Talk:Iowa Stars

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

United States: Iowa

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).

Stars

Sounds like a new name and parent club all ready for next season: http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3629833 ccwaters (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And somebody's already added "Iowa Thunder" as the future name as though it's official, but a Google Search pulls up nothing. I'm going to remove it until any new name has been announced by the team. SixFourThree (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

When the new name is announced, please create a new article for the team and leave this one intact as a historical reference. ccwaters (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Can't say I'm a fan of that. I'd rather see one article per franchise, incorporating all prior names. We're not talking about a new team with a new history, only a rename. SixFourThree (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Binghamton Dusters, Binghamton Whalers, Binghamton Rangers. ccwaters (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would fix those, as well. Unless there is to be no reference to any players, retired numbers, season results, years played, NHL affiliations or the like, it's repeated information and grounds for a merge. No reason to have two articles on the same subject. SixFourThree (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Looking again at your links, the series of articles on that team are inconsistent in their treatment of new names. See Providence Reds, Rhode Island Reds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SixFourThree (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providence vs Rhode Island was a very small change in the identity of the franchise. Changing the nickname, affiliations, players, coaching staff, however, segregates the franchise history in to very finite eras. Peter Sidorkiewicz was a Whalers goalie. Don Biggs, the AHL points record holder, was a Ranger. The franchise in Des Moines will have a very different identity than it had as the Stars. ccwaters (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will it have the same ownership? Same staff? Will season ticket holders lose all seniority? More to the point, will the AHL consider the new team an expansion franchise? It's not a new franchise. The Iowa Stars considers it just a change of name and logo, not the end of one franchise and the beginning of another. The teams ought to be contained in the same article. SixFourThree (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

It is very clear in my posts that I agree with you in that it is the same franchise. ccwaters (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be the same article, with ample documentation of the old name and logo, to preserve that information and further the understanding of the subject. But making two articles for two different names of the same team would automatically qualify those articles for a Merge under one if not two of the four standard criteria. SixFourThree (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

I think there might be some slight overlap explaining the transition, but that's about it. There's nothing automatic about the criteria you point out. Like I said before, there enough of a identity change to warrant a separate article, just like similar situations in the hockey world (The forementioned Binghamton renamings, New Brunswick Hawks, Moncton_Alpines disregard the presence of 2 completely unrelated teams there, I'll get to that soon, Moncton Golden Flames. ). I'll also point you to the Category structure that would be effected by a joint article: Category:Defunct_American_Hockey_League_teams, [[ Category:American_Hockey_League_teams. ccwaters (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the new article mentions the founding of the franchise, records, players or includes the years of operation in the infobox, that's overlap and grounds for a merge. SixFourThree (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

All of this raises a great question: does an article follow the ownership, or the affiliate? My vote, I suppose, would be to transition this article into whatever the team becomes for 08-09 (the "Iowa Whatevers") as part of the history. The Stars new team in Texas can just have some history added reflecting that the Dallas affiliate used to be in Iowa. For the time being, I went to past tense on the Iowa Stars, since it is official that this iteration is no more. --Txhockey (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that many teams switch affiliations without changing anything else, it has to follow ownership, if by that you mean the team as a corporate entity (selling a team doesn't automatically trigger a new article). Also consider that some teams have more than one affiliate at a given level (or have shared affiliates), and it becomes messy very quickly. And your past tense is slightly premature - the team still uses the name, and will until they announce the new one. The affiliation should be past tense, but they are still a team (just as they are still a team in the off-season). SixFourThree (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Fair enough, definitely agree.--Txhockey (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's official - they're the Iowa Chops[1]. Since consensus here seems to be that it's the same team with new name, I'll move the page to the new name and try to work up some graphics of the new logo. SixFourThree (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)SixFourTHree[reply]

Arena Nickname

Removing this sentence: The Iowa Chops' home arena is Wells Fargo Arena in Des Moines but is nicknamed "The Chop House". No, it isn't. Maybe it will be, maybe it should be, but Google doesn't show that, none of the articles on the new name show that. As it stands, it appears that Wikipedia is coining the phrase, which shouldn't be. SixFourThree (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Chops recoreds

Does anyone keep these updated, if not they should be re-evaluated if not deleted, sorry if I typed or sound poorly I'm on my iPod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.228.29 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Stars

While the Texas Stars bought the Chops out to cement their slot in the league, the two teams aren't really related to each other; in fact, in 2009-10 the Texas team played on a provisional franchise agreement completely unrelated to the Chops' existence. I would propose that this be mentioned in the article as the Chops' official demise, rather than implying that the Chops organization itself is somehow related to the Texas Stars. Jcderr (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section says "Franchise history," which means the history of the franchise which was most recently acquired by the Texas Stars. So a franchise purchase entails that they purchased the history and everything along with it. (P.S. I see you left in the Louisville Panthers section of the "Franchise History") Tom Danson (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Texas team was already operating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcboe (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Chops → Iowa Stars – They were known as the Stars longer than they were the Chops. Since both names have now been defunct for several years, let's move the article to the most-used name. Powers ^T Relisted Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC) 22:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a strong opinion either way, other than the fact that we most often keep team articles at their most recent name unless there was a huge discrepancy in the number of years each operated for. In this case being only 3 years and 1 years I would probably lean towards the most recent name. But like I said no strong opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iowa Stars. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20010406232409/http://www.iowachops.com:80/ to http://www.iowachops.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iowa Stars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]