# Talk:Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City

This needs to be removed. Saying "the move was given conditional approval by the NBA" gives false implications that the NBA itself put conditions on the move. Simply saying "The NBA approved the move, which is pending on litigation..." is sufficient, accurate, and not redundant. I'd like to go through and change it on this and all the related articles (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Seattle SuperSonics). Okiefromokla questions? 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the strictest sense of the wording, the NBA did put conditions on the move. The team has to pay a $30 million relocation fee and wait until it's legal problems are resolved. Pretty big conditions.;) But all in all, don't care which wording is used. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still don't like the wording. It's redundant and there's simply no need to say "conditional" if we are going to elaborate immediately in the same sentence or the sentence after. Okiefromokla questions? 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the $30 million makes it conditional, given that the fee is always required for moving a team.  What I'm wondering is if the NBA owners approved the move only if Bennett escapes his legal situation, or if they approved the move and it's implied that the approval is moot if Bennett doesn't escape his legal situations.  The articles I've seen do not make the distinction very clear, so a source confirming the exact situation would be good.  I've removed the word "conditional" from the Clayton Bennett article because the sources cited in the article never use the word "conditional".  Chicken Wing (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason the word "conditional" is in there is because all they gave was conditional approval.  #1 it is limited to this upcoming season only.  If the team is not able to relocate this year they have to re-apply at some future date.  This is why they said "this coming year or after the lease expires".  The biggest condition was that Clay must free himself of the legal challenges.  The league does not want to go to court on his behalf so they are giving him a chance to work this out.  Because they don't want to go to court it is likely they told him that if he can't buy his way out of the lease (which isn't going to happen) he will have to agree to honor the lease which would end the court action locking him in for two years and getting the league off the hook for the legal nightmare.  That doesn't mean he will be able to automaticly move if he waits to the end of the lease as he would still need league approval for the move.  --Coz (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it's redundant to say "conditional approval, pending...". The trailing part of the sentence is enough to make it clear that there are indeed conditions that need to be met before moving, but doesn't imply that the NBA itself put the conditions on the move. It's the legal situation that makes the move conditional; the NBA didn't label it a "conditional approval," that's all we're saying. Still, in all practicality, the move is indeed conditional, and that's why we need to keep the "...pending the legal situation..." stuff afterwards. Again, there's an issue with repetition and technicality by saying "the NBA granted conditional approval..." Okiefromokla questions? 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best possible name for the article. It's cumbersome, for one. For two, it seems like the move is a little more than "possible" at this point. Okiefromokla questions? 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the cumbersome. I would think "Possible move of the Seattle SuperSonics" might be better. As far as the use of "possible", the move isn't completed yet, so dropping "Possible" from the title might be a bit of crystal balling at this point. Of course, if you have a different proposal, I'd be interested in hearing it. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Another option I just thought of would be to forgo the whole move in the title and just go with "2006 ownership change of the Seattle SuperSonics"? --Bobblehead (rants) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I actually like the current name better than those two. Okiefromokla questions? 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the league gave approval to move ONLY for this upcoming season and ONLY if they can get free of the lease "possible" is about as good as it gets.  Since the city will not accept a cash buyout, and if the case goes to trial there is no way it is settled in time, it is unlikely that the team will move this upcoming season.  At that point it is only assumed that the team would ask again for relocation after the lease expires but despite the posturing it would be impossible for the owners, or the league, to ride out two years of financial and legal nightmare.  I think Bobblehead might have the right idea since this is all part of the ongoing soap opera and scandal that this deal has become.  Time will tell how this ends up but most likely it will involve leaving the Sonics in Seattle and getting OKC another team (most likely expansion).  --Coz (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your prediction, but that's alright, as long as we agree what to do with the article at this moment :) I suppose we can keep the title as is. Okiefromokla questions? 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I created this article, and I thought about different names. However, as said above, saying just "relocation of Sonics" would inaccurate, as it hasn't happened (yet). But if and/or when it does, then this article will be moved to not have the "possible" in it. Noble Story (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I have to congratulate the people working on this. In 24 hours, this article has gone from a shapeless bunch of text to a pretty good article. I think this could go to GA (after the status is finalized, that is). Noble Story (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz deleted a comment from Stern that summarized his quote that the Sonics will stay in Seattle only as long as mandated by the courts, but no longer. This seems similar to an earlier disagreement: Like back then, Coz said Stern's comment is rhetoric, while I believe such strong statements by the NBA's most important official are notable in this article, regardless. I'd like to see what others think, but I'd also like to hear a bit more from Coz. I'm sure we can agree on something. Okiefromokla questions? 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhetoric: "Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress." I don't think that the quote is "meaningless language" or "intended to impress". It's a comment from the commisioner of the NBA, who's directly involved in the events. Noble Story (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that a comment by the NBA Commissioner (who is also an attorney or former attorney) on an NBA legal situation is exactly the kind of comment that would be appropriate in this situation.  He didn't use any profanity or call anyone names, so I don't know why the comment would be considered inappropriate.  Chicken Wing (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like "rhetoric" you can call his inflamitory language any thing you like but my understanding is that encyclopedic content should be about things that actually happen not about things people speculate on.  Yes Stern has his hard negotiating stance, as does the Seattle Mayor, but we have seen Stern say whatever he feels like in the moment to try and push people to do what he wants.  I know those of you in Oklahoma want to slant the articles to make this look like a done deal (and I don't mean that in a bad way) but it isn't so I think it would be best to just stick with the events as they unfold, the article is going to be long as it is, and leave the day to day rhetoric, speculation, or posturing out of it.  --Coz (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith.  