Talk:Denver Outlaws (2006–2020)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Denver Outlaws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930235621/http://www.denverpost.com/lacrosse/ci_3848266 to http://www.denverpost.com/lacrosse/ci_3848266
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070729083756/http://www.majorleaguelacrosse.com/news/pressreleases/index.html?article_id=668 to http://majorleaguelacrosse.com/news/pressreleases/index.html?article_id=668

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denver Outlaws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222005259/http://www.lax.com/story.phtml?story=1663 to http://www.lax.com/story.phtml?story=1663
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222005301/http://www.lax.com/stories/MLL-Collegiate-Draft-2008-sid-2113.html to http://www.lax.com/stories/MLL-Collegiate-Draft-2008-sid-2113.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222005409/http://www.lax.com/stories/2009-MLL-College-Draft-sid-2363.html to http://www.lax.com/stories/2009-MLL-College-Draft-sid-2363.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Split into two articles, one for MLL Outlaws and one for PLL Outlaws?
In order to prevent this article from being moved back and forth I'm adding this topic to start the discussion. I feel that this article should not be split as the PLL seems to be fully adopting this history of the MLL outlaws to this new team, while they are functionally different, it does appear that the PLL is going to be keeping the MLL Outlaws history with this new team. Keeping the history makes this situation similar to the way the Browns officially went into hiatus when the team moved to Baltimore and came out of hiatus when a new franchise was awarded. If later on it appears that the PLL is treating them a unique, separate, teams, I will absolutely support a split, but for the time being the page should not be split. Jsfxmn (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * KEEP This is always a sticky issue. Are they the same corporation? No. But is the Cleveland Browns and Charlotte Hornets can both take the history of their teams (especially Charlotte), then these two should be in the same article. I think it just needs to be made VERY CLEAR the difference between the MLL years and PLL years. (Bes2224 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC))


 * Denver Outlaws → Denver Outlaws (2006–2020); Chrome Lacrosse Club → Denver Outlaws — These are simply two distinct sports franchises, not one or three. There is overwhelming precedent for covering seperate franchises on Wikipedia in this manner; e.g. Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996) and Winnipeg Jets; Portland Timbers (1975–1982), Portland Timbers (1985–1990), Portland Timbers (2001–2010), and Portland Timbers; Baltimore Orioles (1882–1899), Baltimore Orioles (1901–1902), and Baltimore Orioles. It's typically done this way because mixing the histories of distinct franchises run by different ownership can greatly confuse readers. Recent rebrands by teams such as the Cleveland Guardians and the Washington Commanders did not result in any serious moves by editors to split those pages, so I'm wondering why Chrome's rebranding should be treated differently? Pinging as participants in a similar discussion on Talk:Chrome Lacrosse Club. — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just copy what I wrote there.
 * I disagree with merging the two Outlaws pages. Branding aside, they're basically two unaffiliated organizations with entirely different personnel operating in entirely separate leagues. The cannons kept the same page because there was significant continuity (personnel and players) between the two teams.
 * For an example of identically named teams, with a lack of continuity, see the NLL's Boston Blazers (1992-1997) and Boston Blazers (2009-2011).
 * I've somewhat softened on this position after seeing that the new Outlaws have been claiming the MLL franchise's history and championships on social media, creating some continuity, but that's honestly fairly tenuous. SammySpartan (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Entities claim the history of similarly-named entities all the time, but that doesn't make it true, any more than it would if I claimed the Denver Outlaws' history and championships on my Facebook page. We deal in facts here, and the fact is that these are two separate franchises.   Ravenswing      23:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The PLL is essentially the MLL. They kept the Cannons through the "merger," were smart to bring back the Outlaws, and if they are still smart they will bring back other franchises/monikers that had fans and brand recognition like the Bayhawks and Lizards in the future. The Cannons retained one page and the Outlaws should, too, while the Chrome's short life should have its own page. The fact that this is not the case is a joke, but I don't have time to correct the pages again. Marlinite (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)