Talk:Valleyfield Braves (defunct)

message: :Image:Valleyfield Braves.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Valleyfield Braves.JPG

message: It seems clear that there is some duplication of info here, Valleyfield Braves (2014–)  could be merged and redirected.  The (short) history of the LNAH Braves is already covered at Laval Braves. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. They are separate franchises with the same name with different franchise lineages.  One folded in 2013 when their owners went semi-pro... the La Tuque franchise moved into their market and picked up the old name. As far as I can tell anyways. DMighton (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that now, and your edit makes that a bit clearer.  If we are going to keep two articles, then Valleyfield Braves should be the active franchise's article.  Like Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996).  162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I would oppose this as well, by standard we have separate articles like this. As for which should be at the disambiguated name, with teams at this level I personally think the undisambiguated name should go to the team that has existed the longest. But that isn't a strong opinion so if consensus is there we could easily move the Valleyfield Braves article to a disambiguated one and the active one to the its place. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

text: In the first case its an article that hasn't been updated yet to meet the current consensus, there are a few like that still around. The Browns example is football and all the sports projects have different consensus on how such things are handled. For most style type decisions like this you can't compare different sports, they are rarely the same as time has proven one size doesn't fit all for different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merger 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS: After an additional 10 days no consensus on the article title has been reached. (non-admin closure)  Spekkios (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I do not understand how WP:ONEOTHER applies when there are three teams, and should be three articles. Flibirigit (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this writing, WP:ONEOTHER does indeed apply to the Valleyfield Braves disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 November 2021