Talk:Texas Rangers (baseball)

Nationality of Players
Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

New "History of the Texas Rangers (baseball)" article proposal
This is long overdue. If the Florida Marlins have a history article, the Rangers definitely should. A rework to differentiate the Washington Senators II era should be done too...maybe make that into its own "History of" article should it warrant it. Arnabdas (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing the politics from the current history section would be a great start. 86.97.92.42 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Rhiheat (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closed as not moved; opposition to the proposal is substantial and uniform. BD2412 T 19:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

– Heya, I have several reasons arguing that the baseball team is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, let’s get into it.
 * Texas Rangers (baseball) → Texas Rangers
 * History of the Texas Rangers (baseball) → History of the Texas Rangers
 * Texas Rangers → Texas Rangers (disambiguation)

1. The baseball team has gained significant recognition in recent times. Many news outlets such as Fox Sports, CNN , Forbes , and many others recognize the Rangers’ games and franchise for a long time. This has grown significantly thanks to the 2023 World Series which naturally attracted the attention of fans and non-fans. It is clear that moving forward, the Rangers article will receive more attention.  2. The historical significance evident by the fame of Major League Baseball. If you look up “Texas Rangers” on Google or any search engine, you are most likely to find scheduled games, recent news, odds and predictions, shopping, and more, of the MLB franchise. On the other hand, the Law Enforcement Division has not been in major notice (even less the films, architects, etc.) 3. Page view statistics. The MLB team currently has 60,415 page views in the past 30 days (and is expected to have more). The Division has about 44k, a film has 4k, another 317, another 2,561, another 58, a magazine 101, and the architects 131. 4. Naming consistency. This is a factor worth considering for sports teams in the United States and Canada, such as this article. The Texas Rangers are the only sports team from MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLS without its true name as the title on the English Wikipedia.

