Talk:Hershey Bears

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ice Hockey

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

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by Philadelphia Flyers task force.

Request for Help

The Hershey Bears are a storied hockey team and all they have on wiki is a default stub. That's sad. If any one is versed in the Bears history, I welcome you to expand this. There's also almost 70+ seasons of records to plug in. Wink Wink ccwaters 30 June 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Year-by-Year Scratch

Finished and transfered to article. ccwaters 13:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maroon?

nosenuggets- I'm pretty sure the uniforms are brown, not maroon. Unless you think chocolate is maroon colored. Chicago Wolves? Maroon. ccwaters 11:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I would say maroon myself, but then again since I moved from Springfield five years ago I haven't seen an AHL game (heavy sigh) and for all I know Hershey might have changed the uniforms the same way they went to that new (gag) cartoony logo. Ravenswing 19:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its debatable... http://www.hersheypa.com/events/hershey_bears/multimedia/photo_gallery/index.asp Maroon is a dark RED for automobiles. But if the concensus is maroon, I'll put it back. Looking around the minor leagues, the newer logo could have been a lot worse. Think about a really mean looking Hershey Kiss on skates. ccwaters 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not, thanks! (growls, shaking a goalie stick in your general direction) Ravenswing 21:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ownership

The Bears are owned by the privately held Hershey Entertainment & Resorts Company which operates all the Hershey related tourist type stuff. Its not a division of publicly traded The Hershey Company, whose sole business is making food. Ultimately, Milton Hershey's estate (The Hershey Trust) owns all of entertainment company and is the majority stockholder of the candy company. REF: http://www.hersheypa.com/town_of_hershey/mission_statement.html

Random edits

Ok... there's been a few random contributions to the article from obvious Hershey followers. Please add factually correct history info in the "History " section. That is what it is there for. Please. The fact that there's nothing there is a travesty. This storied hockey team deserves more than that and it deserves more than random POV/misleading drive-by contributioms. Maybe the booster club could help? ccwaters 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps deleting my paragraph referring to the team's market, please stop. Unless you are from south-central PA, you have no business on this page. I am from Lancaster, stay away from my team. I provided useful information that is supported by Wikipedia.

KnoxSGT 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) No one "owns" or has rights to any article. 2) Keep it encyclopedic. Naming every town within 40 miles is pointless. Futhermore, including the Bears in categories for such towns is misleading. 3) I looked at the Lancaster paper. No Bears articles. 4) Colors are not proper names. Don't capitalize them. 5) Don't plagarize. ccwaters 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

For one the names of colors in every other professional team on this site are capitalized. I did not plagerize, as I put the history in my own words. Your version does not even tell much of the history at all. If no one owns articles, then why do you take it upon yourself to revert back to your version when changes are made. I will report this if you continue. Everyone has the right to change info on this site. Also look at the GIANT Center's capacity, as it matches the population of the town of Hershey. There's no way the AHL would place a team in a location unless it had a population of at least 200,000. That is why I incorporated the other cities in the area, because it is our team. I gather that you are not from PA and therefore do not know anything regarding this. Stick to your own local teams and I will stick to mine. Also if you look at lancasteronline.com, the Lancaster Newspapers site, then you will find 152 articles about the Hershey Bears in Local News.

I don't see "the names of colors in every other professional team on this site are capitalized". I admit there are a handful with some poor style choices. Please don't propagate them further.

Compare your edit to the official site's history write up. Taking someone else's copy and changing a few words around is still plagiarism. I encourage you to contribute truely original content to the article.

I fully aware of the size of the town of Hershey. Every team draws from the surrounding metropolitan area, not just specifically the host city. Call it the "Harrisburg metro area" or as the Census officially calls it Harrisburg-Carlisle metro. Listing every nearby town is needless. 200K is the minimum? Recent additions include Binghamton (45k), Peoria (112k), Worcester (175k).

Check your 152 results at the lancaster paper: there's actually only 3 unique articles related to Hershey Bears dating back to 11/25/2005. Its doesn't seem like a great source for info on the bears. Why send interested readers on a goose chase?

