Talk:Seattle SuperSonics/Archive 1

new owner

Is this Clay Bennett fellow the same as this guy? The existing article is about a political cartoonist that lives in Boston, and as near as i can tell, the new owner lives in Oklahoma City. Anyone know anything about this guy? -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't the same guy. Clay Bennett's also not the new owner, per se. he's just the head of the group that bought the team.. I updated the name of the owner to the name of the company that purchased the team --Bobblehead 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Relocation

According to the wikipedia article, the team announced their relocation plans to Oklahoma City in the 2008-09 season. I'm very positive Clay Bennett announced the plan, despite the King County court want him to keep the Sonics in Seattle for 3 more years (2010-11). Bennett can use the right to appeal his case and override King County's actions, since he owns the Sonics franchise. If this is true, the Sonics are Oklahoma's first pro sports team. Oklahoma has shown interest in acquiring a team of the NFL (pro American football) and NHL (pro ice hockey) in the 1990s and 2000s...and was the temporary home of the New Orleans Hornets in the 2005/06 season after Hurricane Katrina flood damage. Hopefully, the NBA can expand by 2 or 3 teams in the early 2010's, including a new team in the Seattle/Tacoma area.+ Mike D 26 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seattle doesn't need an expansion team, they already have a team that isn't moving. What people in OKC don't seem to understand is these teams are franchises just like your local fast food joint. When you purchase one you purchase the right to run that business in the market ie was assigned. Clay can not move the Sonics just because he may want to any more than he could buy a Burger King in Tulsa and move it to OKC. No relocation plans have been announced because the NBA does not allow teams to file a REQUEST to relocate while a team is under contract in the market they are in. To do so would be suicide for the leauge as no city would ever build a facility for a team if they NBA ever allowed one to move while under contract. Clay has little chance of moving the teams. After losing the court case over the iron clad premises use agreement if he did appeal it would remain in the State of Washington Court system and he will not get the ruling overturned and even if he did the process itself can take years keeping the teams here anyhow. He committed fraud by purchasing the teams under the condition he would keep them here and he signed documents stating as much or the previous owners would not have sold to him. He also committed fruad by sending a letter personally signed by himself committing to season ticket holders that the team would be in Seattle at least until 2010. It is more likely that Clay Bennett will be relocated to a Seattle Jail than the Sonics relocated to OKC. --Coz 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Seattle doesn't need an expansion team, they already have a team that isn't moving." Really?71.114.212.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

When moving this page

if it is CONFIRMED that the team moves, the proper button to use is the "move" tab at the top of the window, _not_ the copy and paste commands. --Random832 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well this team has not moved and if it did the name would not change till after the 2007-2008 season. So there is absolutely no point for your post. On top of that a deal is a deal so they are not going anywhere until 2010, unless Seattle alows their lease to be bought out which is unlikely. (Tboy206 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I would rather split the page into two: one for the original team and one for the new one. The only major league team relocation during Wikipedia's existence was with the Montreal Expos move to become the Washington Nationals. The consensus was to have separate articles for the old and new teams. See Talk:Montreal Expos for more details. --Madchester 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

new to editing

I followed the "be bold" directive. From my understanding of the guidelines, events that have not occurred (in this case, relocation of the Sonics) shouldn't be included in an article. If they are being included, then any discussion of the whys/hows should not represent a single heavily-vested viewpoint. Multiple paragraphs that only quote Bennett do not accurately represent the current debate on the subject.

198.145.97.72 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. Iteag 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Team Captain

Kevin Durant is listed as captain. When did this appointment happen?

November 14 reverts

Information regarding the Sonics' possible relocation is being wrongly reverted by Coz 11. This user claims that I removed sourced information to replace it with sourced speculation. The only information I removed was a mention of who led the "A Deal is a Deal Committee" group, which is trivial. I did, however, add a more balanced viewpoint of the issue. The sourced information I added was:

1. The reasons Bennett says he wanted to move the team: claims they lost 17 million dollars last season, and claims KeyArena is outdated. Both of his claims were missing from the article, showing an obvious bias.
2. Bennett's quote: "Without a building, the team will leave. Whether it's now or at the end of the lease term, it will leave." This is an official statement made by the owner of the Sonics, and it needed inclusion as this article gave very little credence to Bennett's promise to leave Seattle (a major development), showing, once again, another POV flaw.

• After this quote, it was added that the move would require the approval of the NBA so as not to confuse readers that it is a sure thing. Please note that it is not speculation to say that Bennett has promised to move the team.

I understand that Seattle fans make the greatest contributions to this article, and they would like to believe that the NBA will reject the move - but I ask you to leave these biases outside of Wikipedia. I will be seeking administrator assistance in this matter if this pertinent information is reverted again. Please note that this user especially seems to show a very strong bias in this matter, having a "Save our Sonics" banner on his userpage, though I am trying my best to assume good faith. Once again, please do not remove sourced material because you don't like it. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: A more formal alternative to Bennett's quote could be this one (included in the written statement he issued early in the month): "we intend to relocate the Sonics to Oklahoma City if we succeed in the pending litigation with the City, or are able to negotiate an early lease termination, or at the end of the lease term."[1] It's just as clear, though it doesn't include the fact that he's left the door open if an arena is still built soon like the other quote. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You confuse wikipedia for a rumor mill. The intent here is to build articles based on fact not speculation and guessing. Citing sources for the speculation does not change the fact it is speculation. Clay Bennett is in the middle of a complicated arena negotiation. Anyone familar with these knows that a key part of these negotiations is the threat to move the team if they don't get what they want. The league has done nothing to indicate they would approve a move even if Clay found a way to break the lease (which is unlikely). By the time the Sonics are free of their lease it is very possible that the Hornets or some other team may have already relocated to OKC. It is also possible that the league would only approve a move if it were to a larger market such as Kansas City. Because the only person talking is Clay that makes his desires well known but that doesn't make them facts any more than you writing posting a letter asking Pamala Anderson for a date means that you will get one.

