Talk:Texas Rangers (baseball)/Archive 1

Article Cleanup?
I noticed that the cleanup tag has been placed on this article. What exactly needs to be cleaned up? Maybe the Franchise History section should be a little better organized, and we probably don't need to have the entire roster under "Current Stars", but is that what the person who placed the tag there intended? -- 68.12.101.60 22:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the cleanup tag was added, but I'd like to get opinions on removing some of the text from the 2006 season section. Do we need a list of arbitrarily-decided big losses and big wins? Every team has these during a season. I've left this in for now -- clumped together in an attempt to reduce the discombobulated flow of this section -- since this information was added again after I'd previously removed the text regarding losses to the Yankees and Royals. Siward 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Name change
I have moved the old contents of the page Texas Rangers to Texas Rangers (disambiguation), freeing up Texas Ranger for this article (about the baseball team)]. We will need an admin to move the page, and there is a backlog at the moment, so I'll wait a bit (or hope someone else take cares of it). Cheers, --Commander Keane 07:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep this in perspective: Someone in Liverpool or Baghdad or Melbourne or Bombay who wants to brush up on the US wild west is more apt to want the law enforcement agency. The only ones who would really want the baseball team first are probably Americans.  My own opinion would be, from a www perspective, this page should be second fiddle.  However, the formal name of the law enforment agency is "Texas Ranger Division", therefore, if this page is moved to Texas Rangers, I would like to see a disclaimer at the top of the page in italics offering the link to the law enforcement division.  --CrazyTalk 19:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I concur that the baseball team is second fiddle. I like the disambiguation page, although it might be bit verbose. But until such time (if any) that the baseball version of the Texas Rangers (who were named after the law enforcement division, let's not forget) happen to win the World Series (or even come close to getting there), it would be kind of pretentious to have them as the "top dog" in this category. Wahkeenah 19:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit that I don't like it, mostly for selfish reasons because I work on a lot of the Texas Rangers articles and this adds an extra pain in the neck, but Texas Rangers should remain the disambiguation page. This is similar to the situation that arose at Saint Louis Blues and Georgia.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very similar to St. Louis Blues. Again, a team that was named after something, and then somehow its fans think the team should be the primary reference. Maybe they forgot that there's a good reason their logo looks like a musical note. Georgia is on my mind. And then there's the creature called Turkey. :) Wahkeenah 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone reverted my MoS compliant disambiguation page, could you restore it to the new location please. --Commander Keane 06:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion has be pasted into Talk:Texas Rangers, and should ocntinure there. --Commander Keane 11:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

