Talk:Vancouver Grizzlies

Recommend Deletion

I recommend this article for deletion as all the information on this page is mentioned in the history of the Memphis Grizzlies. Karl 334 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable subject warrants its own article

The Vancouver Grizzlies are a notable subject and are deserving of their own article. The Memphis Grizzlies were born when the Vancouver franchise was sold and transferred to Memphis, but this does not mean that the Vancouver Grizzlies are the same as the Memphis Grizzlies - they are not. Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, so the existence articles for both the Vancouver and Memphis Grizzlies is very acceptable. There are many wiki-precedents to support separate articles for defunct and/or transferred sports franchises. For specific examples, see the List of defunct NHL teams for many excellent examples of such articles which are useful and informative for our readers. Dolovis (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This may have big effects to every NBA teams articles, especially those who went through relocation/ownership change/name change. All the precedents, Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers, Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets, Buffalo Braves/San Diego/Los Angeles Clippers all have single article. Note that when the Braves moved to San Diego, there was also an ownership change, but they still have a single article. Furthermore, the league treated them as a single franchise, with the records and statistics of the Vancouver Grizzlies are continued by the Memphis Grizzlies. Please discuss this first with the WP:NBA to establish consensus whether a separate article is required. Thanks. — MT (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this would have a big effect on the current NBA teams' articles. The Vancouver Grizzlies article does not need to result in any changes to the Memphis Grizzlies article. As an example, the Atlanta Flames article has no effect on the Calgary Flames article. It is simply an article on the "Atlanta Flames", before they became the Calgary Flames. Dolovis (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is basically Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because teams of other league that underwent a franchise move have separate articles, doesn't mean it should. The reason they should not have separate articles is that they are essentially the same team under the same ownership, only that it moves to a new city. Now if the team become defunct in Vancouver and a new team is established in Memphis, then obviously it should be 2 articles. I think this is where you are confused. The Vancouver team didn't become defunct. It merely moved to a new city.—Chris!_c/t 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Grizzlies have two separate articles, then other teams who went through relocation/ownership change/name change might need to have separate articles. Currently WP:NBA has established that moved franchise should have a single article. The only exception was Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers and Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Thunder, for a reason which I didn't know since I wasn't active on WP:NBA at the time of those article creation. So, please just discuss this first with the WP:NBA. — MT (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers should be one article per the same logic. But Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Thunder is a special case. According to the settlement agreement between the City of Seattle and the ownership group of this team, the history of the SuperSonics prior to 2008 will be shared by the Oklahoma City Thunder and a possible future Seattle team. So, the SuperSonics should remain separate in the case that a new Seattle team establishes in the future.—Chris!_c/t 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association to notify WP:NBA of this discussion. Dolovis (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports to notify WP:SPORT of this discussion. Dolovis (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with having separate articles for relocated teams. No merely WP:OTHERSTUFF, the NHL examples set precedence, and the reasoning is sound; the move of a franchise constitutes a major and logical break for part of a series on franchise history.

That is what the articles on former incarnations truly are: an entry in a series on the franchise's history. For example, a Minneapolis Lakers article would serve as the first of a series on the history of the Los Angeles Lakers. It's not an arbitrary cut-off point at all, as it represents a true break in franchise continuity.

And it's not just NHL articles, either. There exists articles for the Montreal Expos, separate from the Washington Nationals. I'm in favor of such articles for all relocated sports teams. But not for teams that changed there name while serving the same market. There's no need for a separate Washington Bullets article, for example, as they still play in the same market. oknazevad (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a perrenial debate as it relates to the Expos. While much of the baseball project wishes to do things one way, much of the Canada project does another, especially given the Expos' historical significance. The Grizzlies lack that historical significance, but personally, I still favour a split in all cases. The current way of doing things simply assumes that when a person wants to read about the Vancouver Grizzlies, they really meant the team in Memphis. While there is certainly some coverage in the Memphis article, Five paragraphs does not do the team's tenure in Vancouver justice, and frankly, I believe the reader is harmed by this set up. Compare that to the Atlanta Flames article, which offers much greater historical detail, a focus on their seasonal record, top scorers in Atlanta, etc. More information is good. And pushing out to a real world scenario, I often bring up Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul: same city, three names, three distinct epochs, three articles. The ties between each name (or location, in our debate) are all prominently noted, but but the split way is better for the reader.

As such, if Dolovis wishes to split and expand this article, I am very much in favour. If other editors wish to do the same for other teams, then I would also support. Over time, they may all be expanded naturally. But if that does not happen immediately, that is fine too, as Wikipedia has no deadline. Resolute 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would add that I do not favour a split if the end game is to simply dump those five paragraphs in Memphis Grizzlies back into this article and then walk away. It would be a split and expand that I would favour. And indeed, if that gains approval, and Dolovis is willing to take on that work, I will be happy to lend a hand. Resolute 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolute pretty much sums up my position as well. Long have I been a supporter of teams being seperate when they relocate. Would be more than willing to lend a hand to expanding this article if someone wished to start it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I still disagree. It simply makes zero sense to me why we should have 2 articles on the same team. But that is my view only and I will not impose that unilaterally. After some thoughts, I tend to agree with the point that a split may be a good idea if the team has stayed in a city for a long time and has historical ties to the city they left. With that said, however the Grizzlies should definitely not have 2 separate articles because it lacks the historical significance as the Expos. I will bring this issue up to WP:NBA to decide whether a split should be done in cases where a team has historical ties to the city they left.—Chris!_c/t 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been started, and on Feb. 13th I boldly restored the May 4, 2004 version of this article. The article was in the process of being updated and expanded until the article was challenged on Feb. 16th. The article just needs to be restored from its previous edits and then we can get back to work to expand and improve the article. Dolovis (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly warrants having its own page . . . Memphis and Vancouver are 2,000 miles away from each other for goodness sake!! I understand that it is technically the same franchise, but when a team moves to a different market it effectively becomes a new team whether or not they actually change the team's name or even hold onto the team's history from the previous city. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the article warrants having its own page, it needs to be re-written significantly as the previous Vancouver Grizzlies article was copy/paste out of the history of the Memphis Grizzlies. It could be written like the Seattle SuperSonics page as this is a similar subject and the Supersonics were a big part of the team's(Oklahoma City Thunder) history. Karl 334 (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been restored per the consensus reached in the above discussion. Please feel free to update, expand and/or re-write as required to improve the quality of this article. Dolovis (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

As per the above conversation on whether to keep this article, I don't think it should be merged to Memphis. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)