That all said the article for documenting the situation is this one, not the Oklahoma State page, not the Oklahoma City page, not the Ford Center page, and not every page on Wiki that remotely connects to OKC. You will find posting of speculation to those pages removed every time you make them. Here at least you have a chance of selling your point. --Coz 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that logic flawed. It is not speculation to say that Bennett has said he will move the team. By refusing to include this information based on pure speculation like: 'the league might not approve the move', 'the hornets might come back', or 'the league might want the sonics to move to Kansas City' is absurd. Just because it is not a 100% done deal does not mean you can cover up the fact that Bennett has promised the team will move. Let me make this clear: my personal opinion on this subject is not my motivation here. Not that it matters, but I don't want to see the Sonics leave Seattle any more than you, and being from Tulsa, I don't want to see OKC get an NBA team. So please drop any preconceptions you might have about my intent and focus on this. Bennett has said the team will move to Oklahoma City. That's not speculation and it is a big development in this story. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare us the denials. You already stated elsewhere that you have an agenda to get these changes locked in before tomorrow because one of the pages will be a featured article. You want fact to be replaced with rumor and speculation so that it appears that OKC has an NBA team when the FACT is that they do not.

This is not a major development, this is nothing more than one step in a long process being taken out of context. Since the filing we have qoutes from David Stern, Clay Bennett, Seattle city officials, and the Gov of Washington saying that this is not over in Seattle. The league has a process they go through and it won't even be considered until at April *IF* the team has somehow gotten out of their iron clad lease. Unlikely since the current backlog of cases is well over a year.

You miss the fact that Clay does not get to decide when or if this team moves. HE can say that the team will move till the cows come home but the NBA owners decide this and they don't meet until April. There is no way they will get involved in this issue if the lease is still in place and with the court having a backlog of over a year it is not likely this will come to trial by then not to mention the appeals process that will take place no matter who loses.

About the only thing we do know for sure is that Clay has lied constantly since buying the team so his statements mean nothing. Being from Tulsa is hardly a sign that you would be unbiased in this issue. Considering this would be Oklahoma's only major league sports team, plus your comments about your agenda, make it pretty clear why you are in such a rush to get this speculation posted all over Wikipedia. --Coz 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay.. I have no idea what you guys are fighting over, but Bennett has informed the NBA that he'd like to move the Sonics to OKC. Whether that is after the 2008 season, or after September 30, 2010 is immaterial. It's part of the "storyline" for the Sonics, whether they move from the Seattle area or stay with a new arena, so it should be noted in the article. The fact that the NBA hasn't considered the request (and may never do so if Bennett gets his new arena and withdraws the move request) shouldn't negate the inclusion of him officially asking for permission to move the team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what we are "fighting over". I agree completely. Coz 11 insists it is speculation and should not be included as a major development. However, when the team's owner says the Sonics will move either if the lease can be broken early or after the lease ends, this is a big development, regardless of the user's belief that the NBA will not approve the move. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to ediotrs: This dispute encompasses three articles. Here are the edits in dispute on each of the articles: [2],[3], [4] This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think Stern has made it very clear that he will allow the Sonics to move if they don't get a new arena, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, Okiefromokla, the amount of info on the topic you added to the OKC and OK article is excessively large for those two articles. At most you should include a sentence or two about Bennett's announced intention to move the team to OKC if a new arena is not built and if the NBA approves and maybe the response by OKC's mayor that they are not courting the Sonics to move there. It certainly does not warrant it's own section. Just provide a link to the Sonics article and if anyone wants the gory details, they can find it there. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what was on Oklahoma: just two sentences which were removed by Coz 11 as speculation (see [5]). As for the OKC article, I didn't add most of that, just moved it into its own section. We can talk about that on the OKC talk page (for the record I do agree with you that it's better to have the details all in one place). Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I added a small paragraph about the Sonics onto the Oklahoma article and replaced the obnoxiously large section about them on the OKC article with the same small paragraph. I also left a message on the OKC article's talkpage directing discussion over to this section. No sense in having the discussion in multiple locations. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I approve of your changes to all three articles (because they are very very close to my edits that were reverted, hence this discussion). However, I have been trying to include this information in these articles for more than a week, and Coz 11 has reverted every time. I'm not sure the same information added by another editor will necessarily help from that standpoint, except to build consensus that it should be included. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had previous interactions with Coz 11 on another article he has strong feelings about and I think the results of those interactions have been positive in the end, so I'm not too worried about it. If he performs another round of reverts there isn't any harm in leaving the paragraphs off the articles until consensus is reached. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the following quote from Bennett's official statement to your addition on this page: "We intend to relocate the Sonics to Oklahoma City if we succeed in the pending litigation with the City, or are able to negotiate an early lease termination, or at the end of the lease term." It is the best way to show the ownership's intentions. The clarifying statement in the next sentence is still there (that the NBA has not reviewed the request yet, etc etc.) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the quote adds anything that couldn't be covered by adding "once the team is free of its lease". The lawsuit is already covered in the paragraph before and his intention to move the team is already covered in the same sentence.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove it. There's enough going on here without me getting nitpicky about a quote. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Heh. Okay. Works for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the OKC spin being placed on the issue. They have not even made it out of the bank with the loot yet and have no idea that the getaway car has been towed. The intent by this OKC advocate (and being from Tulsa doesn't change that any more than my not being from Seattle matters) is to portray a move as a done deal wiating for a rubber stamp. Well Clay doesn't get to have final say and Stern works for the owners and has no say. This will come down to money and where the 30 owners think they will make the most. There is no history of moving teams from major markets to minor markets and having them be successful. This will be a major factor if it ever comes down to that decision. Since the lease is not going to be terminated early (read the recent court ruling, it will be pretty clear how this is going to end up) it is likely the Hornets or another team will end up in OKC before the Sonics would even be available to move. Given current indications by the Gov that a deal is in the works the end result is that the Sonics are more likely to remain than to move. All this shows that the one sided rhetoric by Bennett, designed to put pressure on to get a new building, is just fuel for speculation about the future of the team since there has been NOTHING concrete or factual change in where the team is located. NOTHING! ---- Coz (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your speculation, opinion, and assesment of the matter has no place here. All this discussion encompasses is the question of including Bennett's statement of beginning the relocation process, no matter what you feel will be the result, and no matter what your assessment of it is. Please, I understand you have strong feelings as a Sonics fan, but I ask you to maintin a NPOV and a cool head. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Coz 11, there isn't a problem with including a reference to the fact that Bennett has started the relocation process, whether that request is accepted or not is immaterial at this point, it's just the most recent point in the whole timeline. What wording would you find acceptable to represent this point in the timeline?--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable reverts