Speculating that editors from Oklahoma are trying to slant an article in a certain way is both unproductive and potentially erroneous.  Keep in mind, also, that David Stern making a comment on the situation is something that happened.  Stating in the article that Stern made such a remark is something "that actually happened".  Chicken Wing (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think my point has been proven. Comments that show that this specific case to take ownership of the team back has merit are being deleted while "experts" talking about "theory" keep being included. This is pretty clearly intended to slant the article towards the OKC viewpoint and give the impression that there is no way that Seattle can keep their team and that is flat out not the case. --Coz (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Chicken Wing; we are attributing the quote to Stern, not saying it as fact. And we can't dismiss it as rhetoric — statements by Stern are valid, as he is the top representative of the league. But we can also include an equally brief summary of Nickles' statement, as well. I believe he said he wants to represent the best wishes of the residents of Seattle by not accepting a buyout and continuing with the lawsuit. Okiefromokla questions? 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How can Stern's comments be vaild when he can't even agree with himself on anything?  The man has zero credibility and is a documented liar.  I have quotes that say no expansion, quotes that say yes to expansion.  I have quotes that say Key Arena is one of the best in the league and quotes that say it is the worst in the league.  Check out this one for example.  --Coz (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why the Seattle PI's research is under dispute here. The PI found that legal experts believe Schultz's lawsuit isn't likely to succeed. There's nothing wrong with that. If there is other legit research that shows legal experts think the lawsuit has merit, then that should be included also. If there isn't any, that doesn't mean we should omit the PI's findings. Okiefromokla questions? 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz, removing a sourced sentence that is properly attributed and as neutrally worded as possible just because the opposing view is not included is not a credible reason. The only problems with the sentence you added about the SoS lawyer on KJR was that it wasn't properly attributed (which I corrected) and the source that was provided to support the claim appeared to be a link to copyrighted material that was being re-used without the permission of the copyright holder, which is a violation of WP:COPY. If a reliable source with the SoS lawyers opinion is found and properly attributed, then I don't see why it can't be included. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In all the constant changes I missed the change you made and then someone removed it completly.  My issue is with this being called "findings" by the PI.  The problem with reports like that is that papers go find legal "experts" who know nothing about the specific cases and ask them about legal theory.  For instance when the issue of the lease first came up these "legal experts" commented that all leases can be broken simply by paying off the rent.  Sounds good but it didn't apply to this case because it is not a "lease" but a "use agreement" and they can have specific performance clauses.  Now we see the PI (who is noted for shoddy work) go out and ask these "experts" about the theory surrounding "good faith".  Well they didn't ask about "Best efforts" which is a different standard and they didn't ask about fraud upon entering into a contract of this type.  Other legal experts have been quoted on TV and radio as saying that this particular case has a good chance.  It also opens the door to anti-trust issues which probably explains why Schultz picked one of the top anti-trust lawyers around to handle the case.  --Coz (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the way the sentence is worded in the article; it makes no judgment, it just says plainly that the PI contacted some legal experts who believe the case doesn't have much merit. If there's a reliable source that indicates other lawyers feel otherwise, it should be included without a doubt. Okiefromokla questions? 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Verdict: By majority decision the ruling is that the quotes should stay. Any future quotes which address the validity or possible outcome of the ongoing trial must be first addressed on the discussion page to determine their notability and relevance to the case prior to adding to the main article. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Coz11, you are dangerously skirting the three-revert rule. I would suggest you read over the policy and understand it, as it is a blockable offense. However, this also applies to Chicken Wing, Okiefromokla, and Bobblehead. Right now it doesn't matter who is right or wrong: If this starts to become a full-blown edit war (which it is fast becoming), then it will have repercussions. Noble Story (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good advice.  I actually had some 3RR violation concerns over at the Clayton Bennett article recently regarding my own edits.  It turned out I wasn't close to one, but I didn't want to get close either.  It also concerns me that the entire article itself might be little more than an excuse to continue the OKC/Seattle debate.  Another concern I have is that policies on assumption of good faith, conflict of interest, and personal attacks are perhaps being worked around also.  In a situation like this, it would only take one disruptive editor to "tarnish" the reputations of all the accounts involved, as edit warring is frowned upon.  Chicken Wing (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your note of caution, but I don't know if it's necessary. You're right that this can be a hot-button issue, but I'm actually happy with the level of civility here lately (going back to when this article was a section at Seattle SuperSonics). Okiefromokla questions? 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the civility. I'm talking about the reverts, which are a completely different matter. However civil the discussion, if the reverts continue, then official processes could become involved. Noble Story (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All I have been asking is for people to talk about these additions before they make them.  If the way this is going to go down is that people slant the article their way simply by posting cited rhetoric or commentary then great, this will be one very long article because I can counter everything with several cited comments that go the other way.  I don't do that because I prefer that people work out these issues BEFORE they make the changes not after.  That prevents the "wars" that tend to occur over hot topics like this one.  You guys make the choice of how we are going to do this and i'll follow your lead.  Just be careful what you wish for.  --Coz (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Let’s try to be calm.  Continuing to make the statement that people are slanting the article their way is not appropriate.  That’s an accusation that people are not following the Wikipedia policy on using a neutral point of view.  There’s no need to tell people to be careful what they wish for, either.  Comments like that will only aggravate people.  I’m also not sure the talk page should be used to call David Stern a man with “zero credibility” or a “liar”.  That’s quite a nasty attack on someone’s character, especially someone as well-respected as Stern.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything, Chicken Wing. Okiefromokla questions? 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you have no idea how calm I am.  Non of this rattles me that just isn't my nature.  Using the talk pages to discuss things is the purpose of the pages.  I have no idea where you got the impression that Stern was well respected because he isn't.  What little respect he might have had is dwindling fast as he gets caught up more and more in the scandals of the NBA especially this one where a city did everything they were asked, he praised them for it publicly and without reservation and then came back and told them that what they did was worthless and to pony up again.  Right now his future with the league is starting to come into question as anti-trust investigations are on the horizon and he is allowing himself to be sucked into the charges of fraud in this issue.  I know I can be blunt and I can often be in too much of a hurry and both of those can rub people the wrong way but I have always been consistant in being able to "play well with others".  You work things out i'm there, you try to force issues or get confrontational and you will find I will not be intimidated and will stand strong.  So like I said, you pick the path, but I am done debating style and personality.  This is about content and everything else is a waste of time.  --Coz (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what it will take, but please do not attack David Stern on this page. He's not even the subject of the article Your opinion of him may or may not be the majority opinion of him. Certainly, calling him a liar and a man with zero credibility is way out of bounds. I don't know how to make you understand this, but there's just no reason to comment on the biases, motivations, integrity, truthfulness, respectablity, etc. of any of the editors on Wikipedia or the subjects of articles on Wikipedia. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What it will take is for you to stop bringing it up as a topic.  Sheesh.  --Coz (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not a defense to policy violations.  No matter how editors behaving in a civil fashion feel about other editors or public figures, they don't attack those editors and figures on talk pages simply because someone else supposedly brought it up.  Chicken Wing (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay guys.  Opposite corners.;) Chicken Wing, talk pages are generally more lax when it comes to BLP concerns as it is extremely clear that the opinions expressed on talk pages are those of the person posting them and are not necessarily shared by Wikipedia at large. Coz is entitled to his opinions and while he has a propensity to express them in a less than pleasing manner, they are still his to make. While WP:CIVIL doesn't expressly limit civility to only the editors on Wikipedia, in practice that is how it is applied. As long as Coz remains civil towards the other's on this article and doesn't jump outside the realm of common decency (calling Stern a pedophile/baby killer/etc) he can continue to impugn Stern's character. My suggestion is that you try your best to ignore them. Coz, I think we all are aware of your opinion of Bennett and Stern and it is apparent that the manner in which you express your opinion of them is distracting for some editors, so if you could try the amount of personal commentary that you tend to include in your responses, that'd go a long way to getting people to work with you in a constructive manner. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
One last time. If you can't focus on content then maybe you need to step away. This is completely childish. I will no longer engage you in ANY commentary that is not content related. (Bobblehead is right, if you can't get along then find some way to mind your own business) --Coz (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite yet, but when more comes in about the Schultz lawsuit, it would be good to have it in its own section. In fact, rather than order everything chronologically, I propose that in the near future, we divide things up into the different storylines that have been developing (and events in each of those sections would be ordered chronologically).
Depending on future developments, the article should be divided into the following sections (these are not suggestions for section titles.. just content of section):

Pre-sale... Schultz's negotiations with the city (would need to expand this, including events that led to the sale of the team)
Sale of the team
Later attempts to get funding (by Bennett, the Microsoft group, and any others)
The city's lawsuit
Depending on how long the trial lasts, this may or may not need to be broken up into a section about the events immediately leading to the trial and a section on the trial itself)
Schult'z lawsuit
Oklahoma City's preparations (including initial statements by the city and the renovations and tax breaks)
Resolution (beginning with the NBA's approval of the move this year, and any loose ends toward the team leaving or staying. Obviously we can't really decide what will go here yet.)
I only bring this up now so we can keep it in mind for the future. Also, when more info on the Schultz lawsuit comes up, there may need to be a separate section. Okiefromokla questions? 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm opposed to an article restructuring, but breaking it up by the storylines is going to be difficult because of how much they are overlapping. This is particularly true with Schultz's and the city's lawsuits. Schultz's lawsuit doesn't get started without the emails being discovered in the city's lawsuit and it's likely that the two lawsuits are going to continue to feed each other. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We might need a section on the season ticket-holders' class action lawsuit also.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that still going on? I saw mention of it when I was reading up on the City's lawsuit, but I haven't seen anything about that lawsuit for quite awhile. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to look it up, but I still think it's going on.  This is just my opinion, but I think that suit is really weak and is probably not being covered much in the media because it doesn't have much of a chance.  Chicken Wing (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There are actually two class action lawsuits.  The first was just cleared by the judge to move forward stating it had significant merit.  It is based a violation of the states consumer protection act where Clay Bennett personally signed a letter asking season ticket holders to renew based on his pledge that the team would remain until 2010.  It was initiatlly thought there would be no harm unless the team left but the judge feels there are already damages because many people wouldn't have renewed had they any idea Clay was lying to them.  They can go for damages for his actions to date and then get additional damages later on.  His exposure in this case is in the double digit millions and has a solid chance of winning.  The media isn't covering it much because it was waiting for the judges action.  --Coz (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to change this back to could because 1) It is unlikely the team will get to re-locate this upcoming season.  It if it did then it WOULD be true but if it doesn't then they would have to re-apply sometime in the future.  2) If they are unable to break the lease, or a court orders them to stay pending outcome of litigation, other teams COULD move before them.  This makes "could" the proper word here.  --Coz (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Coz, but only because the sentence is prefaced with "If successful". With that preface, then "would" is more applicable because it is already established that the outcome is in doubt and the usage of "could" is redundant and a bit on the poor grammar side. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Yet again, when the top official in the NBA says something like this, it's important. Stern called KeArena the worst arena in the NBA: That's important for many reasons, not the least of which being that it provides clarification about why the NBA wants to move the Sonics and why Stern has pushed for it. The Stern saying KeyArena is the worst arena in the league helps clear that up. 
