Talk:Dynasty (sports)

should it be linked to USA/Canada only?

As a European I've literally never heard of anyone use the term "Dynasty" for dominance in any sport other than American ones. Seems really odd to have Association football referenced in the article as it's not a term used. 78.149.135.14 (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is it's not even a debate. No-one uses it as a term in any shape or form, evidenced by the fact no topics register any Europeans clamouring for their team to have this 'title'. As it doesn't feature. I don't think by trying to shoehorn in European sports to this article to seem Worldly actually has the opposite effect. It assumes non-North American sports should buy into a uniquely American term/idea when they clearly do not. 78.149.135.14 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting Removal of Dynasties In Question Section

I feel, as it stands, the "Dynasties in Question" section no longer fits with the content of the article. There are only twelve entries in the section, compared to how extremely exhaustive the rest of the article is, and some of them even appear both in the In Question section and their respective sport's section. I feel we should integrate them into their respective sections, while also indicating why people call them into question in order to emphasize the debate about their dynasty status outside the confines of this article. Mumbai0618 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Mumbai0618

Original research

Since there is no internationally agreed upon definition of a level of dominance needed before a "dynasty" is/has taken place, any entry to this list must have a citation that verifies it is considered a dynasty, not just a citation verifing their success. If a citation does not exist calling their success a dynasty, it's precense on this list is WP:OR, as we are including it based on our intepretation of what does/does not constitute a dynasty, which is exactly why we end up having disagreements about what should and should not be included on this list. Most recently, see the discussions about the Kansas City Chiefs (resolved after the outcome of Superbowl LVIII) and the Golden State Warriors. With this in mind, over the coming days I will be going through and removing all the original research from this page, even if it means getting rid of most of it (which will probably happen as dynasties seem to be an almost exclusivly American concept). I just thought I would give this heads up now, so that when I remove half of the entries, my reasons are spelled out here in full rather than just a limited edit summary. SSSB (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I would be astonished if you find any association football or European sport called a Dynasty, capital D, like an additional title bestowed. Dominance in sport is shown by what titles they win, I don't think Europeans buy into this idea there needs to a supra-title too. Uniquely North American. 78.149.135.14 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This whole article is super weird. The lede is mainly a stream of consciousness that fails to establish that there's any workable definition of "dynasty" upon which to base a list of dynasties. I'd chuck the entire list and reduce this thing to two or three paragraphs. Townlake (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I significantly reduced the size of the article. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Townlake (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've completely gone in the opposite direction. I agree that the article was getting unwieldly, but to imply that NO era in ANY sport should be listed as a dynasty - just because of fans being fans - is not helping the problem, it's just turning that problem into a new one. Now, the article is a stub, which makes it woefully incomplete. I will save my thoughts on a middle ground for a new section, but for now, I will say that we should (at the very least) create "History" and "Definition" sections, the former describing how the term has formed and evolved over time, and the latter discussing the scope of the term both at its most loose (e.g. 90s Braves) and its most strict (Core Four Yankees). Just my two cents, feel free to discuss.Mumbai0618 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Mumbai0618

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As I and several other editors here saw it, this was an unmanageable opinion-driven list masquerading as an article for years in its prior form, so the reset was justified. To my knowledge, officially recognized "dynasties" don't exist outside the NHL, so we didn't lose much by just starting over. I like your ideas and would encourage you to add them, to the extent they are not original research and are based on reliable sources. (I don't know how you'll distinguish between "loose dynasties" and "strict dynasties" without adding impermissible original research, but I look forward to you proving me wrong.) Townlake (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking out loud here, but a strict dynasty would be where there is no debate amoungst sources that it qualfies as a dynasty. Whereas a loose dynasty is where there is some debate about whether it can be considered a dynasty. This also means that (making up an example) that team X However, even I also think we should avaoid falling into a trap of blinding listing every dynasty even when they are reliably sourced. This article is clearly called "Dysnasty (sports)", not "list of sporting dynasties". I would also argue that the later would become an unmanageable long list (the evidence for this being that the previous article contained many sourced entries) and would probably benefit from a series of sub lists ("list of baseball dynasties" etc.) where this central page can list the most notable for each sport. SSSB (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There aren't many reliable sources that discuss what isn't a dynasty, so I don't think the "no debate" approach would work. Maybe instead there should be a "Usage" section that describes how American sportswriters, clickbait creators, and ESPN employees declare certain teams "dynasties" for American readers' entertainment, despite most major leagues not formally recognizing that title and non-Americans having no use for it. Townlake (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. First, the influence of American culture is so strong throughout the world that most people are at least aware of what a 'dynasty' in the context of sports represents. While it is true that the concept originates from America, it does not mean that the term cannot be utilized elsewhere. For example, here a British radio station uses the term for Manchester City, as does no less British Guardian here. Monerals (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

America is neither the source of everything benevolent in this world nor the source of everything evil. Stop denying agency to the outside world. The term 'dynasty' is now widely utilized in European football (in English and other langauges). Monerals (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not widely used in European football, it is sparingly used used. And the fact remains that the declarations of dynasties is still predominantly seen in American media and only occasionally in European media. SSSB (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it baffles me that periods of sustained competitive excellence that meet notability guidelines cannot be displayed here, but I guess you guys have already made your mind. Monerals (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Rather than complain, why don't you actually make your case? To summarise the discussion so far and to adress your comment: Because they often don't meet the WP:VERIFY requirements and this isn't List of sporting dynasties so it would be inappropriate to list sporting dynasties. Theoretically we could list a couple of examples, but then the question becomes justify those we do pick. SSSB (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If I may place my two cents. A similar discussion was held at Talk:Winning streak and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winning streak about how these types of articles become WP:INDISCRIMINATE with list-type articles. Ideally, the article in its current state ought to be renamed as suggested above, but if we would rather discuss the topic of a dynasty, then this article should be WP:TNTed, keeping the most notable dynasties. Conyo14 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what we tried to do, based on a (at the time) unanimous consensus here. Since then, only one person has come to this discussion to (implicitly) argue against such a move. SSSB (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There was never unanimous consent. In the relevant conversation there were two editors in favour of the changes and two against with no convincing arguments made by either side. This article does need improvement, though the actions taken so far can best described by WP:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!. Reach out to the relevant sport WikiProjects and see if anyone will improve their groups subsection of the article. This article needs surgery, not an execution. Deadman137 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Deadman in getting more support. It might be best to do an RfC since this is a huge change to the article. Conyo14 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur, RfC seems necessary. I object to the unnecessary interim restoration of loads of WP:OR in clear violation of sitewide standards, but for now I know I'm fighting a losing battle against local consensus. Townlake (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)