Coz 11, your recent reverts of important information are, frankly, unreasonable. The NBA Commissioner's expectations are highly relevant — he is the highest official in the NBA, and any comments from him on NBA matters are of the utmost relevance. "Rhetoric" and "speculation" simply do not apply here. You have showed your strong feelings in this matter before, and I respect them, but I cannot help but wonder if they are influencing your judgment. Please try to stay objective. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohg please, spare me the personal attacks. We went through this the last time you wanted to post the latest personal opinions, speculation, and rhetoric. If we let you post every bit of positive spin towards potential relocation then I would have to post every bit of commentary from elected officials and others that refute those spin attempts and the articles would be bogged down with rumors and speculation. This is why we limited the articles to actual events that occur in the process. David Stern, simply an employee of the league, was making comments of his personal opinion supporting his personal friends agenda, when it is the Board of Governors that will have to decide if they want to get sucked into the lawsuit by approving a move of a team under binding contracts. When there are court rulings, or votes taken by the board, then those will be notable events not your spin attempts. Leave the personal attacks aside and focus on the EVENTS that actually occur, not the POV of an employee who has ZERO say in the decision. --Coz (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. I think perhaps you both should dial it back some. This is obviously a contentious issue, but there's no reason to get all snappy at each other. Instead of flinging the accusations, how about trying to find some wording that you both find at least palatable? The current one sentence wording could really do with some expansion because there is more to the offer than just than the ownership group made it and that the city rejected it, but then the full quote from Stern is a bit much. Perhaps something that expands on how the ownership group came up with the $26.5 million offer, more about the city's response, and less of Stern's response. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving on to the actual issue at hand, I endorse Bobblehead's suggestion below. Sterns comments are notable for a variety of reasons. While he has no control over the decision to move, his statement is necessary to include here. Coz, please note that he is not speculating that the Sonics will break their lease and move: He is simply saying the Sonics move is inevitable either if the city takes his advice to accept the buyout, or at the end of the contract with Key Arena. This is not a controversial statement, since when the contract is over in 2010, there is nothing prohibiting the Sonics from leaving. Stern is merely stating that he believes no new arena will be built and so the Sonics will indeed leave, as promised by Bennett. And, as the NBA Commissioner, he has a great deal of experience in a position of NBA authority, making his comments extremely valid. Furthermore, this is the strongest statement about the move to come from NBA leadership thus far. That alone makes the comment notable. Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I had written an acceptance of your apology and a detailed response only to have the site reject it because your comments had changed the page while I was editing.  :-) Oh well, anyhow, I accept your apology. Thank you. However I will remind you that we decided last time you changed all the articles to claim the Sonics were now property of Oklahoma that we would leave the day to day verbal sparing by the parties out of it, reduce it to just updates on the actual events, and on all the pages but the Supersonics page just leave it at the pending status until some change occured one way or another. The fact is Stern's statement was nothing more than a publicity stunt (and also said "at this point"). In Seattle there is a lot of progress being made behind the scenes on the arena front and in forming a local ownership group. It is not as simple as you want to make it. --Coz (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I figured I might as well remove it because I thought it was better to focus on content. I should have posted the apology on your talk page. Regarding the mention of Stern's comments, I've replied below. Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Just to get the discussion about the wording going, I'm going to toss out the below. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On February 15, 2008, the Sonic's ownership group gave the City of Seattle a one-day deadline to accept a $26.5 million offer that would buyout the Sonic's lease in KeyArena and pay off what the ownership group claims is the present-day value of debts on the arena. While the city rejected the offer and stated the team would need to pay an additional $10 million to meet those minimum requirements, comments by members of the City Council left the door open to accepting a future offer. During a press conference at the 2008 NBA All-Star Game, Stern said he had encouraged the ownership group to make the offer and that he accepted that it was inevitable the team would leave Seattle.

---

This is perfectly fine. Good job on finding the Seattle PI source to expand on the ownership's offer. I had a hard time finding the details of it in behind of the media's coverage of Stern's comments. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not good with this addition. This is an Encyclopida not the Soap Opera digest. Stern is personal friends with Bennett and is trying to help his buddy get out of a lawsuit that is going very badly for him and every indication is that the owners will defer a vote on relocation until after the legal mess is resolved. He of course is going to spin the offer to try and redirect the discusion but once again he has no say in the matter because he is an employee of the league and does not have a vote on the matter. The City Council comments mean nothing because they are not in a position to accept the offer. Anyone with an understanding of the City Charter and the ordinance adopted preventing a buyout knows that this is nothing more than feather ruffling by both sides. Because all of this is smoke and mirrors, and none of it has changed anything in process, there is no reason to include it, or any of the other in a long line of banter by both sides.

