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.

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.)

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]

• All 4 Projects & talk pages of affected articles (those in the "affected" drop-down boxes only) now notified. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:22, 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. Canuck^{89 (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]

• They should be all standalone articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Canuck^{89 (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]

• So what's the status with this topic? Seems like there's general support for the change. Where does this go from here? Nemov (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs is how this is closed. There is the question still about some dabs (New York Giants (National League), St. Louis Cardinals (American football)), so I think a WP:RM would solve that. If someone wants to create stand-alone articles for all of the remaining redirects, that's their prerogative. I am a little amazed there is no Minneapolis Lakers article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested a formal closure of this since it requires changing a guideline, at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports_teams). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the update. I had forgotten about this and just circled back. Nemov (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't been very active of late, but was planning on closing this this weekend since the close request has gone unanswered. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs states If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion., so even though I started the RfC, if the close is challenged then it can be taken to WP:AN (per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing). That way either this will stick, or it will get a lot more eyes. Or, anyone driving by feel free to close this, involved or not. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding disambiguation if a page is moved[edit]

• I am currently wavering on where my stance is on the overall argument. I oppose the use of (football), (basketball) and (baseball) in the proposal as it should be the leagues involved (MLB), (NBA), (NFL), (AFL). This would be consistent with the individual seasons ex 1978 St. Louis Cardinals (NFL) season, or 1951 New York Giants (MLB) season.Not to mention the disambiguation of other franchises Dallas Texans, Houston Texans, Buffalo Bisons. etc.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]