Where I reside has nothing to do with this. This isn't some turf war. Check out WP:HOCKEY ccwaters 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, CC is one of our local AHL experts (I'm another, for my sins), and he has done a great deal of work creating viable team pages for many minor league teams. I certainly endorse his presentation of Wikipedia's rules, and think you should consider simmering down a bit. You don't "own" the Bears' article any more than I "own" the Falcons' or Indians' articles. Ravenswing 19:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rules regarding plagarism, but a history of a team, nation, state, city, etc. is a series of events. A series of events cannot be written in too many ways without watering down the details. If I cannot use the official team site's history, where else could I retrieve info. I noticed another person's comments about the lack of the team's history and wanted to contribute what this person was looking for. The existing page only has about half, and when I tried to add the other, I am plagarizing.

12.208.197.248 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your intentions. I think we can all say the Bears deserve something more like this article: Springfield Indians. That, however, is no excuse to plagiarize their website content. An entire book was written about them: I'm sure you can whip up some original copy if you tried. ccwaters 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Playoffs Article

ccwaters why is it that you keep deleting my article about the 2006 playoffs and calder cup championship?

I'd venture to suggest he gave his reason when he put in "Ok... the past three months have more copy than the previous 70 years... can we develop that a little more first??" It's a valid criticism; for a professional hockey team of the Bears' lineage to have such a scanty article is a disgrace. I'd write one myself if I was comfy enough with my knowledge to do so (as, plainly, I was with the Springfield Indians and Springfield Falcons articles), but if we don't get something going I might do so anyway. Ravenswing 05:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team points record?

Hopefully I will be able to help this article and answer questions since I am a native of Hershey and a Bears fan..

Here is what I need help with, mostly the 1987-88 season has been talked about due to the fact that they held the team's total points record, 105. See here:http://www.hersheypa.com/events/hershey_bears/pdf/weekly_release/mar26.pdf Left hand side, under "More History on the Horizon." According to the year by year chart here and at Hockeydb.com, in 1987-88 Hershey earned 103 pts. Now if you give them 2 pts for the two OTLs, it equals 105, but I am unsure as to if this was done in the AHL at the time...

P.S. Heh, I don't know as I would not be born for another 4-5 months.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smurfer2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem appears to be a simple typo. I have corrected it. Flibirigit 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hershey Bear market, etc, etc.

In response to the comment on my userpage:

We are not documenting privileged information. If I'm missing something because I don't reside in York, please cite. But please refrain from telling me what I articles I have a right to contribute to based on my personal proximity.

I have no doubt that there are fans from Lancaster or Harrisburg or York in the Giant Center. I also have no doubt that the River Rats draw from Troy, Schenectady, or even Glen Falls. Or that the Senators has fans in Northeast PA. Or that Norfolk draws from Hampton Roads, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach or Portsmouth. Or that Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Bridgeport, Hartford, Providence and Portland draw from their neighboring sprawl. Shall I cross reference all of these in their respective articles?

USA Hockey represents the US in IIHF sanctioned tournaments. The local high school hockey team represents said high school. IE... "This is the best squad of hockey players our population can produce: do us proud." . Professional sports teams in the US do not "represent" their markets. They are almost always a for profit entertainment endeavor that imports outsiders to play for a salary. In turn that salary is financed by ticket/merchandising/etc sales from individuals in the surrounding community. Their performance on the ice is by no means an extrapolation of the communities value. I would say the VAST majority of that 1,535,995 (Or is it 1,192,572 [1]?) would disagree your statement. ccwaters 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joke?

Is Chocolate B`ars a joke? 24.83.3.54 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a joke, the team played at the Hershey Ice Palace under this name in the EAHL for the 1933-34 season. Centpacrr 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HB2.PNG

Fair use rationale completed. Flibirigit 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek?

It's a howling shame that a full sixty year stretch of the Bears' history, from 1940 to 2005 - a stretch in which the team won eight Calder Cups - was entirely blank, other than a full paragraph about the team signing Don Cherry, whom no one could legitimately claim was a notable player for the franchise. Perhaps some attention could be turned to filling in those Cup seasons, as well as the doings of the Nykoluks, Marshalls, Henrys, Kullmans, Kellers, Dobbins and Lamoureauxs of the world. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full and official name is "Hershey Bears Hockey Club"