The only thing I am comfortable with is including wording such as:

On February 15, 2008, the Sonic's ownership group gave the City of Seattle a one-day deadline to accept a $26.5 million offer that would buyout the Sonic's lease in KeyArena and pay off what the ownership group claims is the present-day value of debts on the arena. The city dismissed the claim and rejected the offer. --Coz (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of Stern's relationship with Bennett, he is the NBA's commissioner and as such, he is the public face of the NBA and the owners. Due to this he is in the best position to understand and express the general feelings of the NBA. As far as the City Council goes, they are in position to accept an offer from the Sonics and it is unlikely that the mayor would go against the wishes of the City Council if they expressed interest in allowing the ownership group to buy out the lease and pay of the remaining debt. Ordinances are not set and stone and a new ordinance can just as easily be created that rescinds the ordinance that prevents the buyout. Commentary from the participants of the proposal is just as applicable to inclusion in this article as the details of the offer. There is more to the "story" than just the proposal and that it was rejected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And here lies the problem. People that have only a partial understanding of the situation drawing assumtions. The City Council can not overturn the ordinance and accept the buyout offer because the case is in litigation. This is a very complicated issue and trying to seperate fact from a publicity stunt (and that is EXACTLY what Stern did, stage a publicity stunt to try and turn public opinion away from the reality of the situation). This is why inclusion of this kind of rhetoric doesn't belong here because it would then result in extensive additions that refute the contention. It is best to just leave it at the fact an offer was made and rejected and leave the spin doctoring out of it. --Coz (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like speculation or opinion to say his comments are a stunt. Regardless of everything, he is essentially the NBA's spokesperson, and this is the strongest statement to come from NBA leadership to date over the issue of the Sonics' move. Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I trust you have a reliable source that support what you're saying, Coz? The PI article cites the City's lawyer as saying the ordinance is non-binding and that the council are free to change their mind. The article also seems to indicate that council president Conlin and council member Licata are willing to negotiate. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of looking, but haven't found anything. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, speculation on intent set aside, is that this is the strongest statement from the NBA’s top representative on this issue, and is therefore notable. Again, Stern's comments are only somewhat related to the issue of breaking the lease, so discussing the legality of the lease buyout or anything related to it is not relevant to deciding if the statement should be in the article. Stern was clear in saying he believes the Sonics will move regardless of what outcome the court battle produces. When the top official in the NBA uses the word "inevitable", it's simply not something we can shrug off. There is nothing in the tone and wording of the statement to indicate he was anything but serious and meaningful. Still, opinions are irrelevant; the fact that the top representative of the NBA made a public statement of his expectation is where notability lies, regardless of our assessment of it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been 13 days since Coz's last response, so I am going to go ahead and insert Bobblehead's paragraph into this article within 24 hours, and restore the edits Coz reverted on Oklahoma City and Oklahoma unless there are objections. Your thoughts, Bobblehead? Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the paragraph for this article, I'm fine with adding the proposed wording. I'm not going to comment on the OKC and OK articles as aside from a short foray onto those articles I'm not really an editor on them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why you don't post speculation as a substitute for actual events. The city has announced plans to do invest $300 million to renovate Key Arena. Sterns speculation was based on the situation as it stood that day which has now changed. --Coz (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Coz, Stern's speculation was indeed based upon information that was available at the time, but it does not mean it can not be included in the article. The city's approval to invest $300 million to renovate KeyArena is part of the ongoing saga and should be included once there is a reliable source supporting this. I haven't actually seen the proposal from the City, but from what Nickels has been saying the $300 million renovation is based upon the ownership group offering up $150 million and the state matching the city's $75 million contribution. This does add an extra hurdle to Bennett, but by no means this saga is over. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

of course the saga isn't over, there is the owners meeting where relocation will be rejected and the court case that will be the motivator for Clay to sell to the local ownership group. Whe this does is make the recent rhetoric by Stern just part of the long list of mouth running that has nothing to do with the real events taking place. My point still holds. There is nothing any more significant about his speculation then any of the other rhetoric that has gone on from all sides so we either include it all or none. Considering the current situation none seems to be the smart move. --Coz (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments relating to the City Council being willing to take a buyout are not valid. #1 they are not the ones that make the decision on it and #2 they made additional comments that said they wouldn't entertain offers and #3 the council stood with the Mayor yesterday and restated that they were 100% committed to keeping the team here. --Coz (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Coz, The Truth does not have a place on Wikipedia. All that matters is verifiability. I've known for quite awhile now who you are in real life and until now I've always given you the benefit of a doubt, but I'm beginning to wonder if your position is impacting your ability to edit neutrally in regards to the Sonics' potential move. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why Coz's edits about the new potential ownership group should be removed. It is from a reliable source, it is notable, and just as much so as Stern's speculatory comments. No reason to remove what he added. --DerRichter (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Two different edits, DerRichter. I believe you are talking about this edit[6], there is nothing wrong with adding that another possible ownership group has appeared and I'd say it should be included. It's more the deletions that he's been including along with his additions that's in question here[7].--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the potential investment can be noted. However, it's quite a big leap to say the intention of a partial investment negates Stern's comments because it significantly diminishes the chances the Sonics could move (see the news article for explanation:[8]). I agree the investment can be mentioned, but I would remove the "game changing" quotation, and certainly keep Stern's comment. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The "game changing" quotation seems to be attributed to Seattle's mayor, I don't see that speculation being any different than Stern's.. Perhaps the addition could do with some rewording to make it clearer that the quote is from Nickels? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we need that exact phrase; it doesn't add anything to the article. Is there a full quotation somewhere of what he said so we can adequately summarize it? We could say he hopes it will provide the incentive to keep the Sonics in town, or expects it to, or something (it would actually read fine without it, but I've got no major objection other than the ambiguous use of the direct quote). Of course, this [9] news article points out some major roadblocks to the proposal that are without mention in Coz's recent addition, including the need for public money to complete the $300 mil needed for adequate renovation, despite past denials by the legislature to provide such funding, and also that the legislative session closes soon, which might make things difficult. It goes on to say what we already know, that Bennett has said the team is not for sale. I don't know if the renovation deal depends on Bennett accepting the purchase offer, but I would guess probably not. The ref doesn't specify. Also, I'm not sure why this sourced sentence was removed:

While the city rejected the offer and stated the team would need to pay an additional $10 million to meet those minimum requirements, comments by members of the City Council left the door open to accepting a future offer

