Talk:New York Red Bulls/Merge

Merge
DO NOT ADD BELOW. Merge discussion at Talk:MetroStars

Do not move this page
This page should stay here to preserve the MetroStars from 1996-2005. DR31 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming Red Bull announces that the 'new' team has no history, I agree that this article should remain and a new 'Red Bull NYC' or whatever article be created. However, what if the announcement indicates otherwise, i.e. simple renaming, new ownership, etc.? I read the announcement and there is no indicatiuon that the team history is being excluded... --Elliskev 14:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not, yet. However, I would like to preserve the old MetroStars page here and continute updating Red Bull New York, drawing a clear line in between. Although RB assumes Metro history (so far), there's no harm in having two pages, like they did with Wimbledon F.C. and Milton Keynes Dons F.C. and AFC Wimbledon.


 * I agree. This is different than Dallas Burn/FC Dallas or Wiz/Wizards in that it's not just a renaming.  There's new ownership and it will likely be a very different team (fan experience, etc.). My condolences... --Elliskev 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference in that situation was that the team was moved away from its fans. This is just a rebranding - the "new" team has the same personnel, acknowledges the history of the "old" club, maintains the same contracts, same stadium plan, etc.  Not the same as Wimbledon FC at all.


 * Other than the unusual but not unprecedented step of rebranding the club for a new corporate owner (as opposed to the old corporate owner that gave them the MetroStars name), this isn't substantively any different than any other club rebranding. --Chancemichaels 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

From newyorkredbulls.com: Over 750 people registered for a free trip to Washington to see the Red Bulls' first-ever game against D.C. United. As far as I know, the MetroStars and DC played at least 45 times through the 10 years. Yes, they really intend to keep the history of the franchise. NOT. It's lip service, if anything. DR31 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

They are right. It is the first ever Red Bulls game. All other games played by this club has been as the Metrostars. KitHutch 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
I think that this page should be merged with Red Bull New York. The new owners are not erasing the history of the franchise. It's just a name change. KitHutch 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, see my comments above. --Elliskev 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No. MetroStars history should be preserved. A key point is that although RB uses Metro history (now), they can re-write it (witness last week's articles on MLSnet already: Red Bulls sign Canadian national team midfielder Adrian Serioux). Ummm... no. And then they can go back and say RBNY is not Metro, who knows what the long-term plan is. Let's not rewrite history on Wikipedia. This page will cover Metro from 1996-2005, and the rest can go on living on RBNY page. Trust me, from someone who knows a lot about this deal: it's more than just a name change. DR31 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge. There's precedent here; Washington Bullets redirects to Washington Wizards, for instance. This is the easiest and most logical way. It's the same franchise, just a different name. It's comparable to, say, a woman with an article on Wikipedia who gets married and changes her name. We don't retain an article with her old name just for the sake of past history. The voting going on here is a bit sloppy, could we organize it a little better? StarryEyes 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, its a little more than just the continuation of the same franchise. It's not the Bullets/Wizards example or the Burn/FCD example. It's an unprecedented< example in US sports. Trust me, from someone who knows a lot about this deal: it's more than just a name change. Look, I spent a lot of time the past two years keeping this page (and other MLS pages up) to standard. If Wikipedia users vote to erase the MetroStars, I'm gone for good. I thought this was one place which can preserve history. I see NO HARM in it. DR31 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unusual? Yes.  Unprecedented?  No.  See Orlando Miracle.  --Chancemichaels 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
 * I stand corrected. DR31 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add this. If these pages are merged (which is what hapenned in the Wimbledon case, which is the closest possible precedent on Wikipedia), you will see a lot of in-fighting between two sets of fans. Originally, Wimbledon F.C. redirected to Milton Keynes Dons F.C. when the club was sold. Then, it was separated, in an effort to preserve history and prevent the in-fighting. Yes, the situation is different here since the club didn't move. But it's much close to the Wimbledon situation than to the of the Bullets/Wizards. I don't think any outsider can understand that. DR31 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

