links) decided that since it was part of the "History of" the Dodgers, so the article title should retain "History of" — hence the existence of "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers."

However, if there is a "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" article, if would logically follow it was a child article of "Brooklyn Dodgers," which it is not. In this instance, the "History of" article is the parent article rather than the child article. I believe this not only is confusing to the reader, but violates WP:PRECISE, which states Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. The argument here is: "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" is too precise, as "Brooklyn Dodgers" is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. (Assuming both articles do not exist.)

MLB affected articles if imposed, requiring page moves
MLB articles in compliance with proposed change

NFL affected articles if imposed, requiring page moves

NFL articles in compliance with proposed change
NBA affected articles if imposed, requiring page moves
NBA articles in compliance with proposed change

NHL affected articles if imposed, requiring page moves

  • None
NHL articles in compliance with proposed change

  • All NHL relocated teams have stand-alone articles.

The four Wiki Projects, as well as the talk page of each of the affected articles, will be notified of this discussion shortly. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  • Support, simple naming is better than being overly precise. "History of" is confusing and also implies there is a parent article for the team, when there is not. Flibirigit (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this change would be an improvement and less confusing. Nemov (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As with others, I have a hard time figuring out why this ever was "History of Anytown Samplers" as opposed to the simpler "Anytown Samplers." As noted above, ALL the relevant hockey articles, most of the relevant basketball articles, and over half of the relevant baseball articles already go with this system, so I'm just baffled by the premise that this change would be "confusing." Ravenswing 15:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in terms of removing "History of Defunct/Relocated Team" while retaining stand alone article for "Defunct/Relocated Team". In terms of the NHL teams at least, most of them have more than enough coverage to keep them separate from the relocated teams, and in several cases are treated as distinct entities by the relocated teams. Duplicating the history with the team though does seem redundant, as the history of a non-active team is not likely to update anytime soon. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's how we've been doing it at hockey since pretty much the beginning and it works really well. Masterhatch (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with just using "team name" as a more concise article title. A "History of X" article is only needed if historical information is being spun out from article "X". isaacl (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Simplicity is best, and it's probably what a reader would expect to find. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - consistency should be our goal. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If I want information on the Seattle Supersonics, it should be on the Seattle Supersonics page, rather than trying to cram it all into a page relating to the Oklahoma City Thunder, or going to a confusingly titled "History of the Seattle Supersonics" page. If I want information on the Montreal Expos, again... Montreal Expos serves as a good example of a stand-alone article, rather than trying to force a bunch of info into a would-be bloated Washington Nationals page, or going with a confusingly titled "History of the Montreal Expos" page. As BilCat notes, simplicity is the best solution, because it provides the most intuitive title for our readers. For example, both Los Angeles Dodgers and History of the Los Angeles Dodgers exist, yet Brooklyn Dodgers redirects to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, which seems kind of mystifying when you think about it. Canuck89 (Talk to me) 09:17, March 7, 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I have long since said this was the case, it definitely shouldn't be crammed into the old locations article, and while History of X was a nice compromise for the time, it really is unnecessary. -DJSasso (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support I am strongly in favor of this as simple is better. We have been doing this with NHL, NBA, and MLB teams from the start and I never understood why we did this with NFL teams. After all that would really complicate things if Seattle ever gets the 2nd Supersonics NBA team, due to the fact that the city of Seattle and the OKC Thunder made a deal that they will both share the original Sonic's team history including jerseys retired by the original franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  • Oppose – This proposal would have the consequence of implying that the team’s old identity was a separate organization, which is not necessarily the case. The Las Vegas Raiders and the Oakland Raiders are the same team, so the only content that could possibly exist at Oakland Raiders without unnecessary duplication is a prose account of the team’s history while in Oakland. For that reason, it makes more sense to have Las Vegas Raiders, and child articles at History of the Oakland Raiders and History of the Los Angeles Raiders. – PeeJay 17:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The LA Chargers and San Diego Chargers are the same team, the LA Dodgers and Brooklyn Dodgers are the same team... same with the NY Giants and San Francisco Giants... the Anaheim Angels and LA Angels are the same team.... creating duplicate articles about the same franchise makes no sense. This will just add to more confusion. The history of articles are just spinouts from the team pages.. some have longer histories and needed multiple pages. Are you suggesting creating a separate article for every team name change? Is the Cleveland Guardians page going to be separate from the Cleveland Indians page? Will the Washington Redskins, Washington Football Team and Washington Commanders all have separate pages? This sort of lunacy will just lead to more chaos. Spanneraol (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no confusion at the NHL team articles. As for the Cleveland Guardians, that's just a name change, not a relocation. Now, if you really want confusion? See how the CFL & NFL handle relocations. Examples: Montreal Alouettes (which actually should be three different articles) & Cleveland Browns (which actually should be two different articles), IMHO. But of course, North American gridiron football leagues have their own way of handling it. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the Cleveland Browns article be split in two? According to the NFL, the current Cleveland Browns franchise is a continuation of the one that "moved" to Baltimore in 1996, effectively having ceased operations for three years, while the Ravens were established as a new franchise albeit while retaining the contracts of the staff of the former Browns. I don't know anything about the Alouettes, but what you suggest for the Browns just doesn't make sense. – PeeJay 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating what I've posted. The CFL & NFL have their own way of handling team history, where relocation is concerned. It's the wrong way, but that's how they've chosen to do it. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm countering what you've posted. You're suggesting that the way the CFL and NFL do things is confusing, but I'm trying to establish the fact that it isn't confusing. – PeeJay 19:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, nobody's suggesting going against the way the CFL & NFL prefer to handle their histories. Just saying, the Ravens began as the original Browns, but the NFL chooses to declare that wasn't the case, even though it was. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be confusing for people who are looking for information about the Montreal Expos or the Brooklyn Dodgers to be routed to the Washington Nationals or Los Angeles Dodgers? Yes, they're the same franchise, but those articles are focused on the current location. The history of the franchise in other cities can be included in the current club article, but users may just want the facts about the Brooklyn Dodgers or Montreal Expos. Nemov (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be confusing? It should be clear in the lead section of the article that the team has been known by other names in the past. As I said above, having an article at Brooklyn Dodgers would imply that the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Los Angeles Dodgers are not the same franchise, which is absolutely not the case. And when you say "users may just want the facts about the Brooklyn Dodgers or Montreal Expos", do you mean splitting franchise records based on the team's name at the time? Because that sounds utterly ridiculous. – PeeJay 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not thinking about the record. Thinking more about venues, years in that city, team name, and the history of the move. Those are things important in context to the Milwaukee Braves or Kansas City Athletics for someone searching for that information. Nemov (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but there's no reason that content couldn't be included in the main parent article. The organisation is the same, so as I said before, spinning out the content relating to when the team was known by a different name would just be confusing. – PeeJay 12:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why one uses hatnotes, alternate names in the infobox, or, well, taking a glance at the article. Someone incapable of wrapping their heads around (or promptly figuring out, anyway) the notion that franchises sometimes relocate likely is too confused to use Wikipedia in the first place. Ravenswing 12:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with using History of the Oakland Raiders to deal with the history of the team during that time, but having separate articles entitled Los Angeles Raiders, Oakland Raiders and Las Vegas Raiders would be ridiculous. – PeeJay 12:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll bite. What makes that innately more "ridiculous" than separate articles entitled Minnesota North Stars and Dallas Stars? Or Vancouver Grizzlies and Memphis Grizzlies? Other, granted, than you just don't like it? Ravenswing 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This change is, in fact, precisely how it's always been done with ice hockey team articles. Unless you're suggesting that (say) baseball and football fans are more easily confused than hockey fans, and less able to read the damn articles if they have trouble wrapping their heads around that the Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers are the same franchise, I'm thinking this is far more a matter of Not Liking Change than that baseball or football fans are innately stupid. (Oh, wait. Half of the relevant baseball articles already go this route.) Ravenswing 08:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have multiple articles on the same subject.. the same team... perhaps the way the hockey people do it doesn't make much sense.. why are their separate articles on two different versions of the Grizzlies anyway? Especially since the Vancouver version only existed for a short period of time.. Those articles are essentially duplicating information between them.. Spanneraol (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When this topic came up again we were told that there's no way the editors for Montreal Expos would support a merge into Washington Nationals. In fact, this request has been made a few times in the past and been shot down. So what's the best way to move forward? There needs to be some kind of consistency and for baseball clubs there hasn't been a standard. Nemov (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Sometimes it makes sense to have general rules and sometimes those rules can't be applied the same across different situations. This is a situation where I feel like creating this rule ends up creating more problems than it solves. I don't see it being easily applied across the NFL articles in a way that makes sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Side note: The NFL (and CFL) are quite (shall we say) creative in how they handle some of their franchises histories. The Ravens are the original Brows, but the NFL declares they're not. The current Alouettes started out in Baltimore, but the CFL says that they didn't. Alright, that's another whole kettle of fish topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the Ravens aren't the original Browns. The NFL literally created a new franchise and transferred the contracts from one team to another. – PeeJay 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They kind of are though. Every part of the team besides the name was transferred. All the players, staff, and equipment went to Baltimore. The Browns didn't exist between 96-98 and the Browns name and "history" were assigned to what was a newly created franchise with the old name in Cleveland. It's a very weird situation since technically the Browns' history should belong to the Ravens organization. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PeeJay: I think most people understand that everything about the creation of the Ravens is just a relocation of the Browns in everything except name. The owner literally packed up the Browns' operations and moved to Baltimore; the NFL said fine(*after legal proceedings), but we're taking the Browns' name and brand from you; the NFL found a new owner and re-launched the Browns. It's actually not terribly different from the New Orleans Pelicans/Charlotte Bobcats/Charlotte Hornets where the official league history does not really match the actual sequence of events. That is why we use both primary and WP:SECONDARY sources. Yosemiter (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify on the Hornets/Pelicans and Browns/Ravens situation for anyone wondering... The Browns were founded in Cleveland, and played their first season in 1946. However, financial troubles in the 1990s led owner Art Modell to seek to relocate the team to Baltimore. The city of Cleveland sued to prevent the move. Eventually, Cleveland, Baltimore, and the NFL agreed to a settlement where the everything relating to the Browns and their history (logos, win-loss record, awards, intellectual property rights, etc...) would remain in Cleveland. The Browns would be "de-activated" for 3 seasons, so the NFL could search for a suitable owner for the team in Cleveland, and to give time for the construction of a new stadium in Cleveland. Modell could take the players and the front-office staff to Baltimore and establish the Ravens (which the NFL would consider as a new "expansion franchise"). Meanwhile, in the Hornets/Pelicans saga... The original Charlotte Hornets were established in 1988, in Charlotte, NC. Owner George Shinn moved the team to New Orleans in 2002. Charlotte would receive another NBA team in 2004 (the Bobcats). However, the Bobcats were considered as a brand new expansion team by the NBA (with no prior history), and the "New Orleans Hornets" owned everything Hornets-related, be it Charlotte or New Orleans (logos, team records & history, etc...). However, in 2013, Tom Benson (who had only just purchased New Orleans' NBA team one year prior) announced his intention to re-name the team to the New Orleans Pelicans. The NBA, Charlotte, and New Orleans then worked out an agreement to "unify" all of Charlotte's NBA history into the Bobcats franchise, as the Bobcats would gain all the history and statistics (wins, losses, player stats & awards, etc...) from the Hornet's previous time in Charlotte, and allowing the Bobcats to take up the Hornets name after New Orleans' name change to Pelicans became official. So, the main difference between Browns/Ravens and Hornets/Pelicans is how the leagues have treated each team's history. Regarding the Browns and Ravens, the NFL has always considered them as distinct and separate entities, and the Ravens never had a legal claim to the Browns history. So, it has always been written in the NFL's history books that the Browns played 1946-1995 and 1999-present, with a "suspended operations" tag from 1996-1998, and the NFL has always considered the Ravens as an expansion team founded in 1996. This is different from how the NBA has handled the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans situation. From 2004 to 2013, the NBA considered the Bobcats as an expansion team (founded in 2004, with no prior history), while the New Orleans Hornets were a continuous franchise based from their Charlotte days dating all the way back to 1998. But, after 2013, the NBA books now read: "New Orleans Pelicans" (founded 2002 - the NBA effectively retroactively turned them into a new expansion team based on the original Hornets' move date to New Orleans), and "Charlotte Hornets" (founded as Hornets 1988, "suspended operations" 2002-2004, re-named to Bobcats 2004-2013, re-named to Hornets 2013-present). Confusing for someone unfamiliar with the history of the NBA? Sure. But this is where simplicity rules. Imagine if the Pelicans or Hornets were to move again at some point in the future to "City X". By having articles dedicated to the Pelicans and the Hornets and "City X"'s NBA team at their simplest titles (rather then trying to merge everything into various "History of" articles), it makes things much easier and less confusing for our readers. Canuck89 (Talk to me) 10:12, March 7, 2022 (UTC)
  • @Bison X: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is much too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Propose implementing new language for article titles of relocated North American sports teams, which would limit the use of "History of" article titles as being too precise." How do I fix the bot? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't fix the bot (although Legoktm would be very grateful if you took over mainetenance), you fix the RfC by adding the short statement after the {{rfc}}, and follow it with a valid timestamp. As advised at WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8****wikipedia is hard Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding disambiguation if a page is moved

