Talk:Valleyfield Braves (defunct)

Fair use rationale for Image:Valleyfield Braves.JPG
Image:Valleyfield Braves.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Page merger
It seems clear that there is some duplication of info here, Valleyfield Braves (2014–) could be merged and redirected. The (short) history of the LNAH Braves is already covered at Laval Braves. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. They are separate franchises with the same name with different franchise lineages. One folded in 2013 when their owners went semi-pro... the La Tuque franchise moved into their market and picked up the old name. As far as I can tell anyways. DMighton (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now, and your edit makes that a bit clearer. If we are going to keep two articles, then Valleyfield Braves should be the active franchise's article.  Like Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996).  162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this as well, by standard we have separate articles like this. As for which should be at the disambiguated name, with teams at this level I personally think the undisambiguated name should go to the team that has existed the longest. But that isn't a strong opinion so if consensus is there we could easily move the Valleyfield Braves article to a disambiguated one and the active one to the its place. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment There is precedent for using one article for more than one franchise, Flin Flon Bombers or Cleveland Browns for example. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the first case its an article that hasn't been updated yet to meet the current consensus, there are a few like that still around. The Browns example is football and all the sports projects have different consensus on how such things are handled. For most style type decisions like this you can't compare different sports, they are rarely the same as time has proven one size doesn't fit all for different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2021

 * 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: NO CONSENSUS: After an additional 10 days no consensus on the article title has been reached. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

– The "defunct" disambiguator probably should not be allowed to stand. Now that it has been 7 years, the current team should be assumed to be the primary topic a la Whitecourt Wolverines. The present disambiguation page would not be needed in this configuration. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Valleyfield Braves (defunct) → Valleyfield Braves (1988–2013)
 * Valleyfield Braves (2014–) → Valleyfield Braves


 * I made the original page move to Valleyfield Braves (defunct). The problem is that a number of the incoming links are actually for the professional team that played 1944-1955.  Ideally, there should be a split first.  The other issue is that the team was not known as "Valleyfield Braves" until 1998, they were founded in Chateauguay in 1988, and known as the "Elites" for a few seasons after they moved to Valleyfield in 1994. 162 etc. (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware there was a third team. In that case, the 1944–55 pro team should have an article, and all three should be disambiguated. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The proposal as written fails to recognize the senior hockey/professional team from the 1940s and 1950s. Flibirigit (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Valleyfield Braves (defunct) → Valleyfield Braves (1988–2013) per nomination and oppose Valleyfield Braves (2014–) → Valleyfield Braves per WP:ONEOTHER. If preferred by consensus, I would also support variations for the first nomination such as Valleyfield Braves (1988) or Valleyfield Braves (founded 1988) and variations for the second nomination such as Valleyfield Braves (2014) or Valleyfield Braves (founded 2014). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how WP:ONEOTHER applies when there are three teams, and should be three articles. Flibirigit (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As of this writing, WP:ONEOTHER does indeed apply to the Valleyfield Braves disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 November 2021 (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.