About Sterns comment 10 years ago... it was unsourced, for one. The second thing is that 10 years ago is 10 years ago. Time passes and things change. I fail to see how it's important to mention something Stern said 10 years ago. Okiefromokla complaints 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

His comments are not objective.  He is an active participant in trying to extort more public money from a region that had not even paid off the debt from the last time he extorted public money from them.  10 years is nothing in the life span of a building.  Time passes and nothing changed except that the NBA found themselves in such financial distress that they needed large infusions of public money to survive.  You have to put his comments in context or they are just rhetoric.  --Coz (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, ten years is quite a bit of time for a sports arena nowadays. And Coz, your negative opinion about Stern doesn't help this article. Please try to be neutral, here. He is indeed an active participant in this situation, but he is such because he is in a position of authority. And his statement helps clarify why the league wants the Sonics out of Seattle if a new arena won't be built. Okiefromokla complaints 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Seriously.. This is getting a bit ridiculous, guys... Weis's comments on the need to continue the lawsuit are just as applicable as those of Gorton's and considering that Gorton is technically under the employment of the city and Weis was speaking on behalf of the city, I'd say they are more applicable. As far as Stern's quotes go.. *sigh* Do we really have to include a quote from Stern every time something happens? Heh.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the Weis quote was acceptable also.  However, there seems to be conflicting information about what direction Seattle is going.  The deputy mayor (or whatever) had the quote about not negotiating, while several other local politicians had quotes about negotiating and waiting to get another franchise instead.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Chicken Wing, I think the difference is that the "Seattle politicians" that are quoted in the Everett Herald article are actually King County Councilmembers that are not involved in the litigation and don't have a say over whether or not Seattle is going to negotiate with the Sonics or not. I'm not sure how things are between your city and county governments, but the two governments here aren't exactly best friends.;) There's actually a decent number of KC councilmembers that would like to see Seattle removed from King County (or have King County end at Seattle's city limits and "Cascade county" pick up from there. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt you, but I can only go on the sources I've seen.  I'll try to watch out for who is saying what and what interests they represent, but we have to avoid "original research" with respect to the political dynamics of the King County area.  Chicken Wing (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We all need to take a deep breath and get a little sanity here.  We have Stern and Bennett working as a team to take the Sonics out of Seattle so all commentary from both of them will be interchangable and slanted towards that goal.  We have Seattle city officials who are the ones that will make this decision standing firm that no settlement that doesn't involve the Sonics staying will be considered.  In this region all the elected officals try to get themselves inserted into hot topics like this even though most of them have nothing to do with the issue. King County and the State have no say over the lawsuits, lease, or Key Arena.  All they have a say over is part of the funding stream. We need to work on getting this article to be factually correct and keep as much rhetoric as possible out of it.  --Coz (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, come on now.  First you are citing a comment in an article from Sacramento that is hardly a hard source for this kind of information and your second "source" is just a site reprinting the same article.  
They torn down the old arena, recycled 4 beams, and dug a hole 35 feet deep.  By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered a 40 year old building.  
ooopoo
I know your agenda is to show that Seattle is a failure and OKC is the white knight looking to bail the NBA out of this miserable situation but please try and allow a little balance to the articles please? --Coz (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz, this comment was out of line.[1]  And, the last paragrpah of this comment[2] was out of line.
Bobblehead, while I'm willing to concede that there are ways I could handle myself better and edit the article better, I have not committed any policy violations.  I am not attacking anybody.  All of my edits are reasosnable and in good faith, even if they're not perfect.  Even in his last couple of comments on this page, Coz appeared to be in violation of Wikipedia policies concerning civility and personal attacks.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Coz, please, please be civil. Accusing people of agendas is not appropriate and it will not be tolerated. I hope I have shown over the past weeks that I have respect for you, but I will not stand for this kind of incivility.