DR31, perhaps you can edit Red Bull New York to explain how this deal is unprecedented? Having edited with you for a while on Wikipedia, I'm inclined to trust your judgement on this, but making it clear could demonstrate exactly why a merge is a poor solution.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try to add some things to it, but unfortunately a lot of the stuff I can't delve into. Probably the best example on Wikipedia is Jaguar Racing and Red Bull Racing. Red Bull bought the team and kept its history (I believe), but the Jaguar page is kept for historical reasons. DR31 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, I support a merge here. Dr31, please go into more detail about why this is more like the Wimbledon-Milton Keynes example than others. As of right now, the basis of your argument lies the possibility of you excersizing your right to leave and in "trusting" you on items you cannot "delve into." This message is not meant to be hostile and I honestly want to hear more about your side of the arguement. If you can give some more details on why this is more than a transfer and a name change, I will be more than happy to back you up in a fight against the merge. Cheers.  young american (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the FIRST time a corporation bought an American sports club and re-branded it in its image. I added some stuff to the Red Bull page explaining the situation and conflict. Look, for the past week I've been doing damage control and dealing with 100s of fans each with their own idea of (is it the same club? an evolved club? a new club?) and each person -- each Metro supporter, not outsider -- has his own idea. At the end, the overall conscensus is to move on with the new club (although MANY are abandoning it, meaning they are MetroStars fans and will NOT be Red Bull NY fans, meaning seeing no MetroStars page on Wikipedia will be a slap in the face to those people), but also preserve the Metro history as separate. Especially considering Red Bull's history of wiping out and re-writing history for many of its purchases. Again Red Bulls sign Canadian national team midfielder Adrian Serioux. When this press release came out, there was no such thing as "Red Bulls". Let's not rewrite history at Wikipedia. DR31 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't "the FIRST time a corporation bought an American sports club and re-branded it in its image". See Orlando Miracle.  Chancemichaels 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * Additionally, the Arena football team from Sacramento was relocated and renamed to the Miami Hooters, after the restaurant chain. See Florida Bobcats. User:Jorelson 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose the merge, though probably not for the reasons Dr31 can't tell us about. We have a near-exact parallel to this that has occurred in Wikipedia's lifetime: Anaheim Angels. A controversial (and, in my opinion, equally horrible) name change left a short article under that title, and a longer article under Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. There's even a third article describing the fight over the name. So I think there should definitely be a MetroStars article, and a RBNY article. What's in one and what's in the other is perhaps unclear, but let's keep both.--Mike Selinker 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good precedent, preserved history, and prevented further in-fighting. Although this change is a little more drastic. DR31 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Which, of course, will allow you to write a Red Bull New York name dispute article. :^) --Mike Selinker 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Only when the dust settles. It's been an insane week. DR31 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Better to clean up the appalling Angels entries than replicate that mess here. --Chancemichaels 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
 * I now oppose merging, per the Angles articles. I would like to see these articles parallel the format of those articles. Thanks, Dr31 and Mike Selinker for addressing my concerns.  young american  (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, if the MetroStars page just has a short history of the club and explain the rebranding issues, I will be fine with that. I just don't want Tab Ramos or Roberto Donadoni or Tim Howard pages pointing directly to RBNY. It's just not right. DR31 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, a key point which I forgot to mention is that it's possible (not likely, but possible), that a new expansion team called the MetroStars will be created maybe 5 years down the line, which will assume the original Metro history (think Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens). If that is the case, we'll have a HUGE mess on our hands (or at least those of us who will be on Wikipedia at that point) trying to break the two up if they are merged. DR31 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For reference: You might want to check out this heated debate when the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and I support a merge. Red Bull New York is officially the same team as the Metrostars, just renamed. There should only be one page for each team, and RBNY/Metros are the same team. I know this site has a page for the Montreal Expos, but that decision is wrong. It's common sense. You're letting your emotions get in the way of facts. --Scaryice 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is that decision wrong? Why are any decisions on Wikipedia right? There are number of cases when separate pages exist (Angels, Expos, Jaguar Racing, Nordiques, Jets, USSR national team, Czechoslovakia national team, others). And there are number of cases where it's in one page. As I said above, there is no precedent for this situation in American sports. DR31 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that in any case where the team's history is kept, then there should only be one team page for that team. I don't care what has been done elsewhere on the site. Just because other pages have been done that way doesn't mean it's the correct decision. I think it's wrong in every case. --Scaryice 00:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So there are precedents either way for a merge or a redirect. Regardless, whichever way is chosen now you can always undo it later, so there's no real need for this debate to get too heated. At this point I think that the arguments for a merge are more analytical and those for separate articles are more passionate. Given the emotion, I say let's leave them as separate articles. If it turns out to be a dumb idea, you can always merge it in the future.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. There's no urgency here. It can always be revisited. --Elliskev 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge. The new club is keeping the history of the old one, just as the Los Angeles Dodgers kept the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Brooklyn Robins, the Brooklyn Bridegrooms and all the other names the team used. If the Seattle Pilots are part of the Milwaukee Brewers' page, and the St. Louis Browns are part of the Baltimore Orioles' page, then why separate these two versions of the same franchise? Chancemichaels 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
 * At then we have Montreal Expos, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets, Jaguar Racing, Anaheim Angels, etc. Why don't people read the above arguments before posting the same thing again? DR31 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read the arguments; I simply find them unpersuasive. The fact is that Wikipedia does not have a clear policy, as you and I have demonstrated with our counter-examples.  That means you'll need more to justify keeping this page than the fact that it has sometimes been done in the past.


 * I can see creating a new entry when a team leaves a market, such as the Expos. This is merely a rebranding of a team.  They aren't leaving the market, they aren't giving up the history of the MetroStars, they aren't starting from scratch.  It's the same club, same personnel, same location, just a new name.  Chancemichaels 18:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels.