#26 retired??
Hello, Can someone definitively confirm that Johnny Oates' #26 was retired by the Rangers? Their website does not list it as retired and the only news about it states that it will be retired, but not that it has been retired. No other website, other than wiki or wiki copycats, list the number as retired. If it has been officially retired, please provide a source.--CrazyTalk 20:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I can find a definitive source in print, but I watched the Rangers on TV all year, saw footage of the retirement ceremony, and saw the banner for the retired number in the stadium. Johnny Oates' number 26 is definitely retired.  -- 68.12.106.243 05:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I have found a source. It's on the Baseball Hall of Fame's list of retired numbers.  Here's a link:  -- 68.12.106.243 05:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove Quick Facts Section?
I would like to remove the Quick Facts section, as it appears to duplicate the information presented in the Infobox. As far as I can tell, the only information in that section not located elsewhere in the article is the mention of the Rangers' postseason futility. Thoughts? User:Lbbzman 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Texas Agreement" removed
Section was completely unsourced; principal actors in it deny such a plot ever existed; Google search on ("texas agreement" rangers astros) yields one result - this page. Accusations of malfeasance need to be thoroughly sourced. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted the above post and restored the "Texas Agreement" section to the main article. I have never once in my life ever heard of such an agreement, and as stated above, both partys deny it ever happened and there is no source on it.  I will remove the section, and I intend for it to stay gone until someone can provide a real source on it.  -- NClark128 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the section to conform to NPOV. I find the story hard to believe myself. Why would any GM limit his options so drastically? In fact, the section says that the agreement supposedly ended in 1994 but Pete Incaviglia somehow invoked it in 1998. Huh? Anyway, the section is now presented as disputed allegation, not agreed-on fact. Casey Abell 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored the necessary qualifications about the supposed "Texas Agreement" after some were deleted by an anonymous user. I will continue to make sure the section conforms to NPOV by including those qualifications about the alleged agreement. Casey Abell 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An editor tried to add this section to the Houston Astros article. Other editors pointed out factual errors (for instance, Bob Watson was the Houston GM during Mitch Williams' time with the club in 1994, not Bill Wood) and deleted the section. The whole thing is starting to look like a silly hoax. Should the section simply be deleted? Casey Abell 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just took the section out. The only source given is a book that's conveniently out of print. Since living people are being accused of doing something wrong, the sources have to be strong for it to be included in the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. The allegations seem pretty silly and often self-contradictory to me, even if there is a "source" for them. And even if that source exists, I frankly don't put much faith in most sportswriters. Casey Abell 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the section has also been deleted from the Houston Astros article. The allegations couldn't even correctly identify the Astros GM during Mitch Williams' time with the team. Casey Abell 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * EdRooney restored the section after he says he "spoke with" Phil Rogers. (Yeah, sure.) Oh well, at least he changed Bill Wood to Bob Watson to eliminate the most obvious goof. EdRooney also left a charming note on my user page: "Perhaps we should nominate you for an "Uber-Wiki Nerd" award? Oh, and Bob Watson says to go &%*^ off." The guy's obviously spoofing, so I'm not going to give him what he wants, which is an edit war. The "Texas Agreement" section is so obviously self-contradictory&mdash;and I've added so many disclaimers and doubts&mdash;that we can probably let it stay until EdRooney gets tired of the silliness. By the way, he also stuck the section back in the Houston Astros article. Casey Abell 08:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, fine, let's settle this. I have just ordered The Impossible Takes a Little Longer from Amazon (only $7.40 including shipping; not bad) and will peruse it to see just how much information it gives, and what sources it cites for this alleged agreement.  Would it be possible for us to agree that whatever is present and verifiable in the book should be included in the article, and whatever's not should be removed?  As others have mentioned, searching for "Texas Agreement" and "Texas Rangers" reveals exactly one source: this article and all its mirrors.  Nowhere else on the Internet is it mentioned, so let's try the dead trees. Wyv 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, although the book was published in May, 1990, so it's hard to see how it could apply to much of the section, which deals with alleged events in the 1990s and 2000s. Thanks for undertaking the research. Casey Abell 13:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right that it can't deal with events in the late 90s and this century, but if that's the only reference material we have, that's all that should stay in the article. :) Plus, maybe the book will give some other terms to search for. Wyv 14:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Following-up on my own comment, I'll be darned if I can find anything at all on this "Texas Agreement" in the book by Phil Rogers. If someone would care to point me to a page number, I'd be most appreciative. Wyv 08:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good work, Wyv. This is absolutely a hoax, and it violates WP:LIVING to have it in there with weak sourcing. It should be removed on sight. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to get the first media released edition of "The Impossible Takes A Little Longer." Subsequent editions that were sold in most book stores removed the paragraphs that dealt with the "agreement." Also, I've found a couple of old Rangers' pre-game shows with Norm Hitzges on HSE circa 1990 and 1991 that dealt with this issue.PeteO&#39;Brien


 * The story about the first edition of the book sounds unconvincing, to put it mildly. The pre-game show story seems equally vague. For controversial material involving living persons, absolutely solid, verifiable sourcing from reliable third-party sources must be provided. I'll quote the WP:BLP policy:


 * Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.


 * No sources even remotely satisfying Wikipedia's verifiability standards have been provided for these contentious (and frankly far-fetched) allegations. I will continue to remove these allegations until such sources are provided. Casey Abell 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The book I have has no edition number on it, which by convention usually means it is a first edition printing, and it came from a used bookstore, so I believe it is the first edition and still has nothing referencing this. Also, Norm Hitzges was a talking head even back in the HSE (Home Sports Entertainment, precursor to Fox Sports Net) days.  Anything he, or any other commentator, says on an opinion show is just that, their opinion.  Wyv 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rangers Hall of Fame
Why is there a separate article on the Rangers hall of fame? Shouldn't we just include it in this one? Are two articles necessary? Texas Rangers Hall of Fame--Kevin 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like it is okay to have separate articles. Texas Rangers (baseball) is already big as it is. Kingturtle 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree to the fact that this article is pretty large as it is, but does the hall of fame really merit a completely separate article? I think that anyone specifically looking for a Texas Rangers Hall of Fame would be looking for the law enforcement one, and that a baseball fan would expect it on the team page.  Just my opinion.  I was going to go ahead and merge them, but since there seems to be a dissenting voice, I'm going to go ahead and wait for consenus.--Kevin 05:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they should be merged. Two separate articles, especially considering how short the Hall of Fame article is, seems friviolous. EHoffman 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Minnesota Twins article, the Minnesota Twins Hall of Fame was merged with the Twins statistical records and milestone achievements article. That's a possible solution for this problem. Smarterthanu91 05:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The (baseball) Rangers HoF may warrant its own article if we expand on the enshrinement process and where people can visit the hall. I'm going to the Ballpark this week, so I'll see if I can get some more info. Caknuck 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much about 2006
Am I the only one who thinks that there is way too much listed about the 2006 season. Suppose all this useless information (The Rangers became the first team to make a significant deal near the trade deadline, acquiring outfielders Carlos Lee and Nelson Cruz from the Milwaukee Brewers in exchange for Kevin Mench, Francisco Cordero, Laynce Nix and pitching prospect Julian Cordero (no relation to Francisco) on July 28.