The actual full and official name of the organization that owns and operates the AHL hockey team playing in Hershey, PA, is (and has always been) "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" not the "Hershey Bears". This is the name that the club uses on its website (see the contact information at the bottom of the page), stationary, checks, invoices, publications, etc.. Encyclopedic style of WP (and every other encyclopedia) is to use full, proper names, not "popular" names, for organizations, people, buildings, ships, bridges, etc. when the name is introduced for the first time. This issue was also discussed here earlier and resolved as using the club's full and proper name. I have been writing about this hockey club professionally since the early 1970s (see for instance "1936-2002: HERSHEYPARK ARENA'S SIXTY-SIX YEARS AS HOME TO HERSHEY BEARS HOCKEY.") and this the way its full name has always been used. Centpacrr (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See further discussion of this issue here. Centpacrr (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your opinion, especially since the MLS' Chicago Fire has its full name as its article title. Most sports teams just use their common names, though.JaMikePA (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an "opinion", it is the name that the hockey club uses (and has always used) to call itself as is explained in great detail above and in the linked thread. Centpacrr (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are going to have a lot more articles to "correct", as all other US sports team articles just use the common name in the lead, not their technical name at all. And the current phrasing is utterly needlessly wordy. The article is about the team, which is known as the Hersey Bears. No need for "operates a team" silliness; no other team from the US has that awkward and unnecessary phrasing in the lead; it is in no way more encyclopedic. That you would revert without addressing the main thrust of the edit summary (the unneeded wordiness and variance from all other AHL teams) because of some perceived closeness to the team raises issues of article ownership that tell me you should back away from the article a bit and let others address clear weaknesses, such as this awkward and unneeded phrasing. oknazevad (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; no one outside of the organization uses the full name. WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply here. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion on your talk page, Hersheybearsfan points out what I was just about to: that many other team articles just use the name by which the team is commonly known. The Bears' website is NOT hersheybearshockeyclub.com, but hersheybears.com. The Patriot-News doesn't have a section referencing "Hershey Bears Hockey Club," but "Hershey Bears." Directed Google hits for "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" are a bit over 30,000. For "Hershey Bears," over a million.

Beyond that, beyond WP:COMMONNAME, there's another principle at hand here: consensus. Both here and on your talk page, you are wont to raise your dealings with the club as if that's some kind of trump card that ought to stifle debate, but here on Wikipedia you're an editor like all the rest of us: I certainly don't get to infer on the Boston Bruins article that my way goes because I've written print articles about the club and done broadcast work. In any event, I don't see either on the earlier discussion or here a crucial element: other editors agreeing with you. How Frank Mathers answered the phone forty years ago -- which, I note with interest, wasn't "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" -- is quite irrelevant. Oknazevad's mention of WP:OWN is prudent. Ravenswing 12:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has NOTHING to do with WP:OWN, but instead of knowledge of how this particular organization has operated for more than eight decades -- and STILL does. (See here, here, here, here and here for current examples.) All of its official printed and published business materials (stationary, website, business cards, telephone book listing, franchise certificate, etc) use "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" which is the encyclopedically correct name of the club and also the way it has appeared in this article for years. Just because this form may not be used by some (or even many) other sports organizations does not mean it can't be used by this one. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is in the business of trying to be as correct and "accurate" a possible and does that by being based on reliable sources. In this matter I have provided many such reliable sources as to what the actual full name of the club is. An editor dropping in years later assuming the name is something other than what it has been since 1934 is not "consensus" to change the full and correct name to something it isn't. Also the proposition that contributions from editors who have well demonstrated expertise and experience in a particular field should be discounted and such contributors be prohibited from editing articles in areas in which they have great knowledge and background is just a preposterous view of how encyclopedias and other reference works are produced. Centpacrr (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile all of that with WP:COMMONNAME- which states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"?331dot (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reconcile it this way: Here are five CURRENT examples (and another historic one from 1936) of public usage by the club and news media of the full name "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" in news releases, newspaper stories, club logos, club merchandise and club anniversary logos all of which I was able to find on line in about ten minutes showing that despite unsupported speculation to the contrary, "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" is the name that the organization still uses to identify itself to the public. In fact the specific use of "Hockey Club" in Bears' publications goes back to even before the club played in the AHL when it was a member of the Eastern Amateur Hockey League as can be seen in this 36-37 play off program. I posted a request on oknazevad's talk page requesting a response to this however instead of doing so he/she deleted my posting with the edit summary "Let's keep this discussion on the article talk page. I'd also note that the latest revert on the Hershey Bears article hits WP:3RR. Be careful; these are good faith edits, and not worth bad mojo." In light of both my longer comment immediately above (to which oknazevad has not yet responded to in here despite the importation made to me in his/her edit summary) and the six additional examples I have just posted here, there is now ample new source material to disprove his/her position and support mine that "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" is not only the encyclopedicly correct name for the club, but is also the name used by the club in communicating with the public, on its merchandise, and also by the news media in covering the club both now and over its entire history. On other words, "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" IS "...the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