Support It is the same franchise, just a new name. That's what the owners, both old and new, hte GM the coach the league commissioner, etc. have all said. Look, I'm sorry to see the nifty Red and Black unis go, but this team is the same franchise! --oknazevad 18:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious no solution will be reached? And I thought Wikipedia was not about rewriting history. DR31 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merging articles is not "rewriting history." Chancemichaels 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * The team was not moved away from its fans in the physical sense, but about 20% of the fans are saying they want nothing to do with the new team. And more than half of those who will support RBNY, will not call them "Red Bull". If Wikipedia wants to spit in the face of those fans, go right ahead, merge the pages.


 * You know, it's sad. I spent the past two years working on this page and hundreds of other MLS pages, keeping them up to date, checking facts, cleaning up others' (and my own) work, creating new pages. Now people (and not all, but 50% of them) who have never edited this page, or any other MLS page, or have no idea about the schism in MetroStars/RBNY supporters, or the rewriting of history that Red Bull is trying to do, have a voice. As I said it above, if this page is merged, Wikipedia is dead to me. I know, I am just one person, and I know that while I too a sabatical for the summer, a number of users helped keep MLS pages updated. And Wikipedia will survive without me. Whatever. DR31 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * None of that addresses my point, which is that merging articles is not "rewriting history." Red Bull New York is keeping the MetroStars history.  They're simply rebranding the team.  ---Chancemichaels 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * How is it erasing history? If you go to Tim Howard's page, and click on MetroStars, and it redirects you to Red Bull New York, how is that not re-writing history? And I don't care about precedents, because as numerous other examples have shown, there are precedents on both sides of the debate. Each case, each "precedent", be it Angels, Bullets, Connecticut Sun, or Wimbledon, is different. And as I've said it numerous times, because of the HUGE schism in the fans (as well as a number of other points you can't just ignore), it's more than a simple rebranding. I'm tired of repeating myself, but if I need to drive this point accross, I will. DR31 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a consensus exists to do this. I have posted this proposal at Proposed mergers to solicit outside opinion. As a side, I think some weight should be given to editors that have invested time in this article. That's not to say anything about ownership or imply that edits should not be expected to berewritten, reverted, etc.  It's just to point out that this article has history and that history includes some dedicated editors... FWIW --Elliskev 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. Personally, I don't think a consensus is possible until the heat of the moment passes.  There's too much emotion right now.  Maybe in a couple weeks, we can give this the dispassionate regard it deserves. ---Chancemichaels 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * I'm sorry, but from someone who supported this team through 10 years of crap, and now has spent the past 2 weeks dealing with my own sentiment on this change while listening to 100s of other supporters, all with their own opinion, I will never be dispassionate about this. I came to Wikipedia 2 years ago when MetroStars was a simple stub. I came with the goal to grow the world's awareness of the team -- and the league. If I was dispassionate, there would be no this page in its current state, or 100s of other pages. If you or others, who can't tell Ruben Dario Hernandez from Daniel Hernandez from Jason Hernandez want to kill my work and help erase the memory of your team, I will try my best to prevent it. What harm is it to have the MetroStars page give a short history of the team's first 10 years, while the rest is continued at RBNY? DR31 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New ownership purchasing a team and coming up with a new name and direction has happened previously in sports history. The fact that the franschise was not disbanded and restarted, regardless of what the new ownership is saying, means that Red Bull New York is simply the 2006 version of the 2005 MetroStars. There is ample precedent to make the name change a redirect, which has been done in almost all cases. The fact that the two articles overlap for 98% of their content only proves that these are duplicate articles. Just look at the article for the "New" team and tell me how it differs? Do fans like the new name and direction? Who cares? It's irrelevant. This makes no more sense than having separate article for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. The answer is simple: Merge the trivial difference into the Red Bull New York article and redirect. If, in the future, there is a real justification to separate the article, then the MetroStars content from the Rd Bull New York article should be pulled out, reinserted into the MetroStars article and the redirect removed. Until then, the fact that there is huge amounts of duplicate information in the two articles says that they're one and the same. If the articles must exist as separate article, draw a sharp line and split the content between the two. Alansohn 17:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. DR31 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the merge. The fact of the matter is that it's the same club. And from the size of the Red Bull New york article, DR31 is probably right about the duplicate article thing. Kingjeff 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As a UK football fan who has only just become aware of this situation (after finding out I could watch the Red Bulls/DC United game ofr free), and looked up the rebranding on wikipedia, having two articles seems simply bizarre. It's effectively nothing more than a name change; they're not two separate clubs, and it seems to me that there should be a "Red Bull New York" page with a footnote ragrding the previous name. --Cruci 22:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the merge. It is the same club, in the same area. It is a simple name change. It is inpracticle to have two articles about the same team. I think it should redirect. What I don't understand is that on this discussion page over whether to merge or not, more people support the merge/redirct than don't, and we still haven't merged. Why not, why does the minority get to have their way?Comedy240 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like we're at an 8-5 division. That sounds like enough for a merge. I've certainly gone from "What an outrageously horrible name!" to "Yeah, they should really have a better name" in the past couple months. So yeah, maybe a merge with a "The Name Change" section as on Washington Wizards is a good idea. However, the merge fight currently going on over at Anaheim Angels suggests that maybe an AfD would be the way to go.--Mike Selinker 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to Mike Selinker - I guess Wikipedia isn't a democracy, 5 people who don't like a name change outrule 8 people that know that Red Bull New York and the MetroStars ARE THE SAME TEAM! It is silly that this is still an article, the vote is 8-5 in favour of merge!!!!!! Comedy240 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, so I'm saying if you want it deleted, put it up on AfD and let's see if more people brings more clarity. 8-5 seems pretty muddled to me.--Mike Selinker 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NEW MERGE (Aug. 8)
STRONG MERGE MetroStars and Red Bull New York are the same team. If you don't like the name support another team. Red Bull has officially stated that they are keeping their old history. Comedy240 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep apart I say keep the two articles apart, but edit down the Metrostars article. You don't need the list of coaches, GMs, team records, or other lists on the Metrostars page. KitHutch 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

