Talk:Ottawa Redblacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ottawa RedBlacks)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canadian football (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canadian football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canadian football and the Canadian Football League 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
The current Canadian football collaboration is Gerry McGrath
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Sport (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Same franchise or not[edit]

I'm confused. Assuming this is the same suspended CFL franchise (Ottawa Renegades), shouldn't these 2 articles be merged? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the sources are clear on that either. The league should clarify things if/when the franchise becomes active. For now, it's probably best to keep them separate. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redblacks or RedBlacks[edit]

is it Redblacks or RedBlacks? Smith03 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It is indeed RedBlacks, for better or worse, and our article naming guidelines allow for unusual capitalization in cases like this. Therefore the redirect from "Ottawa Redblacks" should be reversed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Most media refer to the team as the RedBlacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:FFC0:1F6:591E:519E:B729:0 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is officially REDBLACKS[edit]

An anon has just altered the team's name to REDBLACKS, which is supported by the CFL website. Looks like a title adjustment would be in order. Taroaldo 22:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That would contradict WP's guidelines on using all caps, as it is not an acronym, per WP:MOSTM. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
For a prominent example, see TIME, which redirects to Time (magazine). SOme users my even question our use of "RedBlacks", but I believe that is allowed, per the comments in the previous section. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This whole redblacks name situation is unusual, and the MOS is a guideline which allows for common sense applications. Using "Ottawa REDBLACKS" will not cause a disruption. The Ottawa ownership group appears intent to proceed officially with this name [1], and so, if we apply the MOS strictly, we will again have to change the title back to "Ottawa Redblacks" because "Ottawa RedBlacks" is clearly not the name the ownership group has intended. I wish they just would have called them the Rough Riders or the Renegades. Taroaldo 23:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I do favor using a common sense approach with the mos and moving the page to "Ottawa REDBLACKS". Taroaldo 23:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: I'm withdrawing the above comment, after consideration of other examples, in particular the Miami Heat. Taroaldo 23:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with moving it back to Ottawa Redblacks, if that is what secondary reliable sources use in general. As to Ottawa REDBLACKS, it won't be allowed - the MOS-wonks will discover it and move it back promptly. I don't know of any exceptions that have survived for long, except perhaps for articles with very few readers. This one will have many, and a lot of editors too. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven't had much experience with MOS-wonks (probably fortunately for me), so if you believe REDBLACKS will not survive as a title then I agree that it should be moved to Redblacks. The only thing that doesn't make sense is leaving it as RedBlacks, which would imply the sole capitalization of the 'B' is something intended by the ownership group, which it is not. Taroaldo 23:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Very fortunate, yes. :) The requested use of all-caps by the franchise has already caused a stir. See New Ottawa CFL ‘REDBLACKS’ franchise asks that you write their nickname in ALL CAPS and The List: Completely reasonable requests made by the Ottawa REDBLACKS for starters. I think I will personally write the name as "ottawa redblacks" on talk pages in protest. :) Evidently, the PR department of the redblacks believes the old "saw" that "all publicity is good publicity". - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I was thinking along the same lines as you. Perhaps Wikipedia could black out the redblacks' page in protest (JUST KIDDING!!) They are getting a lot of hype, but it might end up being more of the glieberman kind, which might not bode well for them. The NHL commish rejected the Senators' original logo (which wasn't bad); the CFL should have given this name some sober second thought, if only to make Wikipedia editors' lives a bit easier! Taroaldo 23:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there is a consensus on moving this article to "Ottawa Redblacks", so I'm going to do it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be moved back to "Ottawa RedBlacks" as that is what most media seem to call the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:FFC0:1F6:591E:519E:B729:0 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur. As I said above, "I don't have a problem with moving it back to Ottawa Redblacks, if that is what secondary reliable sources use in general." That doesn't aappear to be the case, then or now, yey the page was moved anyway. I've now moved it back. - BilCat (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be Redblacks. I don't know why there are people in the media who capitalize the "b", when the team itself does not do this. It is one word: why capitalize a letter in the middle of it just because some websites are doing it for no reason at all? Let's not perpetuate the error. Besides, there are lots of places that spell it Redblacks, not least the official CFL Shop(hover over "SHOP BY TEAM" to see what I'm talking about). We should change it to Redblacks. Detacid (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding to my comment above, I just reviewed the MOS and it says that "the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay), but otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence". Okay. So why are we capitalizing the "b"??Detacid (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Final addendum: in addition to the official CFL Shop spelling it Redblacks, I have discovered that the Canadian Press sports desk also spells it Redblacks. Why more newspapers aren't taking their cue from the CP sports desk is a mystery to me, but plenty of folks are: see examples at The Ottawa Sun, The Winnipeg Free Press, The Calgary Herald, and Yahoo Sports. Besides that, *every* instance of the use of CamelCase trade names in recent decades has been *deliberately* done by the owner of the name. In the case of the Redblacks, Jeff Hunt and team have *not* specified CamelCase, so we should simply write it as Redblacks. I will make changes to the page.Detacid (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus to make those changes. If you want to move the page, make a move proposal, and gain a consensus to change the case. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to this. I'm reading about moves and consensus now, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.Detacid (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I'm logging off soon, but I'll check b ack to morrow to see if you've benn able to make the proposal. If you'd like, I'll make any correction to the proposal to make sure it get's listed correctly. These thinngs can be complicated to learn. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, which is much appreciated!Detacid (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ottawa RedBlacksOttawa Redblacks – There is no basis for using CamelCase in the Redblacks name. Historically, when CamelCase is used in corporate trade names it is always done deliberately by the owner of the name, but that has not happened in this instance. The team has stylized the name in all caps, and not in CamelCase. The use of CamelCase in the media is frequent but not universal: in particular, both the official CFL Shop and the Canadian Press sports desk -- upon which many sports outlets base their own style -- spell the name in sentence case as Redblacks. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Detacid (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - some call it RedBlacks, some call it Redblacks, some call it REDBLACKS. Seems to be a fairly even split from a cursory look at Google. Absent any strong reason to move, the default option is just to leave it where it is.  — Amakuru≤ (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment Amakuru. The argument for change is that the owner of the name does not spell Redblacks with a capital B. By spelling it this way we mislead people into thinking that a capital B is the owners' intent, when it isn't.Detacid (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The "owners' intent" is "REDBLACKS" in all caps. If you want to follow the owners' intent, then spell it in all-caps. - BilCat (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. No justification for Camel case here. Ground Zero | t 12:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination and Ground Zero. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "RedBlacks" was what was originally reported in reliable sources, and still used in many reliable sources. Per Amakuru, better to leave it where it is. Also, most logos spell REDBLACKS with two colors for each word, and so spelling is as RedBlacks represents the distinction that, to use Detacid's phrase, shows the owner's intent without using all-caps. But, if we want to truly follow the owners' intent, then we should ignore all rules and use all-caps. - BilCat (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same argument as BilCat. Common name is RedBlacks. ONR (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup to Move Proposal[edit]

