Talk:Chicago Cardinals
(Redirected from Talk:Chicago Cardinals (NFL, 1920–1959))
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Bison X in topic RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from History of the Arizona Cardinals was copied or moved into History of the Chicago Cardinals with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Corensearchbot
editUser:CorenSearchBot tagged this page for being copied from a Craigslist posting. It's actually the other way around (the Craigslist posting, for furniture, actually copied this ad for some reason), so I'm removing the notice. --Libertyernie2 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- What CorenSearchBot picked up here, fortunately, was an unattributed split. Sometimes our weird mirrors out there help us catch these so we can repair them. :) I'm in the process of doing so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Requested move 27 November 2015
edit- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to History of the Chicago Cardinals, which everyone seemed to agree with in the end. There was also a consensus that Chicago Cardinals should redirect to Arizona Cardinals. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Chicago Cardinals (NFL, 1920–1959) → Chicago Cardinals – This is unnecessary disambiguation since Chicago Cardinals redirects here. -- Tavix (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just noticed that St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960–1987) was moved at the same time as this page. Whatever happens here, that page should be moved to the same format. -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- How? The primary topic of St. Louis Cardinals is the baseball team, so it cannot be a same format. There still has to be some sort of disambiguation title there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since it looks like consensus will favor "History of the Chicago Cardinals", the STL iteration would be moved to History of the St. Louis Cardinals (NFL), the way it was before Facts707 moved it. -- Tavix (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- How? The primary topic of St. Louis Cardinals is the baseball team, so it cannot be a same format. There still has to be some sort of disambiguation title there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just noticed that St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960–1987) was moved at the same time as this page. Whatever happens here, that page should be moved to the same format. -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, and instead the Chicago Cardinals redirect should be reverted back to point to Arizona Cardinals, and this article should be moved back to History of the Chicago Cardinals. The oldest continuously run professional football team in the United States (as cited by the main Arizona Cardinals article) has gone through multiple names, and so its history has been split into multiple detailed articles (and this is one of them). Nevertheless, the main summary style article of this 'oldest continuously run professional American football team' basically still resides at the Arizona Cardinals page (the club's current name), while this page currently only details the team's history from 1920 to 1959 without any other content (such as the team's stats, players, uniforms, stadiums) that you would find in a sports team, summary style, WP:FA like Manchester United F.C. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- What you're saying makes sense, but the Arizona Cardinals article has barely half a paragraph on their years in Chicago. I feel like someone wanting info on the "Chicago Cardinals" would be wanting this, so in the very least, I would oppose moving the "Chicago Cardinals" redirect to Arizona Cardinals (perhaps this would be better in an WP:RFD?) I also don't see why we couldn't add that content, so people can easily find details and stats on their Chicago years (and do the same for St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960–1987)). -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Except that it is one continuous franchise and share the same history and records, and all the details and stats are combined on sections like Arizona Cardinals#Notable players. Ideally, the Arizona Cardinals page should instead resemble the summary style of Chicago Bears and New York Giants. A separately named page with only "Chicago Cardinals" in its title may not be precise enough to define the topical scope because it gives the false impression that it is a totally different team, not part of the 'oldest continuously run professional football team in the United States'. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the article explain that it's the same team? We have to give our readers some credit that they know what they're reading... I understand that they share the same history and records, but I just think it'd be nice to report what their records and stats were in Chicago. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the impression nor the general naming consistency consensus I get when I see Brooklyn Dodgers currently redirects to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Browns currently redirects to History of the St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators (1901–60) redirects to History of the Washington Senators (1901–60), Philadelphia Athletics redirects to History of the Philadelphia Athletics, Boston Braves (baseball) redirects to History of the Boston Braves. In fact, it supports my previously comment that this article should be moved back to History of the Chicago Cardinals. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- It should redirect to the Chicago section of the Arizona Cardinals page and then that would have a link to the Chicago Cardinals (NFL, 1920–1959) page. Crash Underride 08:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I just split the history section of Arizona Cardinals into sections for Chicago, St. Louis, and Arizona. If that's the route we want to go, the sections are there for it now. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- It should redirect to the Chicago section of the Arizona Cardinals page and then that would have a link to the Chicago Cardinals (NFL, 1920–1959) page. Crash Underride 08:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the impression nor the general naming consistency consensus I get when I see Brooklyn Dodgers currently redirects to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Browns currently redirects to History of the St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators (1901–60) redirects to History of the Washington Senators (1901–60), Philadelphia Athletics redirects to History of the Philadelphia Athletics, Boston Braves (baseball) redirects to History of the Boston Braves. In fact, it supports my previously comment that this article should be moved back to History of the Chicago Cardinals. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the article explain that it's the same team? We have to give our readers some credit that they know what they're reading... I understand that they share the same history and records, but I just think it'd be nice to report what their records and stats were in Chicago. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Except that it is one continuous franchise and share the same history and records, and all the details and stats are combined on sections like Arizona Cardinals#Notable players. Ideally, the Arizona Cardinals page should instead resemble the summary style of Chicago Bears and New York Giants. A separately named page with only "Chicago Cardinals" in its title may not be precise enough to define the topical scope because it gives the false impression that it is a totally different team, not part of the 'oldest continuously run professional football team in the United States'. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- What you're saying makes sense, but the Arizona Cardinals article has barely half a paragraph on their years in Chicago. I feel like someone wanting info on the "Chicago Cardinals" would be wanting this, so in the very least, I would oppose moving the "Chicago Cardinals" redirect to Arizona Cardinals (perhaps this would be better in an WP:RFD?) I also don't see why we couldn't add that content, so people can easily find details and stats on their Chicago years (and do the same for St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960–1987)). -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm in agreement with User:Zzyzx11 in their assessment. Crash Underride 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America
editAn RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to editors of this article. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect this article's title and multiple others. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)