I do not personally know the situation regarding KeyArena's renovation, but I have provided two sources. There is no evidence that the Orlando writer was citing the Sacramento Bee article. Please provide a source for your claim regarding KeyArena. Okiefromokla complaints 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the comment.  I am striving for a balanced article not one slanted either way.  We should all put the brakes on changes for a little while as new news is breaking on this issue as I type.  --Coz (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Okie, I think the difference between rebuilt and "extensively renovated" is not that great in this case. I'm a recent transplant to the Seattle area, so didn't see the arena prior to the renovation, but my understanding is that the renovation is more inline with what Chicago did with Soldier Field, leave the outershell and then completely gut the inside.. Just in this case, they also took down most of the outershell as well. I think if you read this[3] you'll get an idea of how little of the original arena is left in the current KeyArena. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you, Coz, I am also striving for a balanced article. Bobblehead, that's fine, but I believe the more correct thing to say is "extensively remodeled", as I didn't see in the article you provide that the building was demolished and an entirely new one was constructed in its place, which is what Coz's wording said. Okiefromokla complaints 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i'll try this again.  Since none of you were here, none of you saw what happened, so you all want to guess i'll state again.  They tore down the old building, walls, roof, etc and dug down 35 feet to make room for a bigger building on the same spot.  The old roof was panels layed over cables because it was intended to be a temporary structure for the worlds fair.  It leaked because the panels could move.  They designed a new roof that looked like the old one, built new exterior walls and everything inside was built new.  They recycled 4 beams and some dirt.  This wasn't paint and some new seats this was brand new arena literly from the ground up. So lets stop splitting hairs and just call it what it was, a new arena.   --Coz (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It does seem that the official statement is that the 1995 arena is different from the previous arena.[4]  The Seattle Center website says the arena opened on October 26, 1995, without referencing the previous arena.  The article could probably just be worded that the new arena stands where the old one was.  That said, Coz, nothing good can come from trying to read people's minds.  Don't say "you all want to guess".  Just don't speculate at all on what other people are thinking.  The policy is to WP:AGF assume good faith.  It also doesn't matter that no one else was in Seattle when the construction took place, as such insight is original research and not allowable anyway.  Maybe I'm brow-beating you with the rules a bit, but I've asked so many times now for you to follow the rules, and then you break those same rules the very next day -- sometimes just minutes later in your very next edit.  Chicken Wing (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz, the source does not say that legal experts contacted afterward said the case had a good chance of succeeding.  Stop abusing edit summaries.  Please, please, please.  Why are you doing this?  It's becoming quite convenient that you'll add information that doesn't coincide with the sources to articles without discussion, but then you demand that reverts be discussed.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my support to what Chicken Wing says. Noble Story (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed it; The source does not support the statement in question. However, the information should certainly be included if a source is found. So far, the only source I've seen is the ESPN lawyer, who said not to totally discount the lawsuit and that it poses some problems for Bennett, but nothing close to "it has a good chance of succeeding". Okiefromokla complaints 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We will have to find a way to edit this to show that "experts" before the case was filed, having no knowledge of the specifics were not sure the case had merit but those that have been interviewed after the case had been filed have been very impressed with the chances of winning.  Included in this is Munson who said in a radio interview that he had changed his mind about the case after reading the filing and gave it a "55-60 percent chance" .  No "expert" who commented AFTER the filing is known to have said the case didn't have a good chance, only those operating before hand who were talking only theory.   --Coz (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Verdict: By majority decision the ruling is that the quotes should stay. Any future quotes which address the validity or possible outcome of the ongoing trial must be first addressed on the discussion page to determine their notability and relevance to the case prior to adding to the main article. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The current intro statement reads:

The relocation effort began in 2006, when the Seattle Sonics were sold to an investment group led by Oklahoma City businessman Clayton Bennett.

This statement suggests that Mr. Bennett and/or the PBC began the relocation effort at the time of purchase. If true it will need a reference and if false will need to be edited.
24.211.155.222 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point.  The article, by making that claim, seems to take a stance in the legal battle.  It needs to be re-worded.  Chicken Wing (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Coz recently [edited] the intro statement by removing the word "relocation". Although I appreciate the attempt by Coz to make the intro statement more neutral, I do not believe it is enough to change the suggested meaning of the phrase.
Can we try to have this resolved before the weekend? 24.211.155.222 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting to see that you are now talking to yourself.  --Coz (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on, you're just digging your own hole now.  I don't even know how the people that have defended you in the past will be able to defend you now.  Your talk page comments and edits to the article are becoming progressively worse.  Now you've just resorted to blatant misinformation and incivility.  I really can't believe that you've even been allowed to keep up the antics this long.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In a repeat of the "legal experts" trouble Coz had just a few days ago, Coz has now added the word "conditional" to the article twice (without sources) and then accused me of removing sourced information.  How long is this going to be tolerated?  Chicken Wing (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support Chicken Wing's concern with Coz. I ask that a neutral administrator of WP take a closer look at Coz's WP:COI and make the decision to request Coz to keep future edits solely to the discussion page of all affected articles. To remain in good faith and to [avoid doing any harm] this request is not based on any specific edits made by Coz, but by the perception that biased edits could occur from someone with a COI and that any edits deemed questionable by someone with a COI could damage the encyclopedic intent and reputation of Wikipedia. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the policies and guidelines, it appears to me that Coz's edits with respect to legal experts and inserting the word "conditional", combined with the edit summaries, are vandalism, specifically, "sneaky vandalism".  Unless this is an erroneous application of the vandalism rules, edits like that should be marked as vandalism from now on.  Chicken Wing (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Grow up Chicken Wing.  