Talk:Collingwood Blues (2020–) - Wikipedia
9 people in discussion
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) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Oppose this one has 88 views but the other has 58[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Comment: if this doesn't pass, the title should be renamed per MOS:TOPRESENT. Gonnym (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Note that related RMs have recently been closed at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005)#Requested move 30 July 2024 (closed 27 September 2024) and Talk:Trois-Rivières Aigles (2013)#Requested move 1 August 2024 (closed 5 September 2024). — BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Support. The defunct team was previously buoyed by being the target of a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; however, after the redirect was converted to a DAB, we're seeing the extant team take an increasingly large share of the pageviews. (At the time I write this: 195 vs. 125 since July 31, 85 vs. 23 since the extant team's views began surging on August 27.) By now, I think the case has become fairly strong that the extant team is the primary topic. (If the original proposal fails to achieve consensus, my second choice would be to switch to the alternate disambiguator proposed by Necrothesp.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose Since the conversion of the redirect to a dab,[2] Collingwood Blues (2020–) averages only 10 views/day, showing no evidence of long-term significance for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- In the last 30 days, the 2020 team has been getting 12 views per day compared to 4 for the defunct team, totaling 77% of the views for the two topics. That might be enough to be considered primary for a WP:TWODABS situation, although WP:RECENTISM could be a factor. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply