Talk:St. Louis Stars (baseball)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

  • Proposal: St. Louis Giants article and St. Louis Stars (baseball) article merged into one article at St. Louis Stars (baseball).
  • Rationale: The Giants were sold to a new owner after the 1921 season; the new owner changed the team name to the Stars and retained most of the players. Per Holway's Complete Book, 5 of 8 of the primary batters (plus 1 backup) and 3 of ~7 primary pitchers were retained; this is a relatively typical retention rate for most Negro league teams of the era. Other than the ownership, ballpark and name change, it is the same club. I would like to discuss merging the 2 articles into 1, and if anyone has a reliable source stating that the Giants were dissolved and the Stars were created from the ruins and they are in fact different clubs, but are just merely "related", I will be satisfied. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.215.125 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.215.125 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YesY Done It has been 11 days so I have completed the merge. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.171 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting reincarnates from the St. Louis Stars, Detroit Stars & Indianapolis ABCs articles[edit]

ARTICLE SPLITS COMPLETED
Albeit 5 years later. --Bison X (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe there should be separate articles for the various reincarnates of the above teams. I am centralizing the discussion here to minimize confusion, with a note on the respective article talk pages pointing here. I have split off the articles at the following talk space drafts:

Feedback is requested. Feel free to tweak the articles. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.217.176 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What have we said and done in the past concerning other nominal reincarnations --reuses of names in the same sense with and without continuity of ownership, management, etc?
Baseball examples:
Bold titles mark those that now cover multiple renditions comprehensively in one article. How important is separate notability as a criterion?
And elsewhere at EN.wikipedia? Bridges, schools, political units, businesses, other corporations (National blah foo). I have no good examples at hand.
--P64 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Entertainment franchise Star Trek; Adaptation not remade in same medium Chitty Chitty Bang Bang; Novel in public domain with numerous adaptations Alice in Wonderland
Most notable ballclubs and some ballparks are "businesses" and some of both are "other corporations".
Do St. Louis Stars and St. Paul Saints, for example, differ from other examples in that trademarks eligible for legal protection were not in fact protected? Probably not. If intellectual property rights were acquired by re-incarnators the argument for splitting the articles would be the same, probably.
--P64 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure I follow what you're saying, but I think you're just trying to establish consistency based on other areas of Wikipedia? Fair enough, but the main reason these articles should be split is because of WP:N -- any major Negro League team is notable enough to justify having its own WP article, from the lowly Newark Stars to the powerhouse Chicago American Giants. By not having separate articles, it is confusing when you have the 1938 ABCs (II) moving to StL (becoming the Stars (II)) and being replaced the next season by the ABCs (III); its the same as the 1960 Washington Senators being replaced by the expansion Senators. The continuity gets blurred so one team appears as another. A few years ago there was not that much info on WP about the same-named teams, but currently they have enough info for stand alone articles (or at least start-class articles, which is sufficient). Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.215.177 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other. If splitting them is going to leave one of the articles as a stub, I guess I'd rather not do the split, but really there's no right or wrong - it's just a matter of style. I've run across this issue with articles on minor league teams, and sometimes I've preferred to split them and other times not. If you're planning to improve the articles, I'll let you be the judge. BRMo (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier teams[edit]

Should the Blue Stockings / Bluestockings be noted? FloridaArmy (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy:Can you link to the source? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bison X Here's a book detailing some aspects of the Bluestockings. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I not sure there is enough relation to mention them here, but you might have enough info for a stand alone article. If not, a brief mention in History of the Negro leagues may be warranted -- where the Jamaica Monitor Club, Albany Bachelors, Philadelphia Excelsiors and Chicago Uniques are mentioned. The Uniques seem notable. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Louis_Stars_(baseball)&oldid=1209210982"