One other thing. The current ref for the investment pledge is an article about something different; am I missing something, or was this just a mistake? Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for removing Sterns speculation is because he clearly stated it was based on the current situation which appeared to be one of the region being unwilling to do anything which obviously is not the case with the new group. The comment about the city wanting an additional $10 million is in error. The city made no such statement. Individuals on the city council made some off the cuff comments that they followed up with a unified statement that they would not consider any buyout offer. Clearly there was a slant to the Stern comments to lean it towards OKC's direction when in fact nothing in the situation had changed. Now it has, the bill was introduced today and despite some public rhetoric it looks to make it before the end of session. This is not state money but simply an administrative measure that allows the County to create a PFD for Key Arena and fund it with surplus funds from the Mariners Stadium deal. --Coz (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aubrey McClendon

The relocation section is getting kind of long. In light of this, we should crack down a little bit: Aubrey McClendon's comment (and Bennett's rebuttal) really isn't crucial to the series of events. It doesn't seem to fit when compared to the important developments surrounding it, and it was of little lasting consequence other than getting Seattle fans riled up. Regardless of the $250 K fine, the comment has very little significance with the timeline of events — if I'm wrong, please explain. By the way, the guy is filthy rich, so $250 K isn't really a big deal to him. Still, the comment shouldn't be notable here based on the severity of the fine, but rather the relevance to the story. Or would you rather create a main article where these smaller details can be included and only the primary developments can he listed here? I could envision such an article including things like Stern's comments and more detail on Seattle's mayor and city council, etc. I'm not sure if such an article is entirely necessary, but it might be something to consider. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

McClendon's comments are notable and important to the arc because they were made at a time when Bennett and the ownership group were still saying that they wanted to stay in Seattle. As far as creating another article, there really isn't that much content in the section yet. It's only 6k of readable text so far and the Sonics article is only 33k total (including templates, images, references) The section could be twice its current size and still be left in the article without impacting things. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. How does that make it necessary to the story arc? Bennett did say McClendon was not speaking for the ownership group. Recent events tend to be more callously included because they may indicate a significant development, but as time passes and other significant events unfold, previous developments are often revealed to be minor. McClendon's comment now appears to be minor, playing no or little role in how the events have unfolded, so it shouldn't be included in the summary of the overall story at this point. When the relocation issue is settled, I envision it having even less notability. I will concede this issue for now if you disagree, but there may come a point when the quote's notability should be reevaluated again. About creating a main article: Agreed. I didn't like the idea very much anyway. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

McClendon's comments are notable because he is a part of the ownership group. They make decisions, and he is clearly a major force in those decisions. At the time, they definitely had an impact on the opinions of people in this state about what would happen with the team. --DerRichter (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view because I know the comment had a big impact on the perspective of Sonics fans. However, now that the hype has died down, I'm trying to point out from a non-fan "outside-looking-in" perspective that it doesn't seem to play a significant role in the events away from angering Sonic fans. The section isn't about the reactions of fans on either side, it's a summary that should include only important developments in the narrative from a universal perspective. Like I said, I'll concede it no problem but I thought I should at least bring it up after Bobblehead reverted me. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie, I am a non-fan (never been to a Sonics game and honestly have no plans of attending one) and McClendon's comments are an important part of the story arc because they pretty much pulled back the curtain and revealed the wizard so to speak. McClendon might not be authorized to speak on behalf of the ownership, but his comments confirmed the nagging suspicion everyone had about why they purchased the team and they also pretty much killed any possibility that the new ownership group would get any concessions out of the city and state and from that point on, the city went into a "make things so difficult that they have to sell the Sonics" mode. One of the things we could do is improve that paragraph to show what impact. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, any expanding of the paragraph would be original research because I doubt a reliable source can be found that makes the conclusions you've made. Still, I'd love to have such a conclusion drawn by a secondary source (preferably other than an editorial in the Seattle paper), because that would prove the notability of the fact. However, it's not a huge deal and your assessment is fairly reasonable, so we can go ahead and leave it in. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's revert

I'm confused by Coz's addition today, and reverted it. This article posted by the Seattle PI just 15 hours ago is entitled "Stern: Expansion 'not tops' on NBA's list" and says that "... unless Stern agrees to an expansion team, it would be difficult to assure that a franchise from another city would move to Seattle without some prearranged agreement. Stern indicated expansion isn't a popular notion among the league's 30 owners at this time." I'm not seeing evidence for what the edit claimed... am I missing something? Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could have just added a fact tag without unleashing the revert bomb. Coz's edit summary indicated he was going to go look for the source. I don't see any harm in letting his edit stand for a few days while he looked for the source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I had indeed planned to do that. But when I went looking for a source and found the Seattle PI's article about Stern's comments, it seemed to implicitly contradict what Coz wrote. That was probably the only situation where I would have reverted that particular edit. Perhaps Coz misunderstood the comments, or perhaps I did, but this article is pretty clear. I wasn't even sure how to rework Coz's edit based on the source, as it didn't seem Stern was saying anything of particular importance to us. Feel free to look over the source and see for yourself. I could, of course, be wrong. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already read the article and agree that it doesn't say anything about Stern backing away from his comments, but I still don't think what Coz added needed to be reverted. This isn't a WP:BLP or a featured article, so there isn't a need to immediately revert a change when the person says they are going to find a source that they saw earlier. It's not uncommon for sources to contradict each other, especially when you're talking about a newspaper source that only updates a couple of times a day (PI and Times generally update nightly with "breaking news" updates several times a day and I doubt Stern simply clarifying what he said the previous day would count as breaking news). Just add a {{fact}} tag and leave it for a few days. The fact tag identifies that the sentence is in question and if it isn't replaced by a source in a few days, you can remove the change then. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I put up a cn tag. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the delay in updating that. I get articles on the issue from all over the country via RSS and had the complete transcript of the press conference which had some very interesting qoute. It dissapeared of my RSS and I have not had time yet to go hunt it down.

