Talk:Revival (sports team)

I'm not at all enthusiastic about this article.

Three major problems:

(1) A near-complete lack of references;

(2) A lack of any evidence that the term "revival" is a commonly acknowledged standard for sports teams assuming the nicknames of earlier teams in their cities;

(3) Whether or not the foregoing could be established, this seems much more a dicdef than otherwise, and in the event ought to be transwikied. Ravenswing 08:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you do point number 3? Are you familiar with that process? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've a problem with the inclusion criteria. Revival should only be a descriptive for a suspended franchise, that gets reactivated. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the subject matter of this page as we do often hear terms like revival being used for teams that have been named after old teams. This is pretty common. However, whether or not it should be linked to in an infobox on the Senators page is a completely different matter. One which I could go either way. Probably lean towards removing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That discussion belongs on the Senators talk page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a real concept of sports team revival that is distinct from the regular dictionary definitions of revival. I believe the term will get used by the media any time a team is started up again where there used to be one, following the metaphor of restoring a team to that sport's fans after the previous team ceased to exist. But since this is basically the same meaning as any use of the term revival, I don't think a specific article for sports team revival is warranted. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thing is, DJ, there's a difference between something being a useful concept to a sportswriter penning a column and making a valid Wikipedia article. My second point is the key one: that I don't believe - and no evidence has been proffered to support - that it's been demonstrated that "revival" is a commonly accepted term covering this situation, that it happens enough for a widely held concept to be recognized, or that sources can be found which meet the criteria of the GNG: that the concept of "revival" is discussed by multiple reliable sources in "significant detail" as such. I'm willing to give a reasonable amount of time for such sources to be found, but failing them will file an AfD or redirect the article.

  IMHO, fixes such as "informal term" aren't sufficient; they beg an "according to whom?" tag. Ravenswing 07:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, I was just pointing out that I don't have a big issue with it as others might. I think Isaacl has probably offered the best idea. We should probably just redirect and merge anything useful into the main revival page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The main page is a disambiguation page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any redirection is required, as the word is just being used in its usual dictionary sense, without any special meaning. (I think the term in theatre does have a specific connotation associated with it; the article on television revivals, on the other hand, is self-contradictory as it mainly lists adaptations and sequels that, by its own definition in the lead, aren't revivals.) isaacl (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned, this article should be considered for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

I must disagree with the inclusion of the Senators as a revived franchise. The Senators were an expansion franchise in 1992. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. It's only the revival of a name. The Winnipeg Jets revived the name. What other term would you use to indicate that two teams of the same name are not the same? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this article's definition of revival. That discription should be limited to suspended franchises, which get reactivated. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In theatre, a 'revived play' doesn't mean its the same actors or organization. Often they put on the play in a different time period. So, it's not the same thing. In sports, you revive the colours and name. It's impossible to have any other connection over a long period of time. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll let others decide on the fate of this article & it's inclusion criteria. As for the Jets? they're not a revived franchise either. The Thrashers/Jets franchise was never suspended. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So in your mind a revival has to be the exact same team coming back ? So to bring back the Hartford Whalers we would need Gordie Howe, Kevin Dineen, and Ron Francis to lace up their skates and be in the starting line up ? UrbanNerd (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers are 'now' the Carolina Hurricanes. The Ottawa Senators 'are not' a relocated franchise. The Winnipeg Jets 'were' the Atlanta Thrashers. Clarify your Howe, Dineen, Francis post. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it's painful to try and talk to you. You just can't comprehend simple things, I give up. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hartford Whalers don't need to be revived, that franchise still eixist as the Carolina Hurricanes. The original Winnipeg Jets don't need to be revived as that franchise still exist as the Phoenix Coyotes. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Same as phoenix club?

This the same thing as phoenix club (sports), albeit this article is a poorer one.