Talk:Seattle SuperSonics

Chris Hansen, New Arena, etc.
Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find any content on Chris Hansen, the new arena, etc. I made a couple of edits, but I think this section should be expanded. Would this content be better in its own article? Udeezy (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldn't be in the article at all as it is speculation at the moment. We don't report on speculation and rumour on wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's more than speculation and rumor at this point. It's national news, the mayor has held press conferences, etc. At the least, in ten years, it will be part of the OKC relocation story. This owner's group and arena proposal should on Wikipedia somewhere. Perhaps a "Professional Basketball in Seattle" page would be more appropriate. Some of the other information regarding the relocation to OKC is really more appropriate for a page like that anyway. And, if this group falls through, it would provide a home for other serious owner's groups. Thoughts on a new page for general Seattle basketball info? Udeezy (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I might make a small paragraph on this page, but I wouldn't get too indepth. This page of course is about a specific team, so it would be undue weight to get into too much detail. Not sure I would create a new article either yet. Not unless the league actually grants a franchise or something along those lines. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking that a lot of the relocation information is off topic to this article and would be more appropriate in another page. I think the tipping point for adding more information should be much lower than the NBA granting a franchise. Udeezy (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The relocation info is just a summary and very much belongs on this page because it was very defining of the franchise. There already is a relocation page which has the major detail about the relocation on it. But I am not sure this would be any more appropriate there either, however, its probably more relevant there than here. Generally in situation like this for example the Winnipeg Jets in the NHL there was a small paragraph talking about how there have been attempts to bring a team back and what not sticking to sourced info. And once any kind of official announcement was made like a franchise granted or in Winnipeg's case a team move, the a new page was created along the lines of Winnipeg NHL team I think the name was until an official one was announced. And that page had all the significant detail in it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that page is good and this info wouldn't belong there, the scope is too narrow. Doesn't this meet the notable requirement? I think it does, it's covered by all Seattle media, ESPN, etc. I think there should be info on Wikipedia somewhere about this particular group/arena and any other notable groups that may come in the future.Udeezy (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Still curious about Hansen's bid being notable. Any one else care to weigh in? Udeezy (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Championships in Seattle
The second paragraph states, "The SuperSonics won the NBA Championship in 1979, and are one of three teams out of the six major-league men's professional sports franchises that have existed in Seattle (the Sonics, Mariners, Pilots, Seahawks, Sounders, and Metropolitans, winners of the 1917 Stanley Cup) to have won a championship." Aside from the Metropolitans and Sonics, who has won a championship? The Sounders won the USL/A-League, but did so when the MLS was in existence, making those "minor" league championships. Udeezy (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Crazy franchize question
Okay, tell me now...

What happens if Sacramento move to Seattle and brand themselves the "Sonics". They will NOT be the same team that the Sonics were before they moved to Oklahoma. They are a different franchise taking the old name & branding. There have been MANY WP debates on this issue (I'll find some of the links and add them here later) but the consensus has been that a WP article follow the franchise's history. I have been much against this practice, and fought hard to finally split Brooklyn Dodgers (history of the) from LA Dodgers. However, that small victory was an exception, and most articles keep, say, "Minneappolis Lakers" as part of the LA Lakers article, while there's a separate article for the Minnesota Timberwolves. So, by that logic (which I don't agree with, but by current logic it should happen) - the new Sonics should have a separate article from the old Sonics.

Discuss... BigSteve (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically the same thing that happened to the Winnipeg Jets and the Winnipeg Jets (1972–96). We rename this one and create a new page here for the new team. It is the exact same situation, and happened just last year so its a current situation as well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a believer in article continuity, so I think the situation with the Minneapolis/LA Lakers is as it should be. Having said that, this situation is nothing like that.


 * What should happen is something good editors can honestly disagree on. But I will say this:  In my opinion, what is critical is the position the league ends up taking on the matter of franchise records.  For example, when Art Model moved his NFL franchise to Baltimore, the NFL stated that the team history of the Cleveland Browns would not travel with the team, that the Baltimore Ravens would be regarded in NFL history the same as an expansion team, and that a future NFL team in Cleveland would be a restoration of the Browns, with the team history intact.  That's why Cleveland Browns contains the history of the team back to 1946, but other NFL franchises that have moved (Redskins, Bears, Lions, Chargers) include the entire history of the franchise, including from previous cities in their respective articles.  (There are also some where there is an article devoted to the team's history specifically during its stay in a given city; such articles are titled "History of . . . ", e.g., History of the Baltimore Colts.)


 * So, as I was saying, what we do here should depend on the stance of the NBA regarding team history; I read somewhere that the NBA has said that the Sonics' history will be "shared" between the Thunder and some future NBA team in Seattle--what a stupid, confusing idea! And there is another factor:  the name itself.  Has there ever been a case where one name has been used by two historically distinct franchises?  (Of course, there is much talk now of that happening with the Hornets, but nothing has come to pass, AFAIK.) Now if the NBA decides to pull the Sonics' first decades of team history out from underneath OKC, and give it exclusively to the Kings, and thereby chooses to terminate any continued history of the Kings, then I'd say we would be able to do what was done at Cleveland Browns; have an article, Seattle Supersonics, which covers the teams's history since 1967.  One article, covering it all.  But that is only one possible way the league could play this.


 * Personally, I wish the people of Seattle would let go of the Sonics. Hey, Seattle is in King County, so the name actually makes more sense there than it ever did in Sacramento.  And in that case, I would prefer no new article, just a continuation of Sacramento Kings, moved, of course, to Seattle Kings.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting breakdown of the theory, Huskie! I've always been very confused at the way American sports history works due to the difference in the business model - i.e. there, the league is "the business" and teams are sort of "sub-let", leading to huge problems in terms of tying loose ends. I'm still a fan of the idea that a team should be considered different once it moves, but I realize that even that leads to problems. I guess you're right in that we'll need to see how the league itself decides to play it. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Relocated and not defunct
There is an editor who does not appear to recognize the distinction between a relocated and defunct organization. A defunct franchise no longer exists. The NBA has had no franchise go defunct since the old Baltimore Bullets in 1954. A complete list of such teams is provided at List of defunct National Basketball Association teams, and this list does not include the Seattle SuperSonics. Relocated franchises are much more common, and continue to recognize player statistics and records compiled in their prior location(s). A complete list of such teams is provided at List of relocated National Basketball Association teams, and this list does include the Seattle SuperSonics. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I believe the intent is clear, the behavior as seen within Category:Defunct National Basketball Association teams is not. In parallel I had already opened a thread at Category talk:Defunct National Basketball Association teams and informed the NBA Project. Suggest this discussion move there for additional visibility. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Seattle SuperSonics. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/sale_060718.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Seattle SuperSonics into Oklahoma City Thunder. They are the same team so it makes no sense why Seattle has its own page when most teams that used to exist but relocated dont. AlexCruz289 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)