I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to respond to some of these objections before the discussion was closed. But I see no evidence for ONR's assertion that the "common name" is RedBlacks. I do agree with Amakuru there is a range of spellings being used. Also agree with BilCat that REDBLACKS is the owners' intent; however, it is already established that this article cannot be named REDBLACKS, and several members of the media steadfastly refuse to use all-caps (there are many examples for this). I don't expect the all-caps will ever catch on because it "looks" like shouting. Finally, I strongly disagree with Bilcat's assertion that most Redblacks logos have two colors. Look at the official CFL shop for tee-shirts or for hats and you will see that *every* logo is monochromatic.

The *only* basis for CamelCase is that a significant portion of the media is using it. But they themselves have no basis for doing this!Detacid (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your responses probably wouldn't have changed the consensus. As to my most logos comment, I was referring to the logos used on the webpages, not on merchandise. It was a minor point anyway. The best thing to do now is to give the issue some time. The team won't begin play until next year, so we'll see how the name is being used then. - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback Bilcat. Even website logos I'm confused about: take a look at the official Redblacks site and it's a monochromatic logo at the top. Anyway, it's a minor point as you say. I'm okay with giving the issue some time. I just think there should be good reason for using something unusual like CamelCase, and "going along with the herd" isn't reason enough. Thanks again and maybe we'll talk again next year.Detacid (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

One franchise or three?[edit]