As of today it is looking like the league will approve conditional relocation to give them a stronger negotiating position but that they are going to work hard between the B.O.G. meeting and the start of the trial to work out a settlement that ends up with teams in both cities. Which city gets what will probably be determined by how firm they think the commitment from the state is to act on the funding in the next legislative session. --Coz (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see Bobblehead's tweaking, and the quote just doesn't seem like something we need to have standing on its own, or even here at all. It suggests nothing, so how is this a notable development? In fact, in the three different articles I've read, including the source Coz provides, the elaboration by the author is quite different than Coz's interpretation. All the articles indicate that the point of Stern's comments was to say that an expansion team in Seattle does not have much support from owners and so he doesn't want to speculate on it. The quote needs to be removed, either way. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote and articles have been fairly clear that Stern is noncommittal on the possibility of an expansion team moving to Seattle, but that expansion is currently not in the plans of the NBA and that the decision would be based on how long the lawsuit drags out. I'm not attached to the quote, so could care less whether or not it stays. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

True. I did notice that Stern went on to say that Seattle would probably never get another team if they didn't let the Sonics go. The exact wording seems more like a weakly-disguised threat, interestingly. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure why either quote is a big enough to be part of what should be a summary of the highlights of the relocation process. We're not a newspaper, after all. The next update to the section (barring something unforseen) should be one of three things: the owners approve/disaprove the move, a settlement allows the Sonics to move early, or Seattle receives a promise that it will/won't get an expansion team. Does that sound alright, more or less? Those seem the three most likely notable developments to come. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of the qoute is to summerize recent statements made by many owners, players, and others, including Stern that have changed the tone of the discusion from there is no way this team is staying and the city will never get another team to one that shows the league is now looking at options to solve the problem for both cities. This is expected as we get closer to the trial date. The hardline stance was needed to send the message that they can leave if they want and now they need to soften that stance to show they are willing to negotiate a settlement. --Coz (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just not important enough for a direct quote. We should shy away from direct quotes when it's not necessary to use them. I've changed it to a summary of what he said that day. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but don't change the tone of the point to slant it towards OKC. I'll be posting new information later about the scandal that is brewing that is about to blow this whole thing out of the water. --Coz (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Although.. Perhaps someone should add a sentence in that Bennett lied to Stern and the various governments in regards to never having talked to McClendon about moving the team to OKC when in fact he had been doing so the team was purchased.[10] Heh. Of course, more neutrally worded, but it is kind of amusing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be doing that today. This deal is coming unraveled and it is unlikely that the team will be relocated at all. This is turning into a scandal of major proportions and is going to involve massive legal problems for the league and Bennett. --Coz (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it definitely doesn't look positive for Bennett and co., but saying the deal is unraveling and that the team won't be moving is a bit of a stretch at this point in time. The only people that can say how much impact this latest revelation has on the sonics moving is the other NBA owners and we won't find the out until next week (if then). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be surprised at this — it was fairly obvious that Bennett wanted to move the team all along. He just chose to buy a team that could have a good reason for moving (Key Arena). The emails should be mentioned in the article, but I caution against jumping the gun; Coz's assessment that this will "blow this whole thing out of the water" and 'keep the Sonics in Seattle' is a good example of a personal opinion and 'jumping the gun' assessment that should not be included in the article. A mere mention of the emails are all that is needed right now, and speculation or original research is not. On an unrelated note, I re-added part of what Coz deleted from Stern's quote about Seattle getting an expansion team. Here's a quote from the source: When asked whether he is in favor of the NBA expanding from 30 to 32 teams regardless of Seattle's future, Stern said expansion is "not tops on our list.” Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, if true, it could open Bennett and Co up to a breach of contract lawsuit if one of the former owners wanted to press the situation. Granted, probably wouldn't get the team back into local hands, but it'd be an extra payday for the former owners. Heh. But on the article side of things, I don't see a problem with Okie's wording. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In case of a franchise relocation

Just to let everyone know, a consensus at the NBA Wikiproject (located here) suggests that if (and apparently when) the Sonics head for Oklahoma, this article should NOT be moved to or be merged into the Oklahoma City team's article, so the articles will remain seperate, much like the Montreal Expos and the Washington Nationals. Dknights411 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see a consensus was reached without notifying the editors of the actual article about the discussion. Heh. Not that I disagree as it seems likely that if/when the team moves they will be leaving the team name and history behind in Seattle. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Dknights411 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sonics are moving to OKC. The team members will be able to play Hot Lotto, as if they were visiting the T-Wolves, or the Wizards. 216.179.123.145 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New article

I started Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team as a stub for the new OKC team. Obviously the name won't stay, but the naming convention is common among sports teams until a name is selected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken to calling them the sOniKs. ;-) —RJH (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Franchise History & Colors"

The team's website did NOT say, as of July 3, 2008, that the team's history and colors would stay in Seattle. In fact, the team is still calling itself the "Supersonics" and still using the old green logo, although a final choice of nickname, color scheme and logo is still to be determined. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This source says otherwise -- it was part of the settlement.[11]

Also, do you have a source that says there is a chance the Sonics will stay in Seattle? the owner has announced that the team will begin moving immediately. If not, the article needs to be returned to the last version I edited. Okiefromokla ^complaints 01:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Schultz's lawsuit is still pending, so there is still a chance of the team not moving. Chances are there will be an injunction requested tomorrow to stop the team from relocating until Schultz's lawsuit is resolved. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Teams

I think the articles should merge because they are still the same team. The Sonics at no time were ever dissolved. This makes the part where is says the team is defunct confusing. They share the same history and other things. To call them two separate things is really pointless. I also understand that the name is being kept in Seattle but the pages could be modeled after teams that have pulled off this before such as the Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers who were both previously the Washington Senators. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, they should merge, just like the article of Lakers (Minneapolis Lakers -> L.A. Lakers) or Grizzlies (Vancouver Grizzlies -> Memphis Grizzlies) or Hornets (Charlotte Hornets -> New Orleans Hornets). Those franchises just moved to another city, similar with Sonics moving to Oklahoma City. The franchise's history is still there. 121.44.6.46 (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There has already been discussion about this at the NBA Wikiproject. The decision was to keep the articles seperate, especially since the "Sonics" name and history is staying in Seattle (this is similar to the Montreal Expos moving to Washington). It's kind of like the Doctor regenerating. It's the same character technically, but it's a completly unrelated incarnation. The only thing it seems that the Sonics and the OKC team have in common is the current personel (and that will change as well as time wears on). Besides, I see no harm in keeping the Sonics artilce as a seperate historical article. Dknights411 (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. They should be kept separate.—RJH (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, posting too quickly before reading the whole news. Please ignore my previous post. Thanks. 121.44.6.46 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd call the discussion inconclusive, since only a few editors commented and there was mixed opinion. I will bring it up at WP:NBA again, feel free to discuss it there. Personally, I feel like they should merge.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion started by Thomas on WP:NBA. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Seattle SuperSonics merger. If you want to participate in the discussion, please do so there and not on this talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

