Talk:Iowa Stars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Iowa, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Iowa. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project. |
|||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. If you assessed this article, please leave a short summary here to explain your assessment and/or how the article could be improved. |
|||||
|
||||||
[edit] Stars
Sounds like a new name and parent club all ready for next season: http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3629833 ccwaters (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- And somebody's already added "Iowa Thunder" as the future name as though it's official, but a Google Search pulls up nothing. I'm going to remove it until any new name has been announced by the team. SixFourThree (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
When the new name is announced, please create a new article for the team and leave this one intact as a historical reference. ccwaters (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Can't say I'm a fan of that. I'd rather see one article per franchise, incorporating all prior names. We're not talking about a new team with a new history, only a rename. SixFourThree (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- Binghamton Dusters, Binghamton Whalers, Binghamton Rangers. ccwaters (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I would fix those, as well. Unless there is to be no reference to any players, retired numbers, season results, years played, NHL affiliations or the like, it's repeated information and grounds for a merge. No reason to have two articles on the same subject. SixFourThree (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
-
-
-
-
- Looking again at your links, the series of articles on that team are inconsistent in their treatment of new names. See Providence Reds, Rhode Island Reds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SixFourThree (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Providence vs Rhode Island was a very small change in the identity of the franchise. Changing the nickname, affiliations, players, coaching staff, however, segregates the franchise history in to very finite eras. Peter Sidorkiewicz was a Whalers goalie. Don Biggs, the AHL points record holder, was a Ranger. The franchise in Des Moines will have a very different identity than it had as the Stars. ccwaters (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Will it have the same ownership? Same staff? Will season ticket holders lose all seniority? More to the point, will the AHL consider the new team an expansion franchise? It's not a new franchise. The Iowa Stars considers it just a change of name and logo, not the end of one franchise and the beginning of another. The teams ought to be contained in the same article. SixFourThree (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- It is very clear in my posts that I agree with you in that it is the same franchise. ccwaters (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then it should be the same article, with ample documentation of the old name and logo, to preserve that information and further the understanding of the subject. But making two articles for two different names of the same team would automatically qualify those articles for a Merge under one if not two of the four standard criteria. SixFourThree (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- I think there might be some slight overlap explaining the transition, but that's about it. There's nothing automatic about the criteria you point out. Like I said before, there enough of a identity change to warrant a separate article, just like similar situations in the hockey world (The forementioned Binghamton renamings, New Brunswick Hawks, Moncton_Alpines disregard the presence of 2 completely unrelated teams there, I'll get to that soon, Moncton Golden Flames. ). I'll also point you to the Category structure that would be effected by a joint article: Category:Defunct_American_Hockey_League_teams, [[ Category:American_Hockey_League_teams. ccwaters (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the new article mentions the founding of the franchise, records, players or includes the years of operation in the infobox, that's overlap and grounds for a merge. SixFourThree (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- All of this raises a great question: does an article follow the ownership, or the affiliate? My vote, I suppose, would be to transition this article into whatever the team becomes for 08-09 (the "Iowa Whatevers") as part of the history. The Stars new team in Texas can just have some history added reflecting that the Dallas affiliate used to be in Iowa. For the time being, I went to past tense on the Iowa Stars, since it is official that this iteration is no more. --Txhockey (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering that many teams switch affiliations without changing anything else, it has to follow ownership, if by that you mean the team as a corporate entity (selling a team doesn't automatically trigger a new article). Also consider that some teams have more than one affiliate at a given level (or have shared affiliates), and it becomes messy very quickly. And your past tense is slightly premature - the team still uses the name, and will until they announce the new one. The affiliation should be past tense, but they are still a team (just as they are still a team in the off-season). SixFourThree (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- Fair enough, definitely agree.--Txhockey (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering that many teams switch affiliations without changing anything else, it has to follow ownership, if by that you mean the team as a corporate entity (selling a team doesn't automatically trigger a new article). Also consider that some teams have more than one affiliate at a given level (or have shared affiliates), and it becomes messy very quickly. And your past tense is slightly premature - the team still uses the name, and will until they announce the new one. The affiliation should be past tense, but they are still a team (just as they are still a team in the off-season). SixFourThree (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- All of this raises a great question: does an article follow the ownership, or the affiliate? My vote, I suppose, would be to transition this article into whatever the team becomes for 08-09 (the "Iowa Whatevers") as part of the history. The Stars new team in Texas can just have some history added reflecting that the Dallas affiliate used to be in Iowa. For the time being, I went to past tense on the Iowa Stars, since it is official that this iteration is no more. --Txhockey (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the new article mentions the founding of the franchise, records, players or includes the years of operation in the infobox, that's overlap and grounds for a merge. SixFourThree (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- I think there might be some slight overlap explaining the transition, but that's about it. There's nothing automatic about the criteria you point out. Like I said before, there enough of a identity change to warrant a separate article, just like similar situations in the hockey world (The forementioned Binghamton renamings, New Brunswick Hawks, Moncton_Alpines disregard the presence of 2 completely unrelated teams there, I'll get to that soon, Moncton Golden Flames. ). I'll also point you to the Category structure that would be effected by a joint article: Category:Defunct_American_Hockey_League_teams, [[ Category:American_Hockey_League_teams. ccwaters (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then it should be the same article, with ample documentation of the old name and logo, to preserve that information and further the understanding of the subject. But making two articles for two different names of the same team would automatically qualify those articles for a Merge under one if not two of the four standard criteria. SixFourThree (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- It is very clear in my posts that I agree with you in that it is the same franchise. ccwaters (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Will it have the same ownership? Same staff? Will season ticket holders lose all seniority? More to the point, will the AHL consider the new team an expansion franchise? It's not a new franchise. The Iowa Stars considers it just a change of name and logo, not the end of one franchise and the beginning of another. The teams ought to be contained in the same article. SixFourThree (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- Providence vs Rhode Island was a very small change in the identity of the franchise. Changing the nickname, affiliations, players, coaching staff, however, segregates the franchise history in to very finite eras. Peter Sidorkiewicz was a Whalers goalie. Don Biggs, the AHL points record holder, was a Ranger. The franchise in Des Moines will have a very different identity than it had as the Stars. ccwaters (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looking again at your links, the series of articles on that team are inconsistent in their treatment of new names. See Providence Reds, Rhode Island Reds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SixFourThree (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
