Talk:Tampa Bay Rowdies

Possible merge
Soon after it was announced that these Rowdies would begin play, somebody created this new article to differentiate them from the "old" Rowdies. It kinda made sense at the time, but not so much any more.

Look at the "new" Rowdies' website - right on the top of the front page, they're explicitly trying to connect to the team's history with photos of the original Rowdies. Click on their "history" tab and you'll find a narrative that goes back to the founding of the original NASL in the late 60s. They also count several former Rowdies players and executives among their front office staff and they're planning to play in a new NASL.

Since they're apparently trying so hard to connect these Rowdies with the original version, I think we should do the same and merge the two articles back together. Comments? Zeng8r (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Possible merge

 * Support: It seems like a good idea. I mean they're both sharing the same history, and if you look at their crest they have a star from the past Soccer Bowl they won. Vistapatsfc (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE The original Rowdies folded/ceased operations. This is just a new team adopting an old name.  All other American soccer teams that have adopted old names have two separate articles.  In fact, there are even three articles about the San Diego Sockers.  These franchises try to connect with the past as well, but they still get two articles.  The precedent on Wikipedia is that two separate teams get two articles even if they share a name like San Jose Earthquakes (NASL) and San Jose Earthquakes or Seattle Sounders (NASL), Seattle Sounders (USL), or Seattle Sounders FC. KitHutch (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per precedent as KitHutch mentions. The standard procedure is separate articles for teams that aren't a true continuation of an earlier franchise. Examples being San Jose Earthquakes (NASL) and San Jose Earthquakes, the 3 Seattle Sounders articles, the 3 San Diego Sockers articles, Wimbledon FC and AFC Wimbledon, etc... etc... Gateman1997 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per KitHutch and Gateman. This is a completely different team. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know about the precedents. Let's just go ahead and leave it as-is. Zeng8r (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change?
Are you all sure that the team really changed its name? If you head over to the website, the team is still called FC Tampa Bay Rowdies. There is only one article detailing the change, and it's pretty ambiguous. Even over at www.oursportscentral.com, all the collected articles still call the team FC Tampa Bay Rowdies, and there is no mention of a name change. Even at www.nasl.com, the team is still the Rowdies. It looks to me like the team cannot market itself as the Rowdies because of a trademark dispute so the logo and website were changed, but the team is still called the Rowdies. KitHutch (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the team is called the Rowdies in the same way that Arsenal are called the Gunners, or Everton are called the Toffees. The *official* name of the team seems to be FC Tampa Bay, but the nickname is still the Rowdies. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ralph's Mob section
I was unsure if the section about the team's fan club should be in this article at all, but it was short and sourced, so I let it be. Lately, however, one or more anonymous users keeps inserting what is basically an advertisement for Ralph's Mob (including an external link) while at the same time removing the only citation in the section.

If the user or users wants to add some info, they are welcome to discuss the issue here so that it can be included appropriately. However, if he/she/they keep reverting the removal of the unacceptable text, the article might end up being protected and he/she/they won't be able to edit it at all. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, It's Ralph's Mob, i've fixed your post. The man on the former Tampa Bay Rowdies logo's name is Ralph Rowdie, thus the Supporter's Group name is Ralph's Mob.


 * Second, there is huge precedence to having Supporter's Group listed on the article for the team they support. See Seattle Sounders FC or any other Major League Soccer team. As for the wording of some of the edits, I can see your point. However, it is highly outdated and needs an edit. A separate article is also not out of the question as there are articles for Emerald City Supporters, Timbers Army and many others, but both are linked on the main team page.