Also let me point out in response to oknazevad's edit summary that is it actually he/she who is now already in violation of 3RR by having unilaterally and summarily changed the long standing and reliably sourced correct name in a period of less than 12 hours. (I, by the way, have only reverted it back to the correct name "twice", not three times as oknazevad claims I have.) The correct way for him/her to cure that violation of WP policy would be to restore the original long agreed upon text both because there has never been any "clear consensus" to have changed it in the first place, and because I have now also provided ample new sourcing that his/her change is makes the lede inaccurate. If Oknazevad truly believes in WP:AGF (as I do), then he/she will respect the evidence provided both years ago as well as in the five additional contemporary (and one additional historic) sources provided here and restore "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" to the lede of th article where is has been for many years. Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I made a change. You reverted. I restarted this thread in response. Someone else, 331dot, made a change in response to my posting (and also responded here). I tweaked it. You reverted again. I restored the tweaked version, the only time I've reverted as part of this dispute. Even if one considers my tweak a revert, as the result was substantially the same, that's still only two. The first change was a change not a revert.

Notably, though, from looking at the edit history, this isn't the first time that people have come along and made this change to bring this article in line with other sports articles and to omit the pedantry. Each time it is you who have reverted. That's definite WP:OWN behavior to enforce a consensus of one opinion, yours. There are innumerable North American sports teams that have legal full names longer than their common names, and they are always routinely omitted. There's no reason why this team should be different. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, sir or madame, you are just arguing "process" here while completely ignoring "substance". Curiously you also claimed that "clear consensus" had been achieved to support your position just less than four hours after posting your comment here based, apparently, on the postings of only two other editors but without even the courtesy of affording me a chance to comment before you summarily reinstated your deletion of long standing, well sourced material. Again with respect, sir or madame, that's just not how the consensus process works, nor does it exhibit any particular degree of collegiality or WP:AGF in dealing with the community at large. I have now supplied the community six new reliable sources showing that "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" IS "...the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." So please address the actual issue that was raised by your making the original change in the article's lede without providing any support or sourcing to justify it other than your personal speculation. Again this had nothing whatever to do with WP:OWN or any lack of WP:AGF on my part, but instead with using the accurate and correct name that the club, media, and the public have used for more than 80 years as I have now additionally supported by the six new sources I supplied above. While it is true that many sports teams do not use their "full legal names" in their public communications, on their merchandise, and in the media, this one DOES and always has. Please therefore respect that even if it is not "usual" instead of trying to impose your personal preference as to how this club and its fan base refer to it.

The reason it should be "different" for this club's WP entry is simple: because it IS "different. Centpacrr (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not any different from the New York Giants. That team's full name is "New York Football Giants", which is likewise used at times in the press and by the team (as with the banners that hang along the walls behind the end zones at MetLife Stadium when the Giants are home). But the most common usage, the one that is the article title and the one that leads off the article is the shorter form. The longer name is mentioned later in the article. This is the exact same situation. So there is really no substantial difference requiring an awkwardly phrased lead sentence, which is why I made the change. Just like the many who have before. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name "New York Football Giants" was adopted to avoid confusion when there was also a NL baseball team called the NY Giants playing in the same market using the same nickname, a completely different situation. I don't know were you live (or even if it is in the United States) because you have not revealed that, but I am absolutely sure it is nowhere near Hershey, and that you probably have no connection to the professional world of hockey in which I have worked for 45 years. If you are so sure this is not the name the club uses and is known by, why do you suppose they include the FULL name in their logos, on fan merchandise, in their press releases and publications, and that it is used by the media, etc? I'm also sorry if you apparently think that the fact that editors' personal expertise, background, and experience should be "held against" them when editing on WP instead of being taken advantage of by the community. If WP editors were limited to only editing articles on subjects we know nothing about imagine what a sorry excuse for a reference work this would make the project. Do you ONLY edit articles on subjects in which you have no background or interest? Really?

