This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
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.
– This request will undo a recent undiscussed move. The original Lancers are still the primary topic for the name, not the semi-pro team that until this week was known as the Rochester RiverDogz. The RiverDogz have barely gotten any media coverage in Rochester, and I don't think the name change even got a mention in the Democrat and Chronicle. The current Lancers just don't have anywhere near the notability or recognizability of the original Lancers, or even the indoor Lancers from a few years ago. This move should be undone promptly. PowersT 13:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose -I suspect this may have stemmed from the fact that now there will be a third team bearing the name "Rochester Lancers" -the original 1967–80 team, the MASL team of 2011–15, and the former RiverDogz. Given that there are now 3 squads bearing the same name, I think the change is completely warranted. I grew up in the Tampa area with the old Rowdies who along with NY, Ft.L and a few others the standard bearers of NASL. Times change and in many instances on wikipedia that I've seen, the current active soccer club is the one without a parenthetical notation on the name. Even if the RiverDogz had not changed names, one could argue that the NASL team should have added (1967–80) after the MASL team's wiki page went up. Would anyone argue that the current New York Cosmos are better known than the original Cosmos? Of course not, but New York Cosmos (1970–85) is where you'll find the team of Pele and Beckenbauer. I say leave it Rochester Lancers (1967–80). In fact with 3 squads, you probably need to even consider adding a dismabig page for "Rochester Lancers" a-la Fort Lauderdale Strikers (disambiguation). Time marches on my friend. Just my two cents –Creativewill (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - It's become standard practice on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to rename the articles titles of defunct NASL clubs when a newer club also eligible for an article on Wikipedia exists. In this case, the original Rochester Lancers hasn't been active for 37 years and Rochester Riverdogz )who already had an article on Wikipedia) chose to use the Lancers name, the article title, links to the article and related categories were updated.
I see no issue with the current arrangement. At the moment, an active team that is eligible for an article has the article title with a hatnote to the team that has been defunct for nearly four decades and another that was active for four. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Makes more sense for the current club not to be disambiguated; Maidstone United F.C. (1897) and Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) are arguably more notable than their current reincarnations based on their histories, but I would expect to find the modern clubs at the undisambiguated title (which they are at). Number57 16:57, 12 April 2017 (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.