Talk:Charlotte Checkers

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Feel free to revisit in 6 months. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Charlotte Checkers → Charlotte Checkers (disambiguation)
• Charlotte Checkers (2010–) → Charlotte Checkers

– Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Standard practice is to not disambiguate the currently active franchise when it is the only franchise to be currently using the name (see Winnipeg Jets, Dayton Gems, ect.) Hat note can be used to link to Charlotte Checkers (disambiguation). Dolovis (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current team is clearly not the primary topic currently when there was a recent team with the name for 17 years right before this one which is at this point the most likely destination for searchers, and because that is likely to eventually change this page is a dab page instead. Not to mention there was also a team that existed for 21 years with the name as well which creates a very big likelihood at the moment where none of the teams are currently the primary topic. There are some cases where we have not disambiguated as you have noted but there are many where we have as well. Heck at one point we had an entire league disambiguated when it was the current league because the previous league had been in operation for a very long time. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DJSasso, don't you think that it is time for you to set aside your personal feud with me? Going out of your way to disagree with me on every issue is hurtful to the ice hockey project, especially when your arguments can be so quickly disproved. Actually, "Wikipedia article traffic statistics" clearly demonstrates that the current team is easily the primary topic over the two historical articles:

    Charlotte Checkers (2010–) has been viewed 10,306 times in the last 90 days. [1]

    Charlotte_Checkers_(1993–2010) has been viewed only 1595 times in the last 90 days. [2]

    Charlotte Checkers (1956–1977) has been viewed only 556 times in the last 90 days.[3]. Dolovis (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no feud with you, and its getting tiring hearing you constantly go around stating that. (if anyone goes out of their way to disagree its you) Local hit rates are not the only thing you need to judge by. We have to look at news articles that are out there and how many are talking about the current team vs the old teams. In many cases yes, like the Winnipeg Jets I clearly agree it is the primary topic because NHL teams generate so much traffic every day there is little point of it not being the primary. But a brand new one year minor league team that does not have the decades of history, just doesn't have a clear cut case for being the primary topic yet, in a couple years yes I would agree its probably gotten to the point where there are more articles out there about this team than the old teams. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have demonstrated that Charlotte Checkers (2010–) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You have stated your disagreement, but have shown nothing to back-up your POV opinion, or to refute what I have proven. Dolovis (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You have done no such thing. If you read that policy you link to it mentions specifically that hit counts are not the only way to demonstrate primary topic. It also mentions that one can look at all the newspaper sources that exist for the various topics. A team that existed for 17 years is clearly at this point in time going to have more newspaper articles about it than a team that existed for a year. That is indisputable. If you really think that a one year team has managed to build up more news articles in a year than a team did that lasted for 17 years then you are being ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- Is this a brand new team or merely one that has been promoted to a higher league. In that event, I would suggest that the articles should be merged. This will mean the question of what is Primary would not arise. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  New team. The ECHL one was disbanded and another AHL team was moved to Charlotte. I agree if they were it would make it easy. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Checkers (2010–) → Charlotte Checkers – When defunct and current sport teams have the same name, it is standard practice for the current team to be deemed the primary topic. Examples of such practice include the Winnipeg Jets. This current AHL team has been in operation since 2010 and page hits confirm that it is clearly the most likely topic sought when a reader searches for this term. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Dolovis (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd recommend moving the pages to Charlotte Checkers (AHL), Charlotte Checkers (ECHL) and Charlotte Checkers (EHL/SHL). -- GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this goes through, the disambiguation page will need to be displaced to Charlotte Checkers (disambiguation) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle Red Slash 20:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Charlotte Checkers is currently a disambig page of 3 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.