Talk:Collingwood Blues (2020–)
Latest comment: 4 days ago by Yaksar in topic Requested move 2 August 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 2 August 2024
edit
 | It has been proposed in this section that Collingwood Blues (2020–) be renamed and moved to Collingwood Blues. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Collingwood Blues (2020–) → Collingwood Blues – The qualifying bookend "(2020–)" is unnecessary. The article relates to an existing ice hockey team. Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) is for the defunct team with the same name. The target page is currently a redirect. Buffalkill (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 14:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- No evidence that the current team is the primary topic. A disambiguation page at Collingwood Blues is probably the best solution. 162 etc. (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither article gets a ton of traffic, but in the last 2 months Collingwood Blues (2020–) has more than double the page views. Since the redirect currently points to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011), at least some (if not most) of the traffic to that page has to be unintentional. Buffalkill (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia have a convention about this sort of title format with a dash just before a closing parenthesis? To me it looks a bit strange. I would expect something like "... (2020–present)". I found only 28 titles like that on the entire English Wikipedia, so it must not be considered proper. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- None that I know of. I agree that the "(2020 -)" qualifier looks a bit strange, as if the team is under a deathwatch. There are many examples of new(er) sports teams choosing to take the name of a historical antecedent:
- Buffalkill (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia have a convention about this sort of title format with a dash just before a closing parenthesis? To me it looks a bit strange. I would expect something like "... (2020–present)". I found only 28 titles like that on the entire English Wikipedia, so it must not be considered proper. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest that the Collingwood Blues (2020–) should be considered the primary topic. As I noted above, Collingwood Blues (2020–) has more than double the number of page views in the last 2 months, and it seems intuitive that any person looking for either of the articles would make the same assumption, that an active team would have primacy over the defunct one. I don't recommend using Collingwood Blues (2020–present), as I think it's unnecessary and inconsistent with most other articles about sports teams. Buffalkill (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the number of page views I note that, until a day ago, the redirect page was automatically sending readers to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011), which suggests to me that many of the page views for the defunct team's article were misdirected. There was a significant spike in views for both articles in May 2024, which was around the time when the Collingwood Blues (2020–) were winning a national championship. Buffalkill (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither article gets a ton of traffic, but in the last 2 months Collingwood Blues (2020–) has more than double the page views. Since the redirect currently points to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011), at least some (if not most) of the traffic to that page has to be unintentional. Buffalkill (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No evidence that the current team is the primary topic. A disambiguation page at Collingwood Blues is probably the best solution. 162 etc. (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose this one has 88 views but the other has 58[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page views for Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) are skewed by multiple pages with erroneous hyperlinks to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) that should link to Collingwood Blues (2020–), e.g., the Ontario Junior Hockey League page has a link in the infobox to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) as the "2023 champions". Similarly, Centennial Cup#Centennial Cup (2020–present) has a link to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) as the "2024 champions". These and other will have artificially inflated the number of views for Collingwood Blues (1988–2011). Also, readers searching for "Collingwood Blues" were automatically redirected to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) until User:safariScribe corrected it a few days ago, and there was no disambiguating hatnote to inform the readers that there was a separate article for the Collingwood Blues (2020–). Buffalkill (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: if this doesn't pass, the title should be renamed per MOS:TOPRESENT. Gonnym (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per long-term significance and move to Collingwood Blues (2020), the standard disambiguator for existing organisations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support It might be easiest to wait and see how moving the primary away from the older page effects view stats, but this seems to be a reasonable solution to a fairly low stakes, low readership scenario with two articles of the same name. Users seeking the defunct team can easily get there from a hatnote with no more clicks than the current version.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)