keep apart I'm a Metrostars fan and will always be. Red Bull New York is just a team with some guys that used to play for the Metrostars. Judging from their attendance, it's dropped from over 15,000 down into the 9,000's, a lot of people agree with me. (this comment by 24.187.110.156 04:20, 9 August 2006)

Is there any precedent for either keeping them apart or putting them together. For instance, Red Bull bought an Austrian team and those team pages are merged. I tend think that they should be merged, but if there is a history of football teams or other sport teams staying apart then I am fine with keeping this way.


 * SV Austria Salzburg was merged into Red Bull Salzburg
 * For an off-sport example that was the first thing to pop to mind: St. Louis Browns redirects to the Baltimore Orioles. I realize this is baseball, but the Browns had 20+ years before being moved and somewhat merged with previous teams. It seems most of these teams that moved and even changed names are merged, at least in Baseball.

Remember, this isn't a matter of whether you like the new name or ownership, this is about the history of the team.

--Rballou 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

MERGE - The team history is the same according to everbody in the organization and MLS. Definitely should be merged. 192.160.62.60 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I agree with Rballou. It is not about the fan's opionons, it is about the facts. (64.12.116.13 00:00, 10 August 2006)

KEEP APART - I discussed the issue at length on Talk:MetroStars when the team was re-branded. I also edited the MetroStars to not contain duplicate info, you can see the example here:. It was called a good compromise on Talk:MetroStars. I will repeat again: there is enough history and enough difference to keep the two pages apart. It is not what "one fan" thinks, it is the opinion of a large percentage of fans, and it's also the opinion of Red Bull, who is trying their best to erase Metro history (just visit the RBNY office if you need a clue on what they think of Metro). There is NO HARM for Wikipedia in trying to preserve Metro history with their own page. As for examples of St. Louis Browns or whatever, there's always Quebec Nordiques and Hartford Whalers, which are much more recent and much more relevant. DR31 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep apart - different teams.--Kwame Nkrumah 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read the discussion (which according to votes was in favor of a merge) and I stand by my vote above (for the merge). I'm not voting again or trying to start yet another heated discussion, but I wanted to say we should at least link the two similiar to the Anaheim Angels page if they are to remain separate (that is an example that Dr31 mentions on that talk page as a reason to keep the teams separate). Granted, this is one of the only team pages that does this, but I think it would help avoid confusion for those people searching for information and would be a good precedent. If we are to keep the separate, their needs to be a clear link between the two.


