Talk:New York Red Bulls/Merge

message: DO NOT ADD BELOW. Merge discussion at Talk:MetroStars
I would support merging the MetroStars article here.  youngamerican (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now oppose a merge, per comments on Talk:MetroStars.  youngamerican (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an example of history re-writing at its finest. Against, all talk at Talk:MetroStars. DR31 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The result was merge into Red Bull New York. -- JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, there was hardly a consensus against the merge. If anything, most users agreed that the Metrostars and RBNY are one and the same, and DR31's arguments were emotional and not all policy-based.   Ytny (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Discussion is good. Punkmorten 08:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too much discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYRB (talk • contribs) 02:25, March 15, 2007 (UTC)
*Merge, this is the same franchise as the Red Bulls. The owner has changed but all records, team members, home field, and stats are the same. The league considers them one continuous franchise. There are no mitigating factors such as with the Montreal Expos (ie the team moved).Gateman1997 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the article on RBNY, it says "Founded: 1995 (as NY/NJ MetroStars)," implying that they are the same club.  If we're debating what we should have on this site, then we should be able to look at it for information, and make sure things stay consistent.  Keeping the articles separate makes Wikipedia contradict itself. Che84 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without saying whether or not it's contradictory, Wikipedia nonetheless reflects the reality regarding this issue.  There has been no notable change in consensus since the last time a merge was proposed.  Absent that consensus in favor of merging, what amounts to POV can't be imposed in favor of "consistency" that is not acceptable at this time. Roehl Sybing 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm seeing a different reality than you, but I think that Wikipedia reflects the fact that the two teams are the same. Che84 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not, or else these two pages wouldn't exist separately in the first place.  I'm not interested in persuading you or changing your mind - you're not going to get anywhere convincing me - but I wanted to give my perception of this issue and hope that it's confirmed by other users. Roehl Sybing 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A couple of things. First, what consensus? If anything, the consensus (or at least something close to it) in previous discussions was in favor of the merge. Second, POV? The verifiable fact, i.e. the official position of MLS and RBNY, is that Metrostars and RBNY are a single club. Trying to interpret a Red Bull (NB: not RBNY) official's comment in who knows what context or phrasing in a website blurb is the very definition of POV. You can't verify that RBNY has severed itself from the Metrostars, the way the Dynamo did with the Earthquakes. Ytny (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also what consensus is he referring to. Last time as I can see from the previous discussion there was no consensus. Also even if there was consensus can change. And it appears to be changing toward merge thus far in this discussion. (Also a note, it wasn't the Houston franchise that decided not to take SJ's history but MLS and the city of SJ that demanded they not as it is being handed off to the new Earthquakes when they are officially reconstitued in the next few months). Gateman1997 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll spell it out in bright neon lights, in case no one's been paying attention: has there been a shift over time from no consensus to a consensus for merging?  I don't believe there is, but if I'm wrong, I'll merge the two pages myself. Roehl Sybing 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as it stands right now only two people are objecting to merging while so far 7 seem to think it's the thing to do. That's a consensus to merge. That and the closing admin will surely take into account the arguments. The merge people have the MLS, RBNY and Wikipedia precedent on their side. Dallas Burn, Kansas City Wiz, San Jose Clash, Houston 1836 all redirect to the team's current names. Why should Metrostars be any different? MLS, RBNY, the owners and most of the fans consider it one continuous team, just because one Metrostars website and a few disgruntled fans object isn't a reason to have a seperate page. Don't get me wrong I understand the emotion behind that, but other then emotion there is no reason to oppose a merge. Gateman1997 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a Wikipedia standpoint, this isn't about emotion at all, and whether or not the opposition is unjustified, the opposition, in my opinion, is real, and that reality has to be negotiated with.  It is also unreasonable to tally votes merely three days into a discussion.  I can still be wrong and sentiment may have changed over time, but I'm still wait and see for the whole picture. Roehl Sybing 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is the opposition, what little opposition that does exist, is largely irrelevant. It has no bearing on the team's actual situation, which is that their name is now RBNY and all the Metrostar history belongs to RBNY. The opposition can be noted in the RBNY article under the history section. A few disgruntled fans don't change reality or fact, and the fact of the situation and reality is that RBNY is the current name of the franchise that was formerly the Metrostars. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not a small segment of the team's fans who refuse to accept reality. Gateman1997 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jaguar Racing and Red Bull Racing are the same F1 team.  How come they get two pages on Wikipedia?  The same should be followed for the Metrostars and Red Bulls. KitHutch 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it Red Bull racing purchased Jaguar racing but they're not the same continuous team. Red Bull doesn't claim Jaguar's history as their own. This is the same as when Red Bull bought FC Red Bull Salzburg. They don't claim the history of the earlier teams. The same is not true in MLS, the league, Red Bull, and the majority of the fans claim the history of the Metrostars as being one and the same as the Red Bulls. Red Bull NY and the Metrostars are the exact same team and franchise just with a name change. Not unlike the Kansas City Wiz/Wizards, Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins, Dallas Burn/FC Dallas, Washington Senators/Texas Rangers, Houston Oilers/Tenn Titans, etc... etc... There is only 2 examples in modern franchise sports where teams changed names and didn't take the history with them, Cleveland's Browns and the San Jose Earthquakes. The fact that a few fans don't like the new name doesn't change the fact that Red Bull NY is the former Metrostars. Even if NY does get a new Metrostars team they won't be able to claim the old Metrostar's history. This is similar to the "new" Washington Senators not claiming the old Washington Senators history . JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *This is no different then the Anaheim Angels name change controversy. That ended with merged articles. No reason this is any different. Gateman1997 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Precisely.  Once the emotions died down, it was decided that since the teams were the same in every respect but name, only one article was appropriate.  I believe that was the correct choice there, and I believe that this situation is exactly the same.  Nobody's trying to suppress anything - quite the contrary, this article was (at the time) an attempt to take sides.  Reference the naming controversy in the article for its historical importance, but Wikipedia is not the place to prop up a controversy that seems to have subsided.  --Chancemichaels 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *So put a tag on that page (which I would support, by the way).  Why does the other change have to be made "first"?  --Chancemichaels 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed, this line of thinking is basically the merge equivalent of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Not to mention the fact that the Metro->Red Bull name change isn't like the Nationals, who are a de facto expansion team, or the MK Dons, who were replaced by a supporter-founded club. Using the same logic, I could demand that a Newton Heath F.C. article be created because I refuse to accept Manchester United F.C. as the same club, which would be utterly idiotic. Ytny (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And one is baseball, the other is soccer.  I use a bat with one, I use my feet with the other.  I before e except after c.  Look, if you want to run down every distinction, be my guest.  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as it states at the top, is neither a guideline nor a policy, and implying that it is gets in the way of something that is valid.  The Expos/Nationals were only brought up to demonstrate that there is no clear standard, no matter what silly distinctions are raised.  --Roehl Sybing 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You still haven't explained why the other one has to be merged "first".  --Chancemichaels 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request (March 2007)