|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Hello, I commend the work that has gone into both this article and 2006 Tennessee Titans season. However, these article are completely unreferenced and I have tagged them as such. Articles on Wikipedia need to compley with WP:V and WP:RS. Please add some sources to this article so it does not get deleted. Thanks and keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- So the external links aren't good enough? Just asking. - Desmond Hobson 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just playing for the team does not simply make one notableInvisibleman5108026 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Houston Oilers and the Tennessee Titans be split into seperate articles? I think the two seperate incarnations of the franchise shoule be recognized individually. We could have the Houston Oilers still around as a historical article, much like what other sports articles do already. Dknights411 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some teams may have split articles, but some others don't, such as the Atlanta Braves. Might be a good idea to list some of the teams that do and don't, so we can have some comparisons to look at. - BillCJ 15:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I do not want to revisit this problem again from a couple of years ago concerning NFL team pages. Hockey has their own ways, baseball has a very inconsistent policy, and the NFL articles are treated differently. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the Braves history is all on one page, you're supporting a split then, as the the Braves are MLB, and the NFL is different? - BillCJ 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I don't know the guidelines for any of the league projects, including the NFL. But yes, if the NFL project has a no-split guideline, we should abide by that. - BillCJ 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. AFAIK, among the four major North American sports leagues, NFL teams are merged, NHL are split, but MLB and NBA are inconsistent. I know that New Orleans Jazz is currently a disambig page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have to respectfully dissagree with your opinion Zzyzx11. I personally believe that different incarnations of a franchise's own history deserve their own article. Otherwise, we would be disrespecting that part of the team's history, as I feel this article does with the Houston Oilers. If anything else, these types of articles should be split for historical purposes, not just for football, but across the entire spectrum. Dknights411 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a few thoughts that crossed my mind: Based on a point raised on the Expos deletion discussion I mentioned, what is your criteria to define each seperate incarnation? Is it purely by location? Should content from Houston Rockets be split to San Diego Rockets? Should content from New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets be split to Charlotte Hornets? Separate articles for the Vancouver Grizzlies, Minneapolis Lakers, and the San Diego Clippers?
If it is purely by location, then how would you split something like Boston Patriots from New England Patriots, or split Decatur Staleys from Chicago Bears? Since both the Patriots and the Bears articles are currently Wikipedia featured articles, then if they are split, can you give assurances that they will not suffer the same fate as the Thunderball article when it was split?
And what about the unique situation of the Cleveland Browns? I know that one user suggested that there should be a seperate page for "Cleveland Browns (1946-1995)". I am not sure that the users who wrote the "Seasons" section of Template:Cleveland Browns regard it as seperate incarnations. For that matter, I am not sure about those who have edited something like Template:New England Patriots seasons, Template:Indianapolis Colts, Template:Kansas City Chiefs, Template:Chicago Bears, Template:Arizona Cardinals, Template:Saint Louis Rams, or some of the other similar templates that have been created.
Going back to the Patriots and Bears articles, because of the need to get them to FA status, content was split to History of the New England Patriots and History of the Chicago Bears, respectively. History of the Indianapolis Colts, History of the Kansas City Chiefs, History of the Arizona Cardinals, and History of the St. Louis Rams now currently exist too. What do you want to do about them?
And I do not see how it is "disrespecting that part of the team's history" when it is the same franchise. The official web site of the Titans also lists the entire history of the franchise from its 1959 inception as the Oilers. Many of the official NFL references I have or seen do as well. To me, that comment seems more like an emotionally, POV comment (like from some of the users I have encountered who are still upset about the Colts moving to Indianapolis) than a NPOV, logical one. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I guess my biggest concern has to do with the fact that ever since the Patriots and Bears articles became FAs, and Chicago Bears seasons became a Wikipedia featured list, a number of Wikipedians have begun to model other NFL team articles after them. Not only the articles themselves, but also related categories, templates, and subarticles. As a result, these pages have begun to evolve very differently than the MLB, NBA, or NHL articles, templates, and subarticles (of course, the Titans pages have not been worked on yet). Currently, Colorado Avalanche#Seasons and records only lists the seasons since they started playing in Denver. If Chicago Bears seasons were split at the point where the Decatur Staleys moved to Chicago, I am not sure how that would effect its FL status. Also notice that Indianapolis Colts seasons is currently modeled after Chicago Bears seasons, starting "from the dawn of the Baltimore Colts team in 1953 to present." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Using your examples, I would actually say yes to a split of those articles listed (although I would want to get a concensus for the Browns scenario). My arguement is taht articles should be based upon incarnations, not franchises. I would agree to having seperate articles for the Vancouver Grizzlies, the Minneapolis Lakers, even the Seattle Pilots, since they all would highlight a chapter in that franchise's life, no matter how big or small it may be. I understand your use of logic in this sense, but as you yourself noted, there are a lot of emotional attatchments when talking about sports teams, like the Colts or the Expos when they moved. Being too logical in this sense might alienate some of the older fans still bitter from the move. I guess it is just me, but I strongly feel that logic can only take you so far in these cases. It wouldn't hurt to have a seperate Houston Oilers article, wouldn't it? Dknights411 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't split, it's the same team. Just a different name. Invisibleman5108026 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I must say it should be split but not based purely on location, for a fan or a reader this article must account for the fact that the name and identity of the franchise has changed. There is an article for this season and seasons prior, by that logic each NFL team should have a current