 * While I think the amount of history under the name "MetroStars" doesn't warrant it's own page (most teams that have separate pages have 20+ years worth history as one team or played in vastly different leagues (the Angels for instance were mostly a minor league team)), I can also appreciate the work that Dr31 and others have put in on both pages. I do think the teams are the same and that they share history (dispite some circumstantial evidence and negative fan support which suggest otherwise) supported on several fronts including news stories, press releases, staying in the same metro area, and very few changes in roster and support staff. If the pages are kept separate, I think it will also imply that pages like SV Austria Salzburg and Red Bull Salzburg should be separated. It's clear that there isn't a decided upon precendent with buyouts, perhaps it would be amiable to make the Metrostars page a history page related to RBNY (as I suggested with the link above). Besides, when they move the Wizards, I'll vote to merge that :) --Rballou 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very few changes in support staff? You gotta be kidding me. The whole front office and coaching staff is overhauled. The roster turnover from 2005 is over 50% as well, and ongoing. I'm all for making MetroStars into a history page, and I will come back from my self-imposed exhile to write a detailed history of my team. DR31 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rballou is correct. As much respect I have for DR31, he/she (sorry don't know) does not provide a single piece of evidence why they should remain seperate. What we should do is make a MetroStars section under Red Bull New York discussing how many fans feel upset about the move. Comedy240 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence? As I said, visit the RBNY office and see if there is anything "Metro"-related there. As far as RBNY is concerned, Metro is erased. From newyorkredbulls.com: Over 750 people registered for a free trip to Washington to see the Red Bulls' first-ever game against D.C. United. As far as I know, the MetroStars and DC played at least 45 times through the 10 years. Red Bulls acquire Jolley from FC Dallas, headline from March 2nd... RB bought Metro March 9th. They are slowly erasing Metro history, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should do the same. DR31 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't say that Dr31 has no evidence whatsoever for any claim they have made. That said, "visit the RBNY office and see if there is anything 'Metro'-related there" is not evidence of anything. I appreciate what it means if the office doesn't have anything up for MetroStars, but for all I know (having never seen their office) they might only have the RB logo on a wall with no history of Metro or RB NY. Now, if there is a "RBNY history" posted on a wall or a hall of fame that somehow misses everything regarding the MetroStars, then that is evidence of something suspicious (but that could also be pretty innocent). I do think that the press release Dr31 mentions is suspicious, but I also wonder if teams like the Washington Nationals played their "first-ever" match against teams in 2005. I don't know and honestly don't want to spend time looking for it, just a general question. I do think there is a lot of "reading into things" (on the part of many who claim the two are separate teams (and maybe on the other side as well to be fair)) that are strictly the whims of a PR person in charge of the website and not the organization. To me, you can argue that the history is not being preserved or that the two should be separate on some other grounds, but not because they are "separate teams". But then again, RB could be masterminding Orwellian deletion of MetroStar history (as people have pointed out... it might not be the first time). :) --Rballou 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The old MetroStars office was plastered in Metro photos, colors, and memorabilia. In the days following the sale, it was all removed. Wiped out. Erased. The difference is stark. In dealing with the club before and after the sale, RBNY has gone out of their way to remove everything Metro-related from every area they touch. And note how the Washintion Nationals page is separate from Montreal Expos. The Jaguar Racing - Red Bull Racing below is as good as a Wikipedia precedent as there is for this. I'm not saying they are different teams; they might or might not be; FIFA claims that Serbia national football team = Yugoslavia national football team and Russia national football team = USSR national football team, but they are obviously not; and even if they were, it makes sense to have both pages; also see Wimbledon F.C., Milton Keynes Dons F.C., AFC Wimbledon. And if you talk to most SV Austria Salzburg supporters, they don't think that their club is the same as the re-branded RB Salzburg. All I am saying there is enough history and precedent there to keep two pages and preserve Metro history like that. I said it during the sale, I'll say it now, I'll say it every other time this issue will come up. The MetroStars existed for 10 years, and no amount of corporate money should erase that. DR31 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the way the Nationals/Expos pages function. Having the MetroStars page play a main article role to that part of history would be an elegant way to handle the problem. The sticking point for me (I don't know about other pro-merge users) would be to make sure there is no talk about how they are separate teams. I understand the need to point of facts for and against the new name, new ownership, possible alienation of fan base, etc. on these pages, but I still can't wrap my brain around any argument that has been added that suggests that they are two teams. Most verifiable sources on the issue claim that they will preserve MetroStars current ties, their current playing field, etc. (at least this is how it appears to me and I think several other people). The buyout just needs to be treated objectively and with good faith for Wikipedia's sake. I'm willing to work through a compromise on this issue, as I discussed above. I don't know if we should start another section on this talk page or not – I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough how to play some of this. We can do the bureaucratic thing and vote on it whether to work on a comprise or to keep the merge talks open :) I do feel that is excessive, but I just want to avoid confusion and it would be good to get Comedy240's opinion as he was the one who brought up the merge. --Rballou 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absoultely. Moving the rest of the response to the bottom. DR31 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me I'd include a MetroStars section under Red Bull New York History where it talks about the buyout, and all the changes and fan reception in a neutral pov. I think it is very fair to acknowledge the numorous differences the team underwent when it switched ownership. Comedy240 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for keeping two pages. In F1 racing, Red Bull purchased Jaguar Racing and renamed the team Red Bull Racing.  Both maintain separate pages even though they are the same team.  Incidentally, Jaguar Racing was originally Stewart Grand Prix before a name change.  That means one F1 team has three different pages. KitHutch 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. These are much better examples; and yes, the Salzburg ones should be split too. DR31 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If Salzburg is one article it serves as a better example than Red Bull Racing because one is soccer (just like Red Bull New York is soccer) and one is racing. Salzburg is the better example and applies to the merge side. Comedy240 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP SEPERATE! The Metros are a totally different team with their OWN fans, many fans who were there in the beginning are now GONE. And RB has gained NEW fans. This alone should keep the pages seperate as there is a group out there totally doveted to Metro and Metro alone. RBNY is not even a REAL team its a "product" and their fans arent "fans" are "customers". Why merge that shitty ass team with a team who atleast tried to be a REAL Soccer Club? User:Metro4LIFE

Previously, I had said merge outright, and still do. For a simple reason: the team _didn't move_, unlike other North American examples given, like the Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche, meaning that a highly distinct break between the old and the new doesn't exist. And European clubs and North American franchises are very differently organized (see Professional sports league organization for a good description), so a comparison between an American team and a European one is apples and oranges.