I stopped engaging you because of your refusal to talk out edits and trying to force your will on articles.   Now you are posting while not logged in as an attempt to validate your attacks on me.  This is pathetic.  You revert what I edit without talking it out and then when it is put back you accuse me of violating the revert rules.  If you can't make your case for your edits then they don't belong.  Simply removing words, qoutes, and cited material simply because you don't like them is inexcusable.  Starting a revert war and then filing complaints and posing them as if you are a third party is unacceptable.  You clearly can not play well with others as noted by the threats made against you on numerous occasions. The rest of us know how to work together to resolve differences, it is you that thinks you have to complain about the editor rather than discuss issues.   If you can't handle being part of a collaborative community then you need to step aside.  It is clear you are not cut out for this.  I will not tollerate any futher harrasment by you.  Either get along or get out.  --Coz (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, I can't get along?  Am I using edit summaries to falsely claim uncited material is uncited?  Am I telling people to "grow up"?  Am I falsely accusing people of using sockpuppet IP addresses?  Your latest edits to this article and talk page aren't even close to conforming with Wikipedia's rules.  Along with your two deliberately misinformative edits/edit summaries recently, you've now added falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets to the list.  You've got to start editing more productively and make a better effort to follow the rules.  Why do you refuse to do that?  I don't want to see people blocked or prevented from editing their favorite articles, but you can't be allowed to behave like this either.  Chicken Wing (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so first Munson's opinion was removed. Then Coz took out the sentence about the Post-Intelligencer legal opinion. In this case, both editors are wrong. Quite simply, deleting something as a "third-party opinion" is not a valid reason to remove it. This article needs outside opinions. Otherwise, the notability wouldn't be established. So don't delete them willy-nilly. Please. Noble Story (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but every time I turn around someone from OKC is systematicly attempting to slant this article to favor OKC.  I kept putting it back and it kept being deleted so I had no choice but to remove the less relevant of the opinions.  This is getting out of hand with OKC editors twisting this issue more and more each day.  --Coz (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that both quotes should be kept.  The IP address that has been editing the article was right about a couple of things, but s/he was probably wrong about removing the Munson quote entirely. We can also do without Coz accusing people of slanting the article, and we can do without Coz falsely referring to unsourced comments as sourced.   Coz, you've done this twice now in the past few days.  It won't be tolerated anymore.  Chicken Wing (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Munson quote because (IMHO) quoting individuals as stating the case may or may not be successful doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article and is only included to sway the opinion of the reader. I would have also removed the PI quote as well had I noticed it.
As a side note, I've never been to either OK or WA, although I hear both are very nice. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Look above. We need some opinions to give the event relevance, notability, and perspective. No, we shouldn't put blogs as references. However, Munson is connected to ESPN, and is therefore a reliable source. That is same with the Post-Intelligencer. So let's strike a balance here. Noble Story (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two issues.  1) Do they belong or not.  You can't delete the Munson qoute and leave the PI qoutes.  After putting the Munson qoute back the IP editor (and why are you editing without an account?) removed it again so I removed the other one to keep the article balanced.  2) If they have relevance or not.  Clearly the PI article has little relevance because it was legal "experts" talking theory about a case that no one knew details about.  Munson himself had said the same things at the same time but when the case was filed and he saw what Schultz had he realized that it had a lot of merit and in fact an excellent chance of winning.  This makes his qoute relevant because it directly deals with the actual case while the PI qoutes are completly worthless as they don't deal with this case at all.  It would be like asking "experts" if a cat enjoyed swimming and they all said "well of course not, cats don't like water" and then later you see a news story about a guy who trains cats to swim and they love it.  One is theory, the other is based on real events.  --Coz (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Verdict: By majority decision the ruling is that the quotes should stay. Any future quotes which address the validity or possible outcome of the ongoing trial must be first addressed on the discussion page to determine their notability and relevance to the case prior to adding to the main article. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your seal of approval.  While my goal all along has been for people to talk out their differences it is pretty clear that isn't going to happen but thanks for trying.  --Coz (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to cooperate with user:24.211.155.222, you probably shouldn't accuse him/her of being a sockpuppet.  Chicken Wing (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to say that Stern called KeyArena a "model arena" when it was reconstructed in 1995. The caption needs to be relevant to the situation right now, which is that Stern and the Sonics have claimed losses due to KeyArena being the smallest arena in the NBA, among other inadequacies. What is the point of also saying: "Thirteen years ago, people liked it because it was a nice arena"? Secondly, there is no source for the comment. It's irrelevant regardless... Okiefromokla complaints 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem.  We will remove the opinions that Key Arena is to blame for the losses instead of the opinon of others that say the broken NBA business model is to blame.  --Coz (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference. KeyArena's inadequacies are why the NBA claims it wants to move. And indeed, it is the smallest venue in the league; that is not opinion. Regardless of if we agree with it or not, the NBA's claimed rationale is paramount information, and the condition of KeyArena when it was new 13 years ago is not. Okiefromokla complaints 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Arena seating capacity has little to do with team profitability. The issue is discussed at length in the article. The Caption simply identifies the image. --Coz (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the caption as you've rewritten it. As long as the NBA's rationale is in the article. Okiefromokla complaints 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Separate issues.  "Now" makes it clear that when it was recently built it was not the smallest in the NBA.  The rest remains surplus information since the article goes into depth on the issue. --Coz (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to expand a bit and say I appreciate the effort to discuss these things.  I know I can be brief and blunt but that is not a sign that I am not appreciative of the effort but that I just don't have a lot of time so I don't want to get too bogged down in non-productive "chatter".  It that helps others understand where I am comming from maybe it can help them see the "good faith" does exist here.  --Coz (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Coz. Okiefromokla complaints 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe KeyArena became the smallest NBA venue (by capacity) in 2005 when the Miami Heat's American Airlines Arena added another seating section. Hope that helps to be more specific in the caption. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a crystal ball.  No "possible" in title.  Otherwise, SuperSonics possible move to some other city, SuperSonics possible temporary move due to possible earthquake, etc. BVande (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Either way is fine with me.... --Bobblehead (rants) 23:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral on move/Oppose merge. I'm still on the fence about renaming the article, but I do believe this topic needs to be on a separate page. Merging it to the team's page would overwhelm the content that is already there and is one of the reasons why it was moved out of that article. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral/Against–Doesn't seem like a necessary change but I'm indifferent to the suggestion. I'm curious how this would affect existing links from other articles? 24.211.155.222 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment If the article is moved, in most cases the links would be left alone because a redirect to the new article name would be left here.  In most cases, there really isn't a benefit of doing an edit to just fix a redirect. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Seattle SuperSonics per similar treatments for Houston Oilers, Charlotte Hornets. New Orleans Saints, Minnesota North Stars, and Montreal Expos. After the move, one paragraph (if that much) will be all that will be needed to avoid undue weight. B.Wind (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've been editing this article, but I do agree that the scope of the article seems unencyclopedic, and the contents lend themselves to POV warfare.  My vote is in favor of merging, moving, or deleting, which ever ends up being the most popular choice.  Chicken Wing (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Against - This is such a dynamic issue that changing it is a waste of time.  If it is going to be changed it should just read "Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation."  It is most likely that some deal is cut prior to the June 16th court date that is a win/win for all parties but if it doesn't the move approval goes away and may never be approved.  It then may become "Battle over Seattle Supersonics ownership".  So if the name is going to be changed at all is should be to something very generic.  --Coz (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge  I also wasn't clear in that there should be no merge.  This issue is too deep to be part of the main article and after this is all over and done with it will be nothing more than a comment in the Seattle SuperSonics article, if it is mentioned at all, just as with the proposed moves of the Mariners, Seahawks, and Storm that were all "done deals".  So if it is going to be renamed it seems proper to just name it "Proposed Seattle SuperSonics Relocation" but no merge. --Coz (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Rename I think "proposed" would probably be a better name. But definitely don't merge. It's too large to merge into the team page. Noble Story (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Support move I like the suggested title better. However, I'm still cautious that it may be missing the mark a little. It's not really a "proposed move" anymore: Officially, and as it currently stands without speculating on lawsuits, the Sonics are moving to Oklahoma City in 2012 because it's been approved and will continue to be approved according to the people who have the power to move the team. Again, that's with any speculation on future events (including court decisions) set aside. But I can't think of anything better, and unless someone else can, I support the new name. Okiefromokla complaints 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge Just in case it wasn't implied well enough above. Okiefromokla complaints 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion? It seems that there is support (or neutrality) for renaming to "proposed" but no consensus for merging. BVande (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the admins that patrol WP:RM will come along and close the move request and either move it, or leave it here.. Depending on what they interpret the results to be. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the speculation on expansion.  The first reason is the obvious one, it is speculation that has been conflicted by the person quoted.  The second, but probably most compelling reason is because it has nothing to do with a possible relocation to OKC.  --Coz (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the order of the paragraphs in the lawsuit section today. Rather than switching back and forth between the Schultz and Seattle lawsuits, it now begins with the Seattle lawsuit and then proceeds into the Schultz lawsuit. Doing this allowed a few repeated sentences to be condensed and integrated or removed. Okiefromokla complaints 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the stuff about OKC threatening to sue is in the article twice now, at the end of the OKC prep section and the litigation section.  If I get the chance later to fix it and it still hasn't been changed, I'll work on it.  Chicken Wing (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There was quite a bit of sourced material deleted today. Frankly, I could not figure out why. The edit summaries didn't explain it very well. I've reinserted much of it. For future controversial deletions like these, can we bring it up on the talk page first, please?
There were also several added mentions of the "good faith" clause, which I've deleted since this should only be used in connection to the Schultz lawsuit, not every time the Sonics' sale is mentioned. I see no good reason to repeat this information so many times or to highlight specific points of the contract this way. Okiefromokla complaints 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work was put in today to clean up this article and it shouldn't have been reverted out of hand.  The speculation as to what was causing the team to lose money was removed because it was duplicated in the body of the article.  As you mentioned there is no need to repeat information. The "after a year" was removed because by Bennetts own admission he only tried for 3 months. The terms of the sale belong under "Sale of team" and are important because it ties into the timeline that follows.  If you think it needs to be removed elsewhere we can talk about doing so.  The "open to other ideas" comment was removed because the emails show that he wasn't.  The date he gave up his attempt is a very important sourced fact.  The sourced fact that Bennett and the NBA were concerned about their violation of the sale agreement should not have been deleted.  It was key to the decision by Schutlz to pursue the lawsuit.  I left the Gorton speculation in for the time being but it should be removed because 1) He doesn't make those decisions 2) he made the comments before the deal changing Schultz case was filed and 3) he has made public comments that he no longer believes that since.  I also removed the duplicated information mentioned here on the talk page.  In addition to already being here it is in the cited reference.  There is way too much POV inserted via these comments by outside parties on both sides anyhow.  Thank you for fixing my mistakes but please don't dump good faith edits wholesale. --Coz (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the way the article has expanded would make it very complicated to read for an uninitiated user. So, I think was thinking maybe we could create Timeline of Seattle SuperSonics proposed relocation to Oklahoma City, or something to that effect.