just a note about a merger

First, I am really sorry you guys lost your team. You just drafted a great player in Westbrook and Durant is gonna be a stud, so it's really going to be tough for you guys. This is disgusting. It IS NOT like Montreal, where very few people even cared, The Sonics have a deeply loyal fan base, as I found out first hand when the Bulls played them in the Finals years back.

THAT SAID - This article should be part of the Oklahoma City Team's Article. I dont see any reason why It would not be. I hear what is said about the Expos/Nationals, but I disagree. Check out the page for EVERY non-charter member sports team, they ALWAYS list the old teams. See Minnesota Twins, as it lists them as the Washington Senators in the same article, and the Milwaukee Brewers, which lists them as the Seattle Pilots in the same article. This goes on and on, thru baseball and other sports. In basketball nearly every team has this distinction. The Atlanta Hawks (Quad City Blackhawks), Washington Wizards (Baltimore Bullets), L.A. Clippers (Buffalo Braves), and Sacramento Kings (Cincinnati Royals then Kansas City Royals/Kings), all on the same Wikipedia page. This happens in the NFL pages with the Rams and Cardinals (though they kept the nicknames) and A LOT in the NHL. What they did there, I think, seems to be right. You can find, for example, in the Carolina Hurricanes page, a snapshot of the Hartford Whalers history, but then the Whalers also have their own page too.

In closing, why should these 3 teams (browns, sonics, expos) be treated seperately from ALL the others.... one reason.... because it happened recently and editors with strong ties dont want the francheses' combined. Nevertheless, they should be, as much as it does suck, but we have to keep Wikipedia consistent. Either way, hope you get a new squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmummert (talk • contribs)

IMHO, I feel that the way the Expos/Browns/Sonics articles are treated should be the way ALL relocated teams should be handled. I've always found it crazy that wikipedia doesn't have a seperate article for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the New York Giants, or even the Seattle Pilots. I feel that every relocation incarnation of a team in a different city should have its own article. I may be an idiot for thinking like that, but I stand by it. Dknights411 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have all discussions related to the merger on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Seattle SuperSonics merger, not here. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Browns/Ravens are a special case: the league had some assurance that a new Cleveland stadium and new local owners would actually be in place soon after the old Browns decamped for Baltimore. Also the Cleveland Browns trademark was pretty valuable: the team was one of the league's most famous franchises and had a long history of (mostly) success. And, the NFL was in fact planning on expanding. There is no such assurance here: the talk about sharing the history with a new Seattle team is purely hypothetical. the arrival of a new team may not happen for many years: it may never happen at all. And if an existing team moves, it would probably wish to use its own history and maybe even its nickname and colors rather than using those of a defunct team which frankly was generally mediocre. Even an expansion team might conceivably prefer to start with a clean slate. Perhaps we should wait a few weeks and see what the NBA says about the ontology and identity of the new Oklahoma City team. But it seems to me this is just the Sonics with a new nickname and hence the two articles should be merged into one. The Expos/National articles should also be merged into one, although once again that was a special case because the league had to take over the franchise for its last years in Montreal before finding new owners in DC. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I completly disagree with that assesment Timothy, it's moot anyway. A consensus was reached here. The articles are staying seperate. Dknights411 (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, but that's not right. The articles are staying seperate out of SPITE, and nothing else. That said, I dont really blame you guys. If the Cubs or Bulls moved, I'd be livid.Wjmummert (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No.. Actually they are staying separate because of consensus and in compliance with Wikipedia's summary style guideline. The fact that the team is leaving behind the name, colors, and logos and sharing the team history means that maintaining this article and the OKC article will be easier. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to merge the sonics article with the Oklahoma city article because they are not defunct, they are still alive as the Oklahoma City team. MrJanitor1 6:00 PM ET, 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot more to this than simply what you just said. There has already been discussion about this issue on the NBA Wikiproject's talk page that the articles should NOT be merged. Please consider that before you do anything else. Dknights411 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

merge/ consistency

• Charlotte Hornets redirects to New Orleans Hornets
• Vancouver Grizzlies redirects to Memphis Grizzlies
• Rochester Royals, Cincinnati Royals and Kansas City Kings redirects to Sacramento Kings
• Buffalo Braves and San Diego clippers redirects to Los Angeles Clippers
• New Orleans Jazz redirects to Utah Jazz
• New York Nets redirects to New Jersey Nets
• Dallas Chaparrals redirects to San Antonio Spurs
• Baltimore Bullets redirects to Washington Wizards
• San Diego Rockets redirects to Houston Rockets
• Tri-City Blackhawks, Milwaukee Hawks, St. Louis Hawks redirects to Atlanta Hawks
• Chicago Zephyrs redirects to Washington Wizards
• Philadelphia Warriors redirects to Golden St. Warriors
• Minneapolis Lakers redirects to Los Angeles Lakers
• Fort Wayne Pistons redirects to Detroit Pistons

So why should this be any different?