The idea of a short MetroStars page to commemorate the teams history under that name is a little iffy, as it was only 10 years, a very short time when dealing with something as long-lived as sports teams. I expect this team to be around for a long time, especially with the new stadium coming, and very shortly the fact that it originally had a different name will be about as remembered as the New York Titans.

Also having a separate MetroStars page helps reinforce the false notion that we're talking about 2 separate teams. For the last time, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE TEAMS!!!! The old owners, the new owners, the league, the press all agree. The only ones who seem not to are a small but vocal group. Yes, the team was sold (happens all the time in N.A. sports), and yes, it was renamed (not unheard of), and in many ways, that's a good thing. The team was ridiculously poorly run for most of its fist ten years, and the Metro name had an air of losing about it. And it was corporate, too, being named for Metromedia, the company of original owner John Kluge. So while it may be fondly remembered by some, the team, the _same_ team changed its name. That's just the way it is. oknazevad 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... They didn't move, but now they are referred to as "New York", and they were never referred to as "New York" before. It's a pretty key point when discussing the team; for example; the Washington Bullets becamse the Washington Wizards in 1997. So anyone who played for the franchise pre- or post- name change, played for "Washington". Not the case here. No one pre-2006, not Tim Howard, not Clint Mathis, not Roberto Donadoni, played for "New York". They played for "MetroStars", one name, and only for "MetroStars" (except in 1996 and 1997, when the team was "NY/NJ MetroStars"). An if you don't think that's important, ask George Zoffinger of the NJSEA. DR31 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you support and insightful argument Oknazevad Comedy240 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there will obviously be no resolution here (the vote is 5:5) and the discussion has been going on for a week, I will use the Wikipedia policy (a few extra votes will not provide a clear majority; besides, Wikipedia is not a democracy), remove the merge signs, revert the MetroStars page to where to a compormised situation that worked for both sides. I know some have strong feelings about this one way or another, but I have worked on the MetroStars and the RBNY pages more than anyone else for the past 2+ years, so as the Wikipedia "owner" of the pages, and as someone who has worked with the club before and after it sale, I feel like I am a little more qualified to make the decision here than the others. When I have a little more time, I will add detailed Metro history into the MetroStars article. Of course, anyone with enough knowledge on the subject is welcome to do the same. DR31 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. First, as per your response above, it wasn't uncommon to hear the MetroStars refered to as New York early on, I distinctly remember the score boxes on MSG from the day using NY as the team abbreviation. As for Zoffinger, he's just showing his last gasp at his rapidly diminishing power, what with so 3/5 of the tenants at the Meadowlands intending to move out.


 * And they were incorrect in doing so after 1998. DR31 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, there are no owners of Wikipedia pages. It'd fundamental Wikipedia policy and philosophy. While I greatly appreciate the work that you've done, work that only you could add because of your work with the team, I think you may be a little too close to it to see things objectively. To that end, I propose that we post this discussion as a request for feedback and see what we get from the broader wiki community. I promise to abide by whatever decision comes from that. I hope you would do the same.oknazevad 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Wikipedia does have page "ownership": Ownership of articles. No, it does not mean that I "own" the article, but Wikipedia is NOT a demoracy, and per policy, the opinion of someone who has worked on the article is worth more than those who haven't. "When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." That is what I was alluding to.


 * I personally think it's ridiculous for the opinion of knows very little on the subject (I am not saying that you are one, but that's what throwing it to the broader community does) should count for something in this situation. And BTW... this was thrown to a request for feedback during the original merge talk. There were no replies.