However, I am hesitant to do so, as 

I'm not entirely sure it will be useful, and
The offshoot will probably be subject to the same unceasing edit warring this one has.
Noble Story (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a new timeline article would be helpful, at the very least it would be redundant to this article. Confusion of an uninitiated editor/reader related to the structure of the article  would probably be an argument for re-organizing this article into a more timeline oriented format rather than a topic oriented format. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a paragraph at the beginning of the lawsuit section would help.  The article jumps right into the subsections of the individual lawsuits without a roadmap beforehand.  Chicken Wing (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't edit the article much this weekend (don't everyone applaud at once), but I thought that I'd pass along a couple of articles from The Oklahoman here and here.  I don't know if the Couch deposition has anything of note for the article, but McClendon's comments, though they probably take a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader, are probably noteworthy with respect to his quote that he was fined for.  Chicken Wing (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And, more bad news for the Oklahoma owners.  I still don't have much time this weekend, but if it hasn't been added later on, I'll see if it needs to be worked in.  Just consider this my running list of things that need to get done on this article after Memorial Day.  Chicken Wing (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Those nasty e-mails just keep on coming.  This one won't make a difference in the court trials, but it could be quite the public relations nightmare.  I should have some time later today to try to add some of these to the article.  If anyone feels that some of these are too trivial, just say so.  Chicken Wing (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of emails being released in the lead up to and during the trial, we really shouldn't be adding them all to the article.  I think it's pretty well established within the article that emails have been found that the ownership group was discussing amongst themselves about moving the team to OKC prior to the end of the "good-faith effort" time frame Bennett agreed to. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out another story: here you go, folks.  It has some good history and thoughts from an attorney on the situation.  I don't know if there is anything in the P-I story worth adding to the Wikipedia article or not, but I thought I would bring it here anyway.  The attorney's opinion that the city's case is strong seems on topic, as well as the attorney's further opinion that a judge would likely award damages and not specific performance.  He also predicted that the sides would settle, as a trial could get nasty.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
More stuff to keep up with:  There will probably be news to add to this article in the coming week since the trial starts.  The judge could rule anywhere from a week from now to two or three weeks from now.  I think a lot of legal experts are expecting a victory for Seattle.  Lester Munson said, "It is hard to see how Bennett and his OKC crew could avoid playing two more seasons in Seattle."  It really looks like the city will win, and it's just a matter of will they be awarded damages (money) or specific performance (the Sonics stay for two more years).  In any event, I thought I'd just remind the regular editors to put this page on watch if you don't have it on already, because emotions might get heated from some editors as the trial comes to and end.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be updating the article until the judge makes a ruling or a settlement is achieved. We really don't want to get in a play by play on the day to day activities of the trial. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, if anyone happens to get a picture of Bennett+lawyers and/or City+lawyers walking into/out of the courthouse, make sure you upload them with GFDL or public domain license onto Wikipedia or Commons.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I started Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team as a stub for the new OKC team. Obviously the name won't stay, but the naming convention is common among sports teams until a name is selected. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anybody agrees, but I think this page should be renamed "History of the Oklahoma City ______" once there is an announced name. The "relocation" part can be the first section of the article. Just an idea. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a rename is in order. There is reasonable precedence for this kind of thing on Wikipedia. The situation with the Montreal Expos was very similar, and that article looks very much like this one now. I think that's the route to go. Okiefromokla complaints 03:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood the question. But I still don't think a rename is in order. The article will still be about the SuperSonics moving to OKC... Okiefromokla complaints 20:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to brush up on the critera, but this article may be getting close to Good Article status. My only concerns would be that most of the article is cited by newspaper stories, and that the Schultz lawsuit isn't yet resolved. Also, I'd have to go through and make sure everything is cited, but it looks at least 90% cited. Okiefromokla complaints 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to pass good article criteria rather easily. Again, we'll just have to make sure every thing is completely cited and the citations are correct. Okiefromokla complaints 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've talked to Chicken Wing about it a little bit on my talk page, and he seemed to think it was a good idea, so I'm going ahead and nominating it now that everything is cited properly. If anyone sees anything we can do to improve the article, please go ahead and do it yourself, or even suggest it — that would be just as helpful. Okiefromokla complaints 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Thanks! Good review. I'll have these problems fixed in a day or two. I noticed you failed the article on neutrality, so would a little fan reaction from Seattle help smooth things out in that area? If you noticed something else, could you point out an example? Would be a big help. Thanks again. Okiefromokla questions? 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I believe I've addressed the issues raised. s you can see, I added explanation of changes to a few the points above. The rest are taken care of. Okiefromokla questions? 15:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! One more thing, change the instances of Key Arena to KeyArena (as that is it's proper name).--SRX 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Okiefromokla questions? 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Great work.  Pass--SRX 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/sale_060718.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/sonics/tickets/keyarena_info.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622133358/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9SX5Xx0dG5OJUP1gkLSlwzf-5ag to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9SX5Xx0dG5OJUP1gkLSlwzf-5ag
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419015637/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004349361_schultz15.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004349361_schultz15.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)