If you wanna look at other sports:

NFL:

• Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans
• Since the current Cleveland Browns are considered a continuation of the team that left for Baltimore and the Ravens are considered an expansion team, there is no seperate page for the two incarnations of the franchise
• Los Angeles Raiders redirects to Oakland Raiders
• Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams redirects to St. Louis Rams
• St. Louis Cardinals redirects to Arizona Cardinals
• Baltimore Colts redirects to Indianapolis Colts
• Chicago Cardinals redirects to Arizona Cardinals
• Boston Redskins redirects to Washington Redskins
• Portsmouth Spartans redirects to Detroit Lions
• Decatur Staleys redirects to Chicago bears

MLB:

• both versions of the Washington Senators redirects to the current MLB franchise (Twins and Rangers)

Seattle Pilots redirects to Milwaukee Brewers

• Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics redirects to Oakland Athletics
• Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves redirects to Atlanta Braves
• New York Giants redirects to San Francisco Giants
• Brooklyn Dodgers redirects to Los Angeles Dodgers
• St. Louis Browns redirects to Baltimore Orioles

I think this list says it all as to why the two pages should be merged --Jdrouskirsh (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the recently completed discussion here. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sonics moving to OKC isn't as clean as all of the ones you have listed. If another team comes to Seattle they will most likely be named the SuperSonics and have their history. We need to let this play out the five years that David Stern gave the city. It is way too soon to merge the pages. --FourteenClowns (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And Montreal Expos redirects to Washington Nationals.......oh wait —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.37.70 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I LOVE the fact that this guy dismisses the NHL. Disrespectful, very disrespectful. But anyways, EVERY single NHL team that I can think of, Not a single one of them redirect anywhere. Not even with the Toronto Maple Leafs. You sure as hell would make many people in Minnesota angry if you dared merged the Minnesota North Stars and Dallas Stars together, as well as Quebec Nordiques moving to Colorado, Winnipeg Jets moving to Phoenix, and the Hartford Whalers moving to Carolina. If you did that. All those cities would anti-wiki you for real. The only team that is indeed merged the history together is the Detroit Red Wings, when they were also before known as the Cougars and the Falcons.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What to link

Should we really link the dollar sign ($) to the page on US dollars in "$500 million arena complex"  ? That seems like a little too much linking. The fact that this whole article is about Seattle Supersonics of Seattle, Washington, USA makes it implicitly obvious that the sale would be for US dollars and not Canadian or Australian dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shoeless (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar in the lead

I just changed the lead so it will be grammatically correct. Someone reverted my last fix without any mention in the edit summary. In grammar this is called Subject-Verb Agreement, where the verb must correspond in number to the subject. I can't say "Kraftlos were a Wikipedia editor" the correct form is "Kraftlos is a Wikipedia editor".

So the lead was:

The Seattle SuperSonics were an American professional basketball team.

The Seattle SuperSonics is a name of a team, though a team name may suggest that there are many Super Sonics, this sentence says that SuperSonics = Basketball Team. A team is a single entity, so we use the singular "was". Thus it should read:

The Seattle SuperSonics was an American professional basketball team.

If you need any further explaination, please let me know. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, as with the other similar changes you've made to all of the NBA articles, per long-standing convention on Wikipedia. I'll have to track down the guidelines I researched a year or so ago when this last came up, so please forgive me if it takes a bit of time. Note that, while things can certainly change, a change of this nature would require appropriate and extensive discussion as well as consensus on a much wider scale than just one individual article talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So the long-standing consensus is incorrect grammar. That's a great reason. Until you have a better reason, you need to leave it alone. I need to see something like a MOS or RfA that declares it as such. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop. While your opinion is certainly important, the simple fact that this convention has been upheld on many, many promo\innent articles for many, many years means that you cannot simply (and repeatedly) revert in your preferred version. This is not so critical that it needs to be done immediately. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take that tone with me. I'm open to discussion, but I need more than what you've provided me with. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No "tone" intended, other than to emphasize that you need to stop reverting your changes in. Seriously, you just have to look at the fact that these articles have all been maintained in this form for a very long time, by literally hundreds (if not thousands) of different editors. That is just the NBA articles; when you look at the other sports articles, you see that there is a clear pattern of using this form. (When people have changes "are" to "is", it has often as not been almost immediately reverted. I'm not saying you cannot argue for change, nor am I saying change cannot occur. I'm simply pointing out that a change of this nature, which involves reversing what has clearly been a long-standing practice, needs to have consensus first, and not just in a localized discussion. You need to put this up for discussion at one or several of the projects and talk pages that address grammar, style, and even the sports Wikiprojects, as it directly affects them all. There is nothing wrong with making the initial change - that is, after all, what BRD is all about - but now it is time to discuss it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)--Ckatz^chat_spy 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hense why I stopped. Apparently in British English teams are referred to as plural and in American English its singular, according to the MOS. I'm assuming articles on American sports teams are using American English. I see you are Canadian, so you might be more comfortable with the British variety. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would point out that this is not my change, or a "Canadian" issue; the NBA articles are consistent in using "are", as are the NFL, NHL, and MLB articles. That is a very large collection of prominent and popular articles that it is reasonable to presume are maintained by a large number of Americans. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to need to put together an RfA. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that you bring this up on the talk page of the main NBA article first, as well as the basketball project's page; get some initial feedback as to your proposal, rather than leaping right in with an RfC (request for comment). If you do end up at an RfC, it should be centred on one of those pages, instead of being sequestered away on an individual article talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest finding some style sources to back the change up. NBA.com—and I'd consider their usage as a good style guide for NBA teams—treats most teams as plural ("The Trail Blazers are…") with some exceptions ("The Thunder is…"). —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pretty tired and cranky last time; I should've handled that a lot better than I did. Anyway, I've looked at the Associated Press Style guide and found that for most collective nouns, a singular verb is used; but for sports teams, it mandates plural verbs. So seeing as most of the reliable sources are going to be using plural verbs for teams, it seems like I'd be fighting uphill to try to change the articles that are based on these sources. I also see how it could be a case could be made that teams are a single name given to a group of individuals, so in that case it wouldn't be so weird to use a plural verb. Anyway, I guess I never though about this before, sorry to waste so much time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, really - there are many conventions that simply aren't well-documented on Wikipedia, and it often ends up that someone has to challenge why we're doing things a certain way before we learn what really needs to be written down somewhere. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)