 * Please understand: there is a large group of people out there who do not see the MetroStars and RBNY as one and the same. And since there are still Metro -- and not RBNY -- supporters out there, this situation will always be in dispute. However; what I am proposing -- and what worked until people (well, ONE person) started to revert the page -- is a COMPROMISE solution, with the MetroStars page dealing only with the team's original name and early history and the RBNY page dealing with the rest. I see absoultely no harm in that. DR31 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't the worst compromise in the world, and it does work for now at least, but I think we should remain open to revisiting this somewhere down the line. Probably not for a while though, as we should wait to see the longer-term broad consensus view to emerge, amongst not just wikipedians or even local soccer fans, but the national and world media. oknazevad 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge request (March 2007)
The result was merge into Red Bull New York. -- JohnnyBGood  t  c  VIVA! 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. // Laughing Man 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged because the red bulls history is the metros history after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYRB (talk • contribs) 02:25, March 15, 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - I agree, it's the same team, it should be merged into the history section of Red Bull New York article. // Laughing Man 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Reading the discussions above, the oppose arguments basically amount to "there are factions of fans who opposed the name change" and "I worked on this article more than you", which seems counter to WP:OWN. Clubs changing their name is hardly new, either in soccer or American sports. Ytny (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already had this discussion last year. It was resoluted then not to merge.  We don't need to have it again. KitHutch 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, there was hardly a consensus against the merge. If anything, most users agreed that the Metrostars and RBNY are one and the same, and DR31's arguments were emotional and not all policy-based.  Ytny (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just merge it and see how it is, if its not good split it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.35.102 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No. Discussion is good. Punkmorten 08:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abse
 * Not too much discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYRB (talk • contribs) 02:25, March 15, 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, this is the same franchise as the Red Bulls. The owner has changed but all records, team members, home field, and stats are the same. The league considers them one continuous franchise. There are no mitigating factors such as with the Montreal Expos (ie the team moved).Gateman1997 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. They're the same club, their histories should be combined. Che84 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No merge. There hasn't been a change in consensus between then and now. Time has passed, yes, but little else, except statements by Red Bull management disavowing the existence of any past the team had,  and that's no shining endorsement or acknowledgement that RBNY and MetroStars were one and the same.  This almost borders on being a merge proposal made in bad faith. Roehl Sybing 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the article on RBNY, it says "Founded: 1995 (as NY/NJ MetroStars)," implying that they are the same club. If we're debating what we should have on this site, then we should be able to look at it for information, and make sure things stay consistent.  Keeping the articles separate makes Wikipedia contradict itself. Che84 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Without saying whether or not it's contradictory, Wikipedia nonetheless reflects the reality regarding this issue. There has been no notable change in consensus since the last time a merge was proposed.  Absent that consensus in favor of merging, what amounts to POV can't be imposed in favor of "consistency" that is not acceptable at this time. Roehl Sybing 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm seeing a different reality than you, but I think that Wikipedia reflects the fact that the two teams are the same. Che84 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, or else these two pages wouldn't exist separately in the first place. I'm not interested in persuading you or changing your mind - you're not going to get anywhere convincing me - but I wanted to give my perception of this issue and hope that it's confirmed by other users. Roehl Sybing 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. First, what consensus? If anything, the consensus (or at least something close to it) in previous discussions was in favor of the merge. Second, POV? The verifiable fact, i.e. the official position of MLS and RBNY, is that Metrostars and RBNY are a single club. Trying to interpret a Red Bull (NB: not RBNY) official's comment in who knows what context or phrasing in a website blurb is the very definition of POV. You can't verify that RBNY has severed itself from the Metrostars, the way the Dynamo did with the Earthquakes. Ytny (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also what consensus is he referring to. Last time as I can see from the previous discussion there was no consensus. Also even if there was consensus can change. And it appears to be changing toward merge thus far in this discussion. (Also a note, it wasn't the Houston franchise that decided not to take SJ's history but MLS and the city of SJ that demanded they not as it is being handed off to the new Earthquakes when they are officially reconstitued in the next few months). Gateman1997 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I'll spell it out in bright neon lights, in case no one's been paying attention: has there been a shift over time from no consensus to a consensus for merging? I don't believe there is, but if I'm wrong, I'll merge the two pages myself. Roehl Sybing 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well as it stands right now only two people are objecting to merging while so far 7 seem to think it's the thing to do. That's a consensus to merge. That and the closing admin will surely take into account the arguments. The merge people have the MLS, RBNY and Wikipedia precedent on their side. Dallas Burn, Kansas City Wiz, San Jose Clash, Houston 1836 all redirect to the team's current names. Why should Metrostars be any different? MLS, RBNY, the owners and most of the fans consider it one continuous team, just because one Metrostars website and a few disgruntled fans object isn't a reason to have a seperate page. Don't get me wrong I understand the emotion behind that, but other then emotion there is no reason to oppose a merge. Gateman1997 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From a Wikipedia standpoint, this isn't about emotion at all, and whether or not the opposition is unjustified, the opposition, in my opinion, is real, and that reality has to be negotiated with. It is also unreasonable to tally votes merely three days into a discussion.  I can still be wrong and sentiment may have changed over time, but I'm still wait and see for the whole picture. Roehl Sybing 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is the opposition, what little opposition that does exist, is largely irrelevant. It has no bearing on the team's actual situation, which is that their name is now RBNY and all the Metrostar history belongs to RBNY. The opposition can be noted in the RBNY article under the history section. A few disgruntled fans don't change reality or fact, and the fact of the situation and reality is that RBNY is the current name of the franchise that was formerly the Metrostars. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not a small segment of the team's fans who refuse to accept reality. Gateman1997 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete. There is no need or justification to have two articles about the same topic. MetroStars should simply be a redirect to the current team name. aLii 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaguar Racing and Red Bull Racing are the same F1 team. How come they get two pages on Wikipedia?  The same should be followed for the Metrostars and Red Bulls. KitHutch 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it Red Bull racing purchased Jaguar racing but they're not the same continuous team. Red Bull doesn't claim Jaguar's history as their own. This is the same as when Red Bull bought FC Red Bull Salzburg. They don't claim the history of the earlier teams. The same is not true in MLS, the league, Red Bull, and the majority of the fans claim the history of the Metrostars as being one and the same as the Red Bulls. Red Bull NY and the Metrostars are the exact same team and franchise just with a name change. Not unlike the Kansas City Wiz/Wizards, Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins, Dallas Burn/FC Dallas, Washington Senators/Texas Rangers, Houston Oilers/Tenn Titans, etc... etc... There is only 2 examples in modern franchise sports where teams changed names and didn't take the history with them, Cleveland's Browns and the San Jose Earthquakes. The fact that a few fans don't like the new name doesn't change the fact that Red Bull NY is the former Metrostars. Even if NY does get a new Metrostars team they won't be able to claim the old Metrostar's history. This is similar to the "new" Washington Senators not claiming the old Washington Senators history . JohnnyBGood  t  c  VIVA! 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge NYRB is the same club, since owners decided to recognize Metrostars history. That way we will have to create articles for every historical name every professional team has had, and most of them had a few. Metrostars is part of NYRB history and no way needs an article of it's own. (BanRay 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC))
 * No Merge Different incarnations of the same team, regarded as significantly separate by the team's fans that having a separate article is important. Forcing the articles together would be a de facto attempt to suppress the controversy, to my mind.  Bill Oaf 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is no different then the Anaheim Angels name change controversy. That ended with merged articles. No reason this is any different. Gateman1997 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Once the emotions died down, it was decided that since the teams were the same in every respect but name, only one article was appropriate.  I believe that was the correct choice there, and I believe that this situation is exactly the same.  Nobody's trying to suppress anything - quite the contrary, this article was (at the time) an attempt to take sides.  Reference the naming controversy in the article for its historical importance, but Wikipedia is not the place to prop up a controversy that seems to have subsided.  --Chancemichaels 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * Oppose Both articles are noteworthy as stand alones and would make the article too long as one. Besides, this is historic ala Wimbledon F.C. and MK Dons. NYC2TLV 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this "historic ala Wimbledon F.C. and MK Dons"? Just saying it is doesn't make it true. If you're going to compare it to an English club (which seems silly, comparing how differently sports operate in the two countries), wouldn't a more apt comparison be Newton Heath and Manchester United? Ytny (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per NYC2TLV's comment... After looking at MK Dons and Wimbledon's pages I believe that the same thing should be done here.   Asics   talk  Editor review! 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Same team, same history. AJSDA115 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. It is the same team - the Red Bulls view themselves as a continuation of the MetroStars with a new name.  No matter what some fans want to think, they are the same team in every respect but the name.  As with all name changes, like the Dallas Burn, the club should receive one entry reflecting its entire heritage.  This page does have value, though, and should become a History of MetroStars article or something, with New articles.  --Chancemichaels 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)ChancemichaelsYork Red Bulls as the primary entry linking to it.  I understand that this is still an emotionally charged issue for some fans, but looking at it dispassionately there is no reason to maintain separate


