Talk:Wiarton Rock

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Requested move 24 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that Wiarton Rock be renamed and moved to Wiarton Schooners.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

Wiarton Rock → Wiarton Schooners – The franchise changed ownership and name. I moved the page. The owners contested that they were not "associated" with the former franchise and I moved it back. Evidence points to the owners just trying to push marketing and WP:BIAS (they kept deleting info instead of collaborating) to disassociate from the previous owners. The official league stance indicates that it was a franchise transfer and not an expansion (all other expansion announcements are titled "Expansion: ____", this one never mentioned expansion). Verdict is the Rock needs to move over the redirect of the Schooners. Yosemiter (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Yosemiter (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a discussion on how to organize the content. At present the article is a history of all the Wiarton hockey teams from 2006 to the present, showing a table of all the teams with their different names. It seems unlikely we would want to have a separate article for each individual team, but consensus should decide this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move Same franchise, new owner with new team name. No need for these teams to be divided into separate pages. DMighton (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @EdJohnston: it is not likely you are not going to get a lot contributions to this discussion as this is a rarely visited low level junior hockey page. It is not about "all the Wiarton hockey teams", it is about a franchise that only recently played in Wiarton. I made the move to the Schooners originally. It was contested by the ownership (under an anonymous IP, so even that can't be verified) on my talk page and I second guessed the ONE actual source, the brief league statement and its phrasing. I then moved back. Under further investigation on whether the original move was too hasty I check the sources and the league definitely uses consistent wording in their statements, of which this does not fit, for expansions. For the low level teams, we typically just move the page to keep the franchise together. Also, I have contacted the league to clarify, but I highly doubt I they will respond.
In short, we already came to a consensus (as the only two current regular contributors to this page) and I made a technical error. I was just requesting it be fixed. Yosemiter (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give other examples of where we 'keep the franchise together?' If several teams are to be listed together with only the town in common, then maybe there should be a title like 'Junior hockey in Wiarton'. The various team names such as Wiarton Rock and Wiarton Schooners could then redirect to the common article. I notice there is some effort to trace the movement of teams in Greater Metro Junior A Hockey League. EdJohnston (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: This is not about Wiarton hockey. Only the most recent iteration of the franchise has played in Wiarton after relocating from OTHER towns. A franchise is just a license to play in a league. Teams use franchises to play in leagues. In low level leagues franchise relocate,are sold, re-branded regularly. Individually, most of these team articles would unlikely meet GNG so we keep them together as their franchise history. You will see this all across wikipedia from low level hockey (such as the Parry Sound Islanders or New Tecumseth Civics) all the way up to the NFL with the recent relocation of the St. Louis Rams/Los Angeles Rams and San Diego Chargers/Los Angeles Chargers. The fact that the franchise just happened to stay in Wiarton has absolutely no bearing on the requested move. It was simply a business transaction and re-branding. Yosemiter (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states the following, which I don't see as being supported by the two references: "On 20 March 2017, the GMHL announced that the Wiarton team had been sold to new ownership and would be named the Wiarton Schooners before they take to the ice in the 2017–18 season.[3][4] ." I see the old team collapsing and the players becoming free agents. No mention of a 'franchise', or that the old team was 'sold'. The actual words from the Wiarton Echo are: "the Dyers learned the Rock had dissolved" and "the Rock, the Greater Metro Hockey League junior A hockey team that recently folded." All the GMHL page says is: " The Greater Metro Jr. A Hockey League is returning to Wiarton, Ontario following a change of ownership." Doesn't say what the thing is that changed ownership. I wonder if there is some kind of legal dispute and that's why they are speaking so vaguely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Likely not a legal dispute, but merely trying to not refer to failed ownership as a marketing stance. Think of it like buying a used car previously owned by a rental company. You probably don't want to advertise the used car was formerly owned by a someone where it has possible negative implications. Instead you give it an overhaul and paint job and call it "like new". We only added the word "sold" because the supposed owners' IP specifically said they "purchased" which indicates it was not just given to them. It is not uncommon for the league to just revoke franchises from owners for failures.

As a counter source the vagueness, here are the last two announcements from the league about adding teams and note the decidedly non-vague phrasing: GMHL Expansion: Fergus Awarded Franchise and GMHL Expansion: Ville-Marie Pirates. For further reading, look at our talk pages User talk:Yosemiter#Wiarton Schooners, User talk:DMighton#Re: Wiarton GMHL teams and one of their associates non-responsiveness at User talk:Heatherlg.

Hence, this is why the editors of the Ice Hockey project, who have no bias in the move and experience in this low level leagues vague and non-informative practices (which is why I do not expect for them to respond to my contacts for info), came to the consensus that it was a transfer and not an expansion. I am not sure why you are so concerned about this, this is a technical move post-consensus. Yosemiter (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an IP editor disagrees with the move suggests that the move does not have consensus, and needs a discussion. If it turns out that the IP continues to revert and needs to be blocked we need to show they were acting against consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Seriously? It is only controversial because the previous owner now has a very bad reputation. I think it is understandable that the new owner wants no association with the past owner. But what they want with their marketing has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on facts. It is Marketing 101 to disassociate from failures. We made the appropriate edits showing that Schooners' ownership is separate from the failed team. They are unlikely to respond to your request on their IP page. They would probably respond if the page is moved because they don't like it. They also have provided no sources that says it is expansion, therefore, we presume it is not. Yosemiter (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are the owners of the Wiarton Schooners. I agree "what they(we) want with their marketing has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on facts" The facts are that the Wiarton Rock Hockey team ceased to operate. This ended the franchise which Joe and Tina Zeil owned. There is no kind of legal dispute. We , John and Beth Dyer, purchased a new team franchise which is located in Wiarton and is called the Wiarton Schooners. Therefore if your aim is to base pages on accuracy the Wiarton Schooners should be a separate page. To use a different unrelated example There are two pizza places in Wiarton. Since they both sell pizza and are located in Wiarton they must be associated so would be on the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.224.178 (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are relying on the source provided by the league. Could you ask Bob Russell to adjust the wording of their press release on their website to say "expansion team"... if Bob can do that, then I think we would be satisfied. The league has referred to your team as having a change or ownership... while calling other teams expansion teams. I know I would be fine with separate articles if this was done... it would also provide us with a primary source for the information. DMighton (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Perhaps worth relisting, but we need to relate any further discussion to WP:AT and see also official names (an essay explaining the consequences of the policy). There also seem to be serious COI concerns. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.