The Yankees swept the Rangers in a three-game series at Ameriquest Field for the second time on July 24-26. Adam Eaton, who had injured his right middle finger during spring training and had been placed on the 60-day DL, made his first start of the season on July 25 in the second game of the series. He pitched three scoreless innings before a questionable call on two-strike pitch against Alex Rodriguez led to a Rodríguez walk, rather than making him the third out. Instead Eaton had a meltdown, walking Jorge Posada, hitting Aaron Guiel, walking Andy Phillips (which scored Rodríguez), and giving up an infield single to Miguel Cairo before being relieved by Ron Mahay. The Rangers eventually lost the game 7-4. The final game of the series saw Cordero and Otsuka both give up late leads in an 8-7 loss that was decided on a two-run homer by Jason Giambi in the ninth.

The Yankees' sweep was part of the Rangers' season-worst six-game losing streak. Texas finally snapped the skid on July 30 with a 15-2 win over Kansas City. Although the Rangers have maintained a roughly .500 record since the All-Star break, they have been unable to keep pace with the surging Oakland Athletics. As of September 8, the Rangers are 72-70 in third place in the AL West, ten games behind Oakland. The Rangers are not in contention in the American League wild card race. ) was left in the article. Will we be posting like this for 2007, 2008 and so on? If no one is bothered I'd just assume remove this now--137.242.1.50 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclusionist, so I wouldn't mind much more detailed material on every season. I sure don't think the 2006 info is "useless", because it gives a reader some sense of how the season has developed. But you're probably right that, to keep the article to manageable length, we'll have to boil this down eventually. I think we should probably wait until the end of the season to condense the 2006 section, though, just to make sure we get the final evaluations correct. Casey Abell 15:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also like including detailed information, but I also think that the information listed in the grandparent is too detail-oriented. An overview of the season is one thing (and is undoubtedly beneficial), but it's my opinion that listing largely unremarkable events in particular games just bogs down the article on the whole. The Yankees series paragraph is a good example of this -- it (in my opinion) comes across as just a stated fact which bears little meaning on the overall outcome of the season or the demeanor of the team as a whole. Every team experiences these sorts of events during the course of a baseball season.


 * Why did this series loss matter so much? Was the season notably different from that point on, and do the facts point to this game/series as a turning point (one way or the other)? What makes these events relevant to a casual Rangers fan perusing this article? How does this event (in the case of a trade, injury, or suspension, perhaps) affect the team's season and beyond? I feel like these should be the questions we ask ourselves before tacking current event information onto the end of this article. I admit that it may be difficult to answer these questions appropriately without editorializing. In the Yankees sweep paragraph, it is notable that the games vs. the Yankees started a six-game losing stream, but I feel that the text given to Adam Eaton's performance contributes little unless we are trying to draw conclusions about his (or perhaps the team's) mental toughness. Siward 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Yankee series is no longer even mentioned in the article, so I don't understand your objections. Casey Abell 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was using the text about the Yankees series that was formerly in this article and copied to this discussion by the grandparent as an example (hence why I said "a good example of this") of the problem I have with the way that the season updates are (typically) written. Siward 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered why we have "the hicks era" and "arod experiment" as being differnt. isn't tom hicks still the owner to this day?

Copyvio
The section on the renaming of the park back to Rangers Ballaprk appears to be directly lifted from the Rangers' web site. -- Gridlock Joe 02:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Casey Abell, for rewriting that section. I would have done, but was very busy last night. -- Gridlock Joe 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your welcome. Casey Abell 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nickname
One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Rangers are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Rangers go by? I'm sure they are not known only as "The Rangers". - Silent Wind of Doom 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a lifelong Rangers fan, they have pretty much only been known as the Rangers. I have never heard them referred to as anything different (well, nothing different that you can say on TV...)Kirobaito

2007 season section
I've removed this section again. It's unencyclopedic, contains original research, and is POV as well. I don't see any sources to justify saying that the team has "stumbled," or that "the starting pitchers have been particularly disappointing," or that "the offense has been inconsistent," or that Young and Teixeira have "struggled badly." Those are all inappropriate for Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should say the team has "triumphed" with a 15-25 record and a last-place position. Or that the starting pitchers have been "wonderful" with a 6.00 ERA, the worst in the majors. Or that Young is hitting "fantastically well" with his .640 OPS so far in 2007. None of this is original research - the sorry facts are available at mlb.com, espn.com and dozens of other locations on the Internet.