page for what is happening with it and a historic page which sums up what has happened. As it is now I personally find it hard to read, when searching for Titans information due to all the Oilers content. Therefore it should have a Titans main page, a Titans history page, and an Oilers History page both linked to the main article and each other. To relate this to the case of the Browns, that team would have a current Browns page and a Browns history page which contains the history of the current and previous franchise with a link to the Baltimore Ravens franchise page, there is a relation between these teams not based solely on franchise ownership. The name however is what drives the search for most users. This is how most people see and relate these events in history. For example the St. Louis Rams, or the L.A.Rams, or the Cleveland Rams are in most minds just that, the Rams. Very few would see them any different whether they had changed ownership or not. As a reader I might not know that the Indianaplis Colts used to be in Baltimore, or that the Ravens used to be the Browns, or that the Browns now are not the same franchise that they used to be. This article and other NFL articles should strive to educate readers of these things while keeping the articles streamlined and readible with clear links to history pages and separate team(name) pages. Stormcellardoor (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The page should be split. The Oilers are a unique case amongst NFL teams. They are the one and only NFL franchise (in at least 50 years) whose team identity has completely vanished. Yes, they became the Titans, but there simply isn't a team called the "Oilers" anymore, whereas other teams that have relocated have either kept the team name, or the city from which the team moved eventually got their team "back." The Browns went away for a few years, but now there is a team called the Browns in Cleveland. The Oilers are the only franchise to simply cease existing under their old team name once they relocated, never to be resurrected. Because of this exceptional situation, the Oilers should have their own page. ChargersFan (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Y'all are making your cases in the wrong place. The WP NFL Project has decided not to have separate pages for teams that have moved. Please take it up there. - BillCJ (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Did someone already split the history of the Tennessee Titans? I'm pretty sure it was here before, with it gone who knows how they came to be? I would imagine this should be included in this article otherwise the logo and uniform sections doesn't jive. Like how did they get the oil rig on their helmet (we all know how it did but, the history isn't there for someone who is just learning about American Football).Jitsuman (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Content of all the history was moved to History of the Tennessee Titans. Howver, Houston Oilers still redirects to that history page, similar to Chicago Cardinals redirecting to History of the Arizona Cardinals, and so on. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:TennesseeTitans 1000.png
Image:TennesseeTitans 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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.
Ownership of the Astrodome
The article contains this sentence: "Not willing to lose the Oilers, the city responded with $67 million in improvements to the Astrodome ..."
That's not true. The city of Houston does not own nor did it pay to renovate the dome. The property is owned by Harris County, which owns the Reliant complex, including Reliant Stadium, Reliant Center (convention center) and other facilities at this location.
This Wikipedia article mentions that Harris County paid for the renovations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Astrodome
This document cites the county's ownership of the dome: http://www.hchsa.org/downloads/1219329418.28081800_7a0dde0dd4/nfl_club_reconditioning_non_disturbance_and_attornment_agree.pdf Marzolian (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a typo in the second to last sentence, right after the non-word "antradition" of the 1990s section that I cannot heads or tails of. If anyone else can figure out what it shopuld say, please feel free to correct it.
- Good catch! Per this diff, it's etierh total incompetance or vandalism. I've restored everything except the following:
- However, unlike the city of Cleveland, which was allowed to keep the name of its football franchise ("Browns") when the team moved to Baltimore, Adams refused to give up the name of his team, even though the city of Houston's Oilers had won the first two championships of the American Football League. Apparently, Cleveland's NFL tradition carried more weight with the league than Houston's AFL tradition. Adams insisted that no professional football team, in Houston or anywhere else, except his be allowed to use the name "Oilers".
- I've removed this because it's treats the Cleveland Browns situation as the norm, when it is not. The NFC Rams were also allowed to keep there name an tradition in their move to St. Louis, which occured in the same off-season as the Browns' move to Baltimore. Every other team in the NFL that has moved has kept its records and traditions, even when there was a name change, except for CLeveland. Btw, the Rams were originally in Cleveland, and kept their name and traditions when they moved to LA ca. 1946. - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Split the Oilers
I propose we split the Houston Oilers section into a seperate page, as no other team will be called the Oilers ever. I think the Tennessee Oilers/Titans should stay as one page though. To help back up my point, the Seattle SuperSonics (established 1970) and the Montreal Expos (established 1969), the latter never winning a championship, and the former winning one, and both lasting about he same amount of time. I, of course, vot Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinapanthersfan (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion is several threads above this talk page. The current consensus for all NFL team articles, as per the WP NFL WikiProject, is to not split the pages, even though NBA and MLB articles in fact do where relevant. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Other notable players
- I actually removed it three times, and decided to quit fighting it, as it's not going to go away right now. His number will probably be retired next season, so the point will be moot at that time. I can see adding Eddie George and a few other players to the list too, but as you said, what would be the requirements? - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you have a source for McNair's number having already been retired, please cite it. I have heard a Titans' official state that they will probably retire the number this coming season. I've added a hidden note to help deter the re-adding there, but most of these people don't follow instructions very well. If you want to keep removing the "other notable players" heading, fine, but it will keep coming back. Have fun! I do disagree with it, but only marginally so - it's not worth continual removals to me, it kept coming back in odd places, and the recentism will wear off soon enough. - BilCat (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)