Moving the title to the requested name would be supported by recognition, historical significance, statistics, and consistency. Thanks for taking the time to consider this RM! DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no good reason to exclude Texas Ranger Division from the analysis. When the police division is included, there is basically no significant difference in the |Texas_Rangers_(film)|Texas_Rangers_(architects)|Terry%27s_Texas_Rangers|Texas_Ranger_Division page views between the police division and the baseball team. There are occasional spikes, but the long term trend shows they are neck and neck. Looking at Wikinav for the dab page shows a significant majority of the outgoing traffic is to the police division. older ≠ wiser 13:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bkonrad Ah, here is why I do not commonly use these information sites: please review your provided information and see how one side of the graph favors the MLB franchise; now the other side favors the Division. I chose the page view statistics because they are a simpler method of calculating the overall attention to the MLB team. Baseball season now supports page view growth for the franchise, especially thanks to the World Series. I have indeed not excluded the Texas Ranger Division from the analysis, contrary to your argument. I would appreciate thorough analysis of my requested move before jumping to conclusions, thanks. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) You have only one month in you page view statistics. That is extremely misleading when considering long term impact of a move. For |Texas_Ranger_Division all time there is negligible difference. Even limiting to the |Texas_Ranger_Division last two years, the difference is not huge, especially considering the spike around the end of last season. I continue to find your argument unconvincing. older ≠ wiser 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The team is expected to gain more significance; it’s true that the police is indeed notable, they just haven’t been much attended to on the internet and on news. Perhaps the MLB team could garner more attention as the baseball season progresses. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) It is useful to consider the navigation statistics as well. They can show what destinations readers are selecting. If most readers coming to the disambiguation page are selecting the police division, that argues strongly agains making the baseball team the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 20:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as mentioned earlier, other forms of information can be misleading and confusing. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You chose a one month period. That is entirely inappropriate for basing a decision like this on. older ≠ wiser 22:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So it’s like some kind of rule? I don’t see a flaw with 30 days except that baseball season just started which may not reflect baseball season attention development. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per older ≠ wiser (Bkonrad) and . Also note that disambiguation is one of "two main areas [...] that consistency does not control" per WP:CONSISTENT. SilverLocust 💬 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @SilverLocust With all due respect, the previous RM doesn’t really support your argument. Most oppositions leaned towards the previous RM’s opposition discussed the Police Division’s 2020 page view counts (which are now completely different 4 years later). To Netholic’s point, I stated why the baseball team has larger significance. To Gonnym, Necrothesp, and Muboshug’s points, please elaborate. To Dale Arnett’s point, just because something is older doesn’t mean they’re more recognized and relevant. And to TXAggie’s point, notability and page views are more prominent; also both articles have educational value. Now to your point, the consistent titling is as follows:
 * Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City.
 * This would not be applicable to the current situation because, as mentioned earlier, the Division would not be likely to be mixed up with the team. Countries and places which are known do not need to have “city” on them, just like how Texas Rangers doesn’t need “baseball”. The Texas Rangers does not need natural disambiguation (or any, for that matter). DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * -- in fact, the page views for BOTH the baseball team and the police division have not changed very much. There is a relatively short spike in the baseball team stats at the end of last season, which is to be expected, but the long term views for both are otherwise stable and very close. And I think you are mistaken about what SilverLocust was saying about consistency. If there were no baseball team Texas Rangers Division would almost certainly be titled as simply "Texas Rangers". Simply because the baseball team is the only MLB team with a disambiguated name is NOT a reason to move the article. older ≠ wiser 20:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Page views are a great way to determine relevancy, and in this case, the Rangers have obtained it, dominating page views even during long term history. Well yeah no shot the Texas Ranger Division would be titled the Texas Rangers; but that’s not remotely related to my point. Yeah “simply” would never cut it, I’m trying to be consistent with team names (using media and internet, page view statistics, and recent events to back up my claim), ensuring every team name can be easily accessible and displayed appropriately on the English Wikipedia. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a recentism bias in this move request. The Texas Rangers police organization has a much longer history, not to mention four films and a couple of TV series that deal directly with it. It is absurd to think the baseball team is the primary topic. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Spanneraol Ouch, at least explain the bias, please. Please view my third point in my RM, it would help you understand why I discarded them. Yes, the police have a longer history, but the baseball team has more significance (especially recently). DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Still recency bias... the police organization has much more significance.. using page view statistics is not a good way to view that... the Texas Rangers have been a part of Texas culture since the 19th century.. Hollywood has made several films and TV shows about them.. the baseball team was named for the police organization. They had a spike in interest when they won the world series but thats not long term interest. Spanneraol (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok why does the Police organization have more significance? I not only explained why the MLB team would be likely to rise in views bus I also made 3 other points. Yeah, the Police Division is older, but have their films and tv shows gained any sort of significance recently, or at all? The Houston Astros are named after the Astrodome, that doesn’t mean “Houston Astros” has to disambiguate to many terms. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Astros dont have the same name as the Astrodome.. it's distinguished enough. The Texas Rangers are a famous police force in Texas... they feature heavily in the Walker (TV series), itself a reboot of Walker, Texas Ranger. Just having shows and movies on a subject is because it was a significant subject to begin with. In fact the Lone Ranger was a former Texas Ranger. Not everyone is a baseball fan, more people are familiar with the Texas Rangers as lawmen... and yes if anything should be the primary topic it is that.Spanneraol (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah but there’s just one thing: the Texas Rangers AREN’T a famous police force in Texas; their notability and relevancy has gone down in recent times (which, of course, would also apply to their films and media). It wasn’t that significant, and the Lone Ranger makes little difference of prominence. In these current days, the team has grown in popularity, while the police haven’t. Now I’m not calling the PD obsolete, just not a really relevant subject. Ok prove that more people recognize the police over the team, not everyone is a law enforcement fan. A change to make the police the primary topic would be completely recognizing a subject with little notability and activity in recent times. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how old you are or where you are from... but you are clearly new to wikipedia.. you have lost this argument and not a single person has taken your side.... time to move on. and yes the Texas Rangers are a famous police force... currently featured on Walker every week. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how old you are or where you are from That relates to this situation how? Wikipedia isn’t about winning or losing, and the RM is still open. Nad, even if the result is Not moved, I wouldn’t be bothered, contrary to your belief. Yes, but the baseball team is more prominent. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Not primary for the proposed target according to either usage or long-term significance. Dekimasu よ! 00:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My rebuttals to the OP's points are as follows: (1): Current consensus of the Wikipedia community discourages page moves based on the activity of "recent times" or other forms of WP:RECENTISM, and we should instead be more aware of balance and historical perspective. (2): Trying to make judgements on the historical significance of topics only based search engine tests and other online sources fails to take into account the numerous offline sources that are just as valid. (3): As pointed out by one commentator here and one in the previous move discussion, |Texas_Ranger_Division page view stats actually indicate the Texas Ranger Division article tends to get more traffic in the winter months during baseball's offseason. (4): There is not really any consistent naming convention among these North American sports teams, decided by consensus or otherwise; if the Oakland Athletics actually decide to not include a city name in its branding when they temporary move to Sacramento before officially moving to Las Vegas when their new ballpark is ready, or the San Francisco Giants suddenly want to move back to New York, it would be unlikely that would result in such similar primary topic moves. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, (1) By mentioning Current consensus of the Wikipedia community, I expected some sort of policy or a guideline (rather than an essay which does not take into account that recent activity such as a World Series can have long term importance for the largest level of baseball in the United States). (2) Oh you want offline? Sure, many magazines such as Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star telegram, etc. cover the team’s season statistics and do not commonly account the police. The baseball team is also very prominent in TV (season games), radio, and books. On the other hand, the PD does not receive that much attention, even less now. (3) Yes, but as mentioned earlier, such statistics can vary and be misleading. (4) Somewhat true, but this consistency situation differs from that one. The Oakland Athletics situation revolves around a franchise relocation, where both the city of Oakland and Las Vegas are notable subjects. On the other hand, only the Texas Rangers of MLB are more notable than the PD. An appropriate title for the relocation would be Oakland/Las Vegas Athletics, similar to the Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, just no redirect. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a primary topic. If anything, the law enforcement division should be the primary topic as it appears most of the other entries are named after it. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because there are shows and movies about a police department (that is already not notable) doesn’t mean THOSE subjects are notable. I hope my reply made sense. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a chance. Should actually be a redirect to Texas Ranger Division, which should probably actually be moved to Texas Rangers per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Texas Rangers baseball team gains more attention than the police, and “Texas Rangers” is a more WP:COMMONNAME and common subject. This move reply completely ignores proposed points and biases over the police department. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no way that the baseball team has long-term significance over the police department. Also please note per WP:BLUDGEON that you do not have to respond to every single comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The baseball team does have long term significance since its establishment in MLB. I have read them, that’s how I made the points in the first place. To your essay BLUDGEON, Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. I am addressing with mostly different points, and restating any which the commentator may have missed. I respond in order to strengthen my claim. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may also want to consider I didn't hear that. You're arguments been rebutted multiple times, and so far you've convinced exactly no one. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not ignoring anyone, rather the opposite: I’m addressing many people’s points. Yeah it’s Wikipedia nature to have disagreements, that’s what Consensus is for. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but saying the same thing over and over again is a symptom of IDHT. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But I’m not, as I said before: I’m stating new points that address people comments. It’s not the same thing. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see that you have made any new points; only reiterations of points you've already made, perhaps with some slight variations or amplifications that are not really new information. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I see that my comments were not violations of an essay nor were they disruptive. I am mostly stating new information, but may reiterate information which people may have ignored or overseen. Agree to disagree? DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dirty socks, stop bludgeoning the process. Your proposal isn't getting any support. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Let it go. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This page in a nutshell: If a debate has died, don't revive it. Last I checked, the RM is not closed but instead currently open for discussion. Additionally, the essay is in dire violation of WP:WIN. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I took the time to consider your requested move and think you have overestimated the popularity of MLB and underestimate the historical and cultural significance of the of the original Texas Rangers. We will reach the seven day mark in a few hours and I look forward to an admin finally closing this request so I can stop getting edit notifications on my watch page. As others have noted, this has gone on far too long, and the original requester has garnered not an iota of support.— JlACEer ( talk ) 04:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can understand disagreements. With all due respect, your watch page notifications are not my problem. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A separate Washington Senators (1961–1971) article
Please see the WikiProject Baseball talk page for discussion involving the creation of a separate Washington Senators (1961–1971) article. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)