[edit]
I moved User:UCO2009bluejay's comment out of the regular discussion section to address specifically. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UCO2009bluejay:This is a good point. Currently, the disambiguation of teams is all over the board. WP:Precision, mentioned in the RfC intro, states Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. This would apply to disambiguating an article, as well. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) outlines how sports teams could also be dab'd. For instance, the first layer of disambiguating a team with the same same name would be by sport; if there are two or more teams with the same name in the same sport, they would be disambiguated by league; if there are two or more teams in the same league, they would be disambiguated by years of operation. However, this might need to be settled by each WikiProject, or on individual articles via a WP:RM. I do agree "(football)" is incorrect, as per WP:NCGRIDIRON "(American football)" is preferred. Just starting the ball rolling. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Re-doing ping @UCO2009bluejay:--Bison X (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Teams with the same name in different leagues

[edit]

Regarding the second and third paragraphs for the section "North American sports teams": currently, these paragraphs describe how team names are reused across different leagues, but don't provide any guidance. Personally I don't feel the second paragraph is needed, since there is no effect on the article naming convention. The third paragraph could theoretically provide guidance for any new situation should it arise, but perhaps it can be dispensed with as well and the situation discussed as needed if it occurs. I think that may be more time-effective than spending a lot of time discussing possible hypothetical situations. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(sports_teams)&oldid=1233975200"