As for this case you are just dead wrong and you have still not provided any support for your position while I have provided plenty. And while you are at it, also please account for why you think that it is appropriate to "declare" the achievement of not only consensus to a position you espouse, but "clear consensus" in the lightning like manner you did here as outlined in my comment above. With respect, sir or madame, this is just not the way it works but instead reflects a lack of both editorial collegiality and WP:AFG. Centpacrr (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all "different" from other hockey clubs, many of whom have other "official" names. Beyond that, we are not wrong just because you state so repeatedly, and increasingly shrilly. Beyond that, what is this "long ago consensus" you claim? Are you seriously trying to tell us that a discussion between you and another editor, on your talk page, constitutes a valid consensus for how an article is to be handled in mainspace? WP:COMMONNAME is clear, and this is proving to be yet another WP:OWN situation, for all the reasons previously cited. As a professor once told a friend, is this really the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say that many thousands of readers and editors have come to this page over the more than three years since this issue last came up for discussion without anybody seeking to change it. Under WP guidelines and policy, that constitutes de facto consensus as stated in WP:COM §1.1 which reads: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." With the exception of one question being briefly raised but not pursued in May, 2013, this form of the name had stood undisputed and unchanged since that last time over three years ago during which almost 200 revisions have been made to this page by 96 users -- including Ravenswing -- without disputing or changing this name format. As for the ancillary discussion I also linked to that appeared on my talk page, that was not started be me but by another editor and all I did was respond to his questions and satisfy his concerns. The discussion of the issue on this page is the one that I started in August, 2011, and appears in full above.

As a matter of WP practice and policy one editor challenging this wording and then unilaterally changing it after a "discussion" lasting less than four hours with only two other participants (and not bothering to wait for me to even have a chance to comment) done early on a Saturday morning in no way constitutes the establishment of a "clear consensus" of anything. That being said, you are STILL just arguing "process" here and not addressing "substance". Have you even bothered to look at the six new sources I have linked to in my above comments? And what background, independent knowledge, or reliable sources do you have to counter them? It would be much more helpful in reaching consensus here if you would please address the actual issue at hand which so far has still been completely ignored by both you and oknazevad. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that the full name is never used anywhere by anyone(so your pointing out that it is, is really immaterial); but it is not the most commonly used name(even their logo does not use it). The full name should be mentioned somewhere in the article(I tried doing so but was reverted, which is OK) but it shouldn't be substituted for the common name. As pointed out to you, this is done with teams all over Wikipedia(New York Giants not Football Giants, New York Knicks instead of Knickerbockers, etc.) and there is no reason this should be a different case; your only argument in favor of this being a special case seems to boil down to "because I think this is a special case". I would also agree that a small discussion on your talk page some time ago does not a consensus make. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are missing the point by falsely assuming that "common" names of organized sports clubs are all always treated the same way. In the matter of the Hershey Bears Hockey Club that is just not the case. This is something I know from both my personal experience and associations with the hockey club going back to the late 1950s (and no, that's not "original research"), and which is also positively and independently demonstrated by each the six new reliable sources that I have cited in my earlier comments above. So far in this discussion no other editor has disputed -- or even addressed -- what these sources show. So again please stop talking about "process" and address the substance of what these sources demonstrate about how the common name of this club has been -- and still is -- styled for more than 80 years. (For your convenience the six sources can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.) Centpacrr (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for good measure, here are just a few more examples: [2], [3], [4]. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. and many, many more.