 * Okay, I can see the point about more encyclopedic language. But any honest evaluation of Texas' 2007 season to date has to be negative, to put it mildly. I'll rewrite the section with less charged language, but I completely reject the WP:OR criticism. Anybody who pretends that the Rangers haven't stunk so far in 2007 would be doing very original research. Casey Abell 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't understand the "no original research" guideline at all. It's not a question of whether the content is correct; it's a question of whether it comes from outside sources or whether it's the writer's own thoughts. And this content is clearly the writer's own thoughts. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not the writer's own thoughts that Texas' starters have the worst composite ERA in the majors in 2007. It is not the writer's own thoughts that Michael Young has poor offensive numbers in 2007. You might as well say that "the earth revolves around the sun" is the writer's own thought and call it OR. I've rewritten the section in more encyclopedic language and footnoted it extensively. There isn't an ounce of OR in the section. Casey Abell 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying that the pitchers are "disappointing" without a source is OR - disappointing to whom? Did someone think it would be good? Saying that the offense has been "inconsistent" without a source is OR - what defines a consistent offense? This is all pretty obvious stuff. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, rather than taking offense when someone points out flaws in your contributions. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * TO back up MrDarcy, writers generally concede that the readers should decide whether or not to be "disappointed" or any other cognition or emotion. To be objective, you present sources and verifiable evidence... keep any language that suggests your own cognitive or emotive appraisal out of your writing and you'll be fine. I think you're right, it was a disappointing season, but I also think that anyone reading this page will understand your point without you using that rhetoric. Trust your readers. ILoveConcerts (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You must not have read the revised section. None of the comments you object to are currently in the article. I have revised the section to resolve your complaints on unencyclopedic language, even though last place in starters' ERA is disappointing by any standard, and the Rangers offense has been inconsistent due to slow starts from some key players. At any rate, the article now makes statements of statistical fact, backed by footnotes to completely reliable sources, about the performance of the Rangers in 2007. There is not a bit of anything that could possibly be called "original research" in the section. Casey Abell 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I found an excellent all-round evaluation by an experienced baseball writer on the Rangers' season so far. I've included the quote, which supports the 2007 section very well. Casey Abell 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments above were written well before anything was revised, and were all in reference to the old text, which you insisted (incorrectly) wasn't OR. The new text is fine, as it's properly sourced and avoids original research and doesn't include the writer's own opinions on the subject. Was that so hard? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Except the section, even before the rewrite, was not original research but was supported completely by referenced information from reliable third-party sources. In fact, the revised text differs mostly in style. The substance of the comments is almost exactly the same: the starters stink (they've been disappointing) and the offense hasn't fired on all cylinders (it's been inconsistent). Casey Abell 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't these these sections been moved from the main article to the individual season articles? I feel it would cut down on the article length considerably and group this information in a pertinent manner. Furthermore, the 2006-2006 Offseason and 2007 sections contain verb tense errors, out of date information, and wordy/unnecessary sentences (such as the sentences in the 2007 section about Wes Littleton's 30-3 save). Are there any objections to moving this text to the pertinent season articles (including the offseason preceding the actual season), and removing/rewriting this text? '''Siward (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Random
Can someone with some knowledge do a writeup on the Texas state lawmen? -- Zoe

Well, we now have an article at Texas Rangers (law enforcement). Perhaps this should be made into a disambiguation page, with the sports team moved to something like Texas Rangers (sports)? Or is the sports team now so very much more famous than the law enforcement agency that I'm the only one who would think that this was the place to find something about the legendary lawmen? -- Infrogmation 21:07, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there some reason no mention is made of George Bush's connection with the team? MK 05:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That surprised me too. I do think it is worth noting. --68.12.101.60 03:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How come no mention is made of Tom Vandergriff's role in bringing the Rangers to Texas?

Archiving
I set up archiving on this page, because there are some comments over three years old.  jj137  ♠ 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

playoffs detail
Way too much detail about this years playoffs on this page.. That information is already available on the 2010 season page and the various pages for the playoffs.. Should be removed from this page or certainly shortened a lot.. do not need game by game summaries on this page.Spanneraol (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree. There are game by game summaries in each playoff section, and the summaries of the playoffs can be added to the 2010 article.Red3biggs (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

MLB ownership representation
Each MLB team may only have 1 representative for the organization with MLB ownership. Each team gets 1 vote when deciding issues by MLB owners. Whomever is representing the team must be approved by MLB owners by a vote, but the team itself selects the nominee.