 * What better way could we word the section? Also what kind of reference should we use. From the team's website, or use Ralph's Mob website AS the reference? Let me know your thoughts.Sportzfrk99 (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As it's written right now, the text itself is ok, but there are no citations at all. The section needs sources from a reputable media outlet to confirm that the group is notable enough for inclusion. There was a link to a newspaper article in the prior version. You could either find it in the article history or go ahead and search for an article, most likely at tampabay.com or tbo.com. Zeng8r (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * update Ok, somebody added citations, but they only seemed to confirm that the group exists. I found a few more sources and added a little more info. Anything else needed? Zeng8r (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New name
Shouldn't the year in the article name be either 2008 (when the franchise began operations) or 2010 (when they finally took the pitch)? Putting 2012 in the title makes it look like they are a brand new team that will be founded next year, which is confusing and/or inaccurate. Zeng8r (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this date is totally arbitrary. Though perhaps the article ought to just be at "Tampa Bay Rowdies"; there are only two articles of that title, and conceivably this is going to be the one that more readers are looking for at this time.Cúchullain t/ c 23:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought about all that too when I made the page move, but I mean Fort Lauderdale has (2011) on their name even though Miami FC had been around for 5 seasons before that. It's difficult to do because while yes it is a name change, the new name is exactly the same as a previous franchise, so you have to put something there to separate it, and also unfortunately the league is exactly the same name as the old one as well, so using (NASL) also doesn't work. Thanks for all the help with the update today. Change the name to whatever you feel is most appropriate. Sportzfrk99 (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Both this article and the modern day Strikers article should have no year qualifier – simply "Tampa Bay Rowdies" and "Fort Lauderdale Strikers". Standard naming conventions then give the historic teams their name followed by the years of operation – "Tampa Bay Rowdies (1975–1993)", "Fort Lauderdale Strikers (1977–1983)". If more than two teams have existed by this same name, a disambiguation page is needed – "Fort Lauderdale Strikers (disambiguation)". --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'm going to be bold and get 'er done... Zeng8r (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried, but the disambiguation page got in the way and I don't have time to figure it out right now. Help?... Zeng8r (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it sounds like there's agreement, so I'll go ahead and move these two articles. If there are further issues or if anyone needs any more help, just let me know.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Home/Away Colors
Didn't mean to have an edit war here about that. Just trying to fix a mistake. Home is white, away is green. Here's both jerseys in the team's store: |"Home jersey" |"Away jersey" Is there a need to put these as sources or can I just fix it and that be the end of it. Sportzfrk99 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Intro
Along with a bunch of updates today (nobody had updated a season section since before the 2011 campaign!), I restored the mention of FC Tampa Bay in the lead. Another user keeps removing it, but I really don't see a reason why the club's name for its first two seasons shouldn't get a one-sentence mention in the intro. This is a common practice seen in many, many sports articles; I ran across one just today at Bolton Wanderers F.C., where the second paragraph of the lead says that the club was originally known as Christ Church FC from 1874 to 1877. The Rowdies were known as FC Tampa Bay for half of their existence, definitely meriting inclusion, imo.

I also noticed that the results table at 2013 Tampa Bay Rowdies season needs an update. I'm out of editing time for today; anybody else want to take care of it? Zeng8r (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tampa Bay Rowdies. 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/20110206172033/http://nasl.com/article/ralph-s-mob-linking-to-the-rowdies-legacy to http://www.nasl.com/article/ralph-s-mob-linking-to-the-rowdies-legacy

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 10:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yearly season capsules
I was thinking the other day that the annual season recaps on this page are fast becoming a bit much, to say the least. Perhaps they need to be further crystalized into 5-year segments or something. And maybe at the bottom of the section we place a table that shows their yearly performance in the league, the playoffs, US Open Cup and leading goal scorer, etc. (Similar to the year-by-year tables of other clubs like Seattle Sounders FC). I'm open to any and all discussion on this topic. I don't mind creating the table, but I'd like to see some sort of consensus before starting such an endeavor. Cheers to all, -Creativewill (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. It made sense for a few years, but not so much any more. I'd suggest dividing up into segments by manager, but that'd almost be the same as doing it season by season the way Edwards fired people over there. --Zeng8r (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)