Talk:Monterrey La Raza

Merge
It is my view that Monterrey La Raza (current) and Monterrey La Raza (1992–2001) should be merged into a single article at Monterrey La Raza. This is what I think the proposed merged article could look like. However, another editor has reverted my attempts to merge the articles. In my opinion there is a clear link between the teams and the second is just a revival of the first. I can understand the logic in separate articles for franchises with the same name when there is plenty to write about. However, I think it is ridiculous to have two separate articles especially when both are barely stub level. I also don’t think splitting articles like this is very user friendly. When I look up a subject on Wiki, I really don't want to have to trawl thru numerous articles to find what I’m looking for. I think it makes more sense to have them on the same page. Also when creating or editing articles it is extremely painful trying to make sure other articles are linked correctly. You will notice that very few articles are linked to either Monterrey La Raza (current) or Monterrey La Raza (1992–2001). The majority are linked to Monterrey La Raza. Sorry for ranting ! Am I alone in this view ? I would be interested in hearing any views here. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY OPPOSE MERGE The two Monterrey La Raza franchises are completely different teams. The link between the two is the name.  The original La Raza team ceased operations in 2001.  The new team came into existence in 2007 when it was awarded a new franchise in the MISL.  The new team purchased the copyright to the original's name and logo.  In between the two, there had been another Monterrey indoor team (the Fury).  Wikipedia precedent is that two teams with the same name get two articles, not one.  Examples include the Seattle Sounders (three articles), San Jose Earthquakes, Tampa Bay Rowdies, Vancouver Whitecaps, Baltimore Blast.  I see no reason to make an exception to this precedent for the La Raza. KitHutch (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So completely different ! Really ? They just happen to use the same name, play the same sport, use the same logos and colours and even had the same coach ! Some of the above articles you mention should also be merged for the same reasons outlined above. This just makes a mockery of Wiki. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The original La Raza ceased operations in 2001, and a new team with the same name was born in 2007. By your logic, if I were to die tomorrow and then my brother had a son and named it after me, that would be the same person.  Also, by your logic, anyone with the same name should have be in one giant article together.  Two different teams, two different articles. KitHutch (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we were talking about a person, you might have a point, but we are talking about a football team. Try to stick to the point and avoid hair splitting. Djln--Djln (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out Fall River United, Fall River Rovers, Fall River F.C., New Bedford Whalers, New York Giants (soccer), New York Americans (soccer), New York Hakoah, Brooklyn Wanderers, Brooklyn Hakoah, Brooklyn Celtic and Philadelphia Field Club just to name a few. (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm American so I talk about soccer team unless you are talking about gridiron football. I could cite more articles where different teams with the same name have two different articles as well.  However, thse early American soccer teams that you mentioned need to have their articles split to comply with the precedent that has already been set.  Should both Major Indoor Soccer Leagues or both National Professional Soccer Leagues get one article too?  I think not.  Two teams, two articles. KitHutch (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about precedent but there are no hard and fast rules on Wiki. I’m sure we could both make lengthy lists of articles supporting the cases both for and against merging. Where is the precedent you keep citing recorded ? I think it makes more sense to judge articles on a case by case basis. Do you really thing it makes sense to spilt Fall River F.C. into two stubs (not lengthy enough to be called articles) when they barely played two seasons between them ? Please try and stick to the point. We are talking about football (soccer) teams not leagues. However please note that American Soccer League is one article covering three different leagues. Djln--Djln (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use a colon ":" not a "*" to set off new paragraphs. I think that all three American Soccer Leagues should have separate articles.  I created several of the indoor soccer team articles several years ago.  Originally, I included every team with the same name in each article.  They were all divided.  Since that team, in order to avoid edit wars, the precedent has been that each team gets a separate article.  The La Raza teams are two separate teams.  They should have two separte articles. KitHutch (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I’ll start paras how I want thanks ! Once again please stick to point. So originally you thought the same as me then ? How come you are being so belligerent now ?. Can you not see any logic in judging these on a case by case basis. For example I can see the logic in having separate articles on Vancouver Whitecaps NASL, USL and MLS because there is plenty to write about. However in the case of Fall River F.C. two articles would be pointless and just feature a para at most. Please don’t just giving robotic answers. Can you show where this precedent is recoreded? Djln--Djln (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would take me some time to look that up.KitHutch (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been about a month and nothing new has been added. I would say there is no concensus so the articles stay the way they are. KitHutch (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)