In the case of the Rangers, Chuck Greenberg and Texas Rangers Express had to be approved by MLB owners before the sale from Hick's group could be complete. When Greeberg resigned, Nolan was selected by Rangers Baseball Express to take over as CEO and represent RBE with the other MLB owners. The owners did not designate Ryan to be the controlling owner, but accepted Ryan as the representative of RBE.

Unless you intend to go to each team page and put the same information 'designated Controlling Owner by MLB' it is misleading as to what it means. MLB has no day to day decision making on who runs the Rangers, or what decisions they make, except for compliance rules that must be followed by all other 30 teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red3biggs (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Red3biggs. Baseball   Watcher  21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My intention was to accurately describe the ownership of the Rangers. My prior edit of the ownership statement in the box (along with a number of other edits, including misspellings) was reverted to an inaccurate statement; Nolan Ryan is not the owner of the Texas Rangers. As for the statement that he is the "designated controlling owner by MLB" that comes straight from the MLB story on the change and is cited as such in the body of the article. Thus, the disagreement is with MLB. As it currently stands, there's no reason to list Ryan as President and CEO in the box under owner(s); it should be just Rangers Baseball Express, LLC (much like the listing for the Yankees). If there was a published listing of all owners, it would make sense to list all of them in the box (perhaps), as it has been done with the Red Sox. I think keeping the description of his role and the approval by MLB in the body of the article makes sense as it clarifies Ryan's role. The "confusion" regarding the designation should be resolved with other authoritative sources. As for the specific representation that MLB has no say in the day to day operation of clubs (although perhaps aside from the point at hand), that's simply not true - see Dodgers, Expos, etc. Euclidjr (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you corrections were undone (at least by me), nor do i think i called any information you have provided/found 'inaccurate', mearly misleading to any readers. And the bases for that is the phrase 'designated Controlling Owner by MLB' which is the way it is described in the article, even tho Ryan is not a majority owner of RBE. The reason the owners voted to approve Ryan to be the Rangers representative for the Rangers was not because MLB placed him into that position, but because the Rangers did. And when a change in ownership occurs, or in this case a change in who represents the ownership of a team, the other 29 owners, or representatives, must vote on it.
 * Because of the wording they used in the articles, I believe to someone who does not understand the process, it could appear the Rangers are in some sort of default situation, when that is not the current case. As for the Dodgers currently, Expos formerly, and the Rangers last year, MLB did take some forms of control of those clubs. The Expos (now Washington) and Rangers currently are not under any form of restriction by MLB, except for those forms which all teams are always under.
 * Rangers Baseball Express does currently own the team, and Ryan is both CEO and president of the club, and now as of May, 2011 represents the club in its relationship with other MLB owners. I don't believe listing Ryan individually, or in combination with RBE is in any way confusing or misleading to the readers, and the info box is certainly not the place to try and educate readers about the franchise relationship between MLB and MLB teams.Red3biggs (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2020

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 23:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

– The MLB franchise is clearly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page view statistics. This Texas Rangers has 103,300 compared with 8,563 for the film one, 3,018 for the regiment one, and 482 for the architects one. AaronWikia (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Texas Rangers (baseball) → Texas Rangers
 * History of the Texas Rangers (baseball) → History of the Texas Rangers
 * Texas Rangers → Texas Rangers (disambiguation)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem fair to leave out Texas Ranger Division from the pageview counts. They receive more than the baseball team, and the name is a clear reference. No primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nohomersryan. Page counts are not everything (otherwise we could easily automate the RM process). In this case, the name is a clear reference to the police division, and both have long-term significance. I see no reason one should primary over the other. -- Netoholic @ 08:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Can't ignore the PD. --Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Texas Ranger Division, commonly referred to as the Texas Rangers, has a very obvious claim to being primary here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. For further background, the Ranger Division was founded when Texas was still part of Mexico (1823), and was formally organized early in the Texas war of independence (1835). The baseball team didn't make it to Arlington until 1972. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything, maybe we should move Texas Ranger Division to Texas Rangers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Texas Ranger Division has greater long-term significance due to being of 'greater enduring notability and educational value'. The Texas Ranger Division article also |Texas_Ranger_Division|has more page views (except during baseball season). So per both criteria listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Texas Ranger Division should be the primary topic. TXAggie (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.