Talk:Anaheim Amigos

Name

If Anaheim Amigos/Los Angeles Stars cannot be a page name, then the page name should be the original name of the franchise that was a charter member of the ABA. Also, a majority of the information on the page is about the one season in Anaheim. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

With only one year as Anaheim, and two as LA, and LA being the last name of the franchise before relocating to another market entirely, the article should be at the LA Stars name. This follows the convention used by other sports teams where they used the different names in the same market, even if the team later moved to a different market. See Hartford Whalers (as opposed to New England Whalers), Dallas Chapparalls (as opposed to Texas Chapparalls), Denver Nuggets (as opposed to Denver Rockets), and New Jersey Nets (as opposed to New Jersey Americans) for just some of the examples.

I do agree that the LA seasons need expansion (though not game-by-game breakdowns) and like the inclusion of both logos. oknazevad (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was more than happy to have a combined page, however, the original team name was the Amigos, and a majority of the article is concerned with the Amigos. It is not like the team was in LA for decades, it was in LA for TWO years and one in Anaheim . . . I feel that the original name, and the team that competed in the first ever ABA season should take precedence. Also, the comparison between the Nets/Rockets and the Amigos is a terrible analogy because both franchises exist TO THIS DAY and have had their current names for decades. --CASportsFan (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That the current article needs expansion regarding the LA years is not a reason to use a name that was only in use for one year; two out of three is a supermajority. Yes the Nets are a poor analogy for the reason you mention, so how about the Pittsburgh Condors for a better analogy?

That they played in the first season is not a good reason to name the article Anaheim Amigos; the "precedence" argument doesn't hold water as the first ABA season wasn't more important than the later ones. Indeed, the later seasons, as the ABA recruited star players, is when it became serious, major-league rival to the NBA; it wasn't major right out of the gate. oknazevad (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. I'm going to drop a note at WT:NBA to garner some additional input. For now, I've put the articles where they were before the recent moves; let's leave them there until we get some more opinions. oknazevad (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Amigos v. Stars

I will continue to revert it back to Anaheim Amigos. Period. As far as I can see, there was no real consensus on the page merge in the first place . . . you can go ahead and create a separate LA Stars page, but there will continue to be an Anaheim Amigos page. --CASportsFan (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The page merge is well in line with the established consensus for basketball pages (though there's some debate on teams that changed markets). There's no consensus for your changes, which were specifically discussed at WT:NBA. And frankly your rationale is crap; the use of the name for the first season does not give it any greater importance. (I frankly wonder about your true motivation; it reeks of Anaheim boosterism.) You're just being tendentious and disruptive. I'm willing to seek a third opinion, but I find your behavior pointless. oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While we are resorting to calling each other's opinion crap, I find your rationale complete BS. Do I have loyalty to Anaheim and Orange County? You bet. I'm just looking out making sure that that region is fairly represented. Clearly there is more information on the Amigos one season than the Stars two (my god, that is so many years!!!) and the Amigos were a charter franchise of the ABA. I would like to find a compromise here, but I will not see the Amigos take a back seat to the Stars . . . if you want to call that Anaheim boosterism, so be it. I could then turn around and say your motivation reeks of LA boosterism. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I went too far with the use of "crap"; for that I apologize. As for LA boosterism, not at all. I'm actually from New Jersey. oknazevad (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the article name should be LA Stars, the last name of the franchise. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Under your rationale, the entire article should be under the Utah Stars name. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, but wasn't an option for the discussion. — X96lee15 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could conceivably merge them, but my view is that a team that changes markets is a significant break and deserves a separate article, while a team that changes names while still playing in the same market should be one article at the most recent name. That's the way the NHL team pages are organized, and it makes the most sense to me; a franchise that changes markets is drawing upon all new fans and has a definitive break with its past. oknazevad (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little angry over oknazevad's previous response . . . even though Orange County and Los Angeles are in the same market, there is a significant division between the two counties and I don't want to see one take a back seat to the other. I personally do not think that there is a compromise out there: I originally changed it to Anaheim Amigos/Los Angeles Stars to reflect both team names, however, I was told that that was against Wikipedia policy. I then proceeded to change the name to just Anaheim Amigos because I felt that the inaugural season and a season as a charter member of the ABA should take precedence over two seasons that aren't very well documented (as you can tell by this article). Perhaps Southern California ABA franchise would work?? I don't know, I am willing to compromise here. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of info on the LA seasons out there, it just needs to be incorporated here (which, once the naming issue settles down I'll work on). But using the current, stubby state to the article to determine the title seems somewhat "tail-wagging-the-dog" to me.

I still don't think the inaugural season is determinative. The league wasn't even a blip on the sports radar at the time and focusing on it would be a bit of undue weight.

The cornerstone principle of article titles is WP:COMMONNAME; its purpose is to make sure that someone searching for (or linking to) the article can easily find it. The slash name fails on that regard, as no one is going to search using that, and it's unwrought for linking. Likewise with the Southern California ABA franchise. Redirects help, but aren't an ideal solution, and linking to them should be limited So we have to pick one name only.l, with the other as a redirect. As the LA Stars name was used later and for longer, it's going to be more often linked. That's why, in my opinion, the article should be at "Los Angeles Stars". oknazevad (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The major issue here, is that we have a franchise that had two names that moved within two distinct areas that do not often like to be associated with each other. Essentially, we have the team moving from one market to another within a larger market. There is precedent for teams that only had one season to have a completely separate page (Seattle Pilots—I am aware that the Pilots moved to a completely different market in another state), so do you think that it is completely out of the question to have two different pages? I have enough information on the Amigos to match the Pilots page (if not more), do you have enough on the Stars? I see this as the only viable compromise at this point. --CASportsFan (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think "Utah Stars" is the best name and I would just leave both as redirects. But if we had to choose between the two names, I would choose "Los Angeles Stars" since it was used longer. I don't really agree with CASportsFan that Anaheim Amigos should be used because it was the team's inaugural name. And calling LA and Anaheim "distinct areas" or "separate markets" is a stretch. They are in the same metropolitan area. The only viable compromise I can see that would satisfy everyone is to leave them as separate articles.—Chris!_c/t 08:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They are definitely two distinct areas within the same metropolitan area. I definitely feel that once a team leaves one metropolitan area, that that franchise essentially becomes a new one and I have often supported the splitting of articles that try to take the history of another market (NFL pages currently do not allow this: the Los Angeles Rams is an excellent example of what I am 100% against. The major problem here is that the team did move within the same market, but Orange County and Los Angeles County are as close to being a separate markets (without actually being different markets) as possible. If they had been the "Anaheim Stars," I may agree that it should just be under the "Los Angeles Stars" name(I do add special significance to the fact that the Anaheim team was a charter member of the ABA), however, the name was completely different. Orange County and Los Angeles County often function as two separate markets within one "mega-market" and the complete name change is similar to modern teams changing their name and leaving previous history behind (Expos, Sonics, etc). I think it may be a good idea to have two separate articles. --CASportsFan (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

for what is worth I think it should either be under Utah Stars or at least Los Angeles Stars. Smith03 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The new ABA

Does this article cover the Los Angeles Stars in the new ABA also? The team only played for 1 year before folding [1]. I honestly dont know how the old and new ABA are related ... Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not related; the new, decidedly minor (and notoriously unstable) league has nothing to do with this article oknazevad (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anaheim Amigos. 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/20090223150710/http://remembertheaba.com/TeamMaterial/UtahMaterial/StarsRosters2.html to http://www.remembertheaba.com/TeamMaterial/UtahMaterial/StarsRosters2.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)