Are the Rough Riders, the Renegades and the RedBlacks considered to be a single entity under three different names or are they three separate teams that have represented the same city? --Khajidha (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I think the Ottawa Rough Riders, Renegades and RedBlacks should be considered one entity. The same Ottawa fans that cheered on the Ottawa Rough Riders in yesteryear for their 9 Grey Cups are still related to the majority of fans of this generation that now sit in Ottawa's new TD Field. If the current Ottawa CFL team cuts all ties to its former teams it's almost as if our Grandmas and Grandpas cheered for the Rough Riders in the 1950's to 1990's era for no reason. Therefore I think this Wikipedia RedBlacks site should include the total of 9 Grey Cups from all professional eras. Certainly Ottawa RedBlack's TD Field is advertising all 9 Ottawa Grey Cups from yesteryear and for good reason. The Canadian Tire place is also not shy about advertising its historical 11 Ottawa Senators Stanley Cup banners from its rafters from 90 years ago. I think both the Ottawa RedBlacks and Ottawa Senators Wikipedia sites should include all Grey and Stanley Cups from all historical Ottawa professional teams. Mainly because the idea is fun for Ottawa in general but also it ties all generations together in a good way. Kent — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My reasoning for keeping the article at RedBlacks[edit]

MOS:TM clearly states that article titles are not to use all-caps just because the subject of the article is styled/trademarked as all-caps, so REDBLACKS is not an option. Regarding CamelCase, it states that it may be used where it reflects general usage – uses REDBLACKS, but its forums style the name as RedBlacks, indicating that the "official" team name uses CamelCase when lowercase letters are required. WP:ON states that unofficial names can be used over official ones if they are more recognisable to readers, but RedBlacks and Redblacks are equally recognisable, and in any case we shouldn't be pointing at WP:ON to settle a capitalisation dispute. Therefore, I support keeping RedBlacks until further notice. ONR (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Majorty of the media has stopped using CamelCase, time to switch the name to "Redblacks"[edit]

I have noted that the main argument for keeping the name of the team as the "RedBlacks" is that most of the media uses that CamelCase with spelling the name. I will say that previously this was correct. However, this is no longer true as the majority of the media now uses the "Redblacks" spelling. A quick survey of articles written around the time of the team's first regular season game on July 4, 2014 shows this:

Although there were more that used the "Redblacks" spelling, they would often be using the Canadian Press article mentioned above. The only news organization I could find that was still using the CamelCase was the Ottawa Sun (Tim Baines). Therefore, as the main (and perhaps only) reason to keep the name as "RedBlacks" has disappeared, I suggestion we change the name of the article to "Ottawa Redblacks". Gmwikipedier (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, let's move it back. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for doing the research Gmwikipedier. (And who cares what the OttaWa SuN says anyway?) Ground Zero | t 17:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgot the mention: the Curtis Rush article is from the Toronto Star Gmwikipedier (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
One wonders if the Sun is just calling it the "RedBlacks" because of us. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa RedBlacksOttawa Redblacks – As mentioned in the previous section that I wrote in this talk section ("Majorty of the media has stopped using CamelCase, time to switch the name to "Redblacks""), the majority of the media (including CBC ([2]), TSN ([3] ,[4]), CTV Ottawa ([5]), Ottawa Citizen ([6],[7]), Toronto Star ([8]), Winnipeg Free Press ([9])) now spell the team's name without CamelCase. The only remaining media source that still uses CamelCasing is the Ottawa Sun ([10]). The media's previous capitalization of the "B" was really the only justification that the "RedBlacks" stylization was the common one. Now that the media is using the "Redblacks" stylization, it now should be considered the common stylization. This is coupled with, as pointed out before, the fact that the CFL store uses the "Redblacks" stylization ([11]). As already mentioned, using the team's parent company's stylization of "REDBLACKS" would contradict Wikipedia's guidelines and should not be used ([12]). Therefore, I believe that the name of this article should be switched from "Ottawa RedBlacks" to "Ottawa Redblacks". Gmwikipedier (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. A Google News search shows strong support for the Redblacks formatting:
    RedBlacks [13] [14]
    Redblacks [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Zarcadia (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It should be noted that the Sun franchise is usually considered less credible than other sources as well, as they are sensationalist tabloids. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support per nomination. Ground Zero | t 11:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per evidence cited and MOS:TM; both say avoid the camel case here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not entirely true the mostm states Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable that being said Redblacks appears to be used more now so we should use that spelling.-- (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, CBC seems to still be split on the issue, but a majority of news sources are using Redblacks, and common name should be used. 117Avenue (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2014 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ottawa Redblacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)