 * Comment (follows prior vote for No merge). Before someone decides that a merge MUST take place, I want to see Montreal Expos merged into Washington Nationals first. --Roehl Sybing 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So put a tag on that page (which I would support, by the way). Why does the other change have to be made "first"?  --Chancemichaels 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
 * Indeed, this line of thinking is basically the merge equivalent of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Not to mention the fact that the Metro->Red Bull name change isn't like the Nationals, who are a de facto expansion team, or the MK Dons, who were replaced by a supporter-founded club. Using the same logic, I could demand that a Newton Heath F.C. article be created because I refuse to accept Manchester United F.C. as the same club, which would be utterly idiotic. Ytny (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And one is baseball, the other is soccer. I use a bat with one, I use my feet with the other.  I before e except after c.  Look, if you want to run down every distinction, be my guest.  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as it states at the top, is neither a guideline nor a policy, and implying that it is gets in the way of something that is valid.  The Expos/Nationals were only brought up to demonstrate that there is no clear standard, no matter what silly distinctions are raised.  --Roehl Sybing 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained why the other one has to be merged "first". --Chancemichaels 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * Merge. The case is a lot more straightforward than others, but it has drawn out into a Marathon. There is no relocation, a la MK Dons.  There is no separation, a la Serbia and Montenegro. It's just a rebranding. Some might say it's an undesirable rebranding, but that should not affect anything on WP.   Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)