Oh for pity's sake: I could come up with not merely a dozen, but a thousand links to the contrary, if I felt like wasting my time and everyone else's. You seem to have a fundamental disconnect here: this is not a matter of us not understanding your position, it's that we don't agree with your position, and barraging us with links or verbiage is not going to change that. We are not, I'm afraid, required to address your demands to your personal satisfaction before arriving at this consensus, nor are we bound by the lack of people being willing to outfilibuster you three years ago. Ravenswing 06:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that you disagree with my position, the problem is that you continue to refuse to provide any independent, external source, reliable or otherwise, as a basis to support why you think you are correct, just personal speculation. Centpacrr (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not reading what I am (and others are) saying or just don't care. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can phrase this as simply as possible, since it regrettably seems necessary to do so:

WP:COMMONNAME enjoins us to use the name by which a team is commonly known over the entirety of English-language sources, rather than its corporate name;
The evidence which I did provide for the team's commonly known name -- and which you have apparently ignored in your diatribes -- was that Google hits for "Hershey Bears" outnumbered those for "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" by over 30:1;
What the team's organization, any given media source, your personal website or any other link chooses to call the hockey team is completely irrelevant to, and does not enjoin, the operation of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOS or consensus practice;
The common and overwhelming practice in sports articles is for the corporate, official names of teams not to be mentioned;
Neither in 2011 on this page, nor on your own talk page in 2011, nor currently, has there been so much as a single editor supporting your POV; and
You do not get to declare, unilaterally, that the article is going to say what you want and only what you want.

This goes back to the "is this really the hill you want to die on?" quote: this is a curiously petty issue for you to be responding so angrily and tendentiously, and there aren't really any flattering rationales for it. Ravenswing 11:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately nothing in the above comment responds or relates to the specific uses of the name "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" in the six cited sources I provided.
The vast majority of the time consensus is established on WP not in a talk page discussion, but implicitly and invisibly as stated in WP:CON §1.1 which reads: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." With the exception of one question being briefly raised but not pursued in May, 2013, this form of the name had stood undisputed and unchanged since that last time over three years ago during which almost 200 revisions have been made to this page by 96 users -- including Ravenswing -- without disputing or changing this name format.
As a matter of WP common practice and policy, one editor challenging text with a posting in an article's talk page made early on a Saturday morning, and then that same editor unilaterally declaring the achievement of "clear consensus" to support the change of long standing (over three years) text after a "discussion" lasting less than four hours with only two other participants — and especially not bothering to wait for the editor's views being challenged to even have a chance to comment — inno way conforms to the way that process is designed to work in the Wikipedia Project, nor does it constitute the establishment of a "clear consensus" of anything. Instead this is nothing more than that editor — in your own words — "declaring, unilaterally, that the article is going to say what he/she wants, and only what he/she wants." Centpacrr (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you're just going to have to accept that others (come to that, everyone who's chimed in on this) disagree with you, and accept that you are on the wrong side of consensus. Continued filibustering on your part doesn't change that, and doesn't seem to have convinced anyone to change his or her mind. Ravenswing 03:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, I presume, all two of you who commented on the challenge (one of whom supported including both names) compared to the 96 (ironically including yourself) other editors who made revisions to the article over the last three years who did not challenge this text thereby establishing consensus the same way that it is done on WP the vast majority of the time: "through editing". (See WP:CON §1.1)

Again a claimed "discussion" started a little after 6AM EDT on a Saturday morning and then summarily "closed" after less than four hours by the same proponent who started it does not "establish" a "clear consensus" of anything anywhere on Wikipedia. (In my experience over the last eight years the standard for such discussions is generally about a week.) You can deny that this is the process established by WP:CON if you care to, I suppose, but that's just the way the project works.

While I do not now intend to restore "Hershey Bears Hockey Club" as the Bears' actual, encyclopediclly correct name in the lede sentence as it has now been made clear in the history section of the article how and why that entity was created and exists, your apparent position that a less than four hour "discussion" in talk with one proponent, one supporter, and one partial supporter somehow outweighs in establishing "clear consensus" the sum of 96 actual contributors to the article made over a period of three years is contrary to both the letter and spirit of WP:CON §1.1, flies in the face of WP:AGF, and is, quite frankly, preposterous. Centpacrr (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of establishment of the Hershey Hockey Club (now Hershey Bears Hockey Club) and the I-AHL/AHL

The Hershey Hockey Club (now Hershey Bears Hockey Club), the hockey organization that owns and operates the Hershey Bears hockey team in the AHL, was founded in 1932 and since then has operated professional teams in Herhsye, PA under four different names in two different leagues since then. For the first two years (1936-38) the current American Hockey League operated not as a single league, but as two already established leagues (The International Hockey League and the Canadian-American [Can-Am] Hockey League) which played an interlocking schedule because both leagues had fallen to just four member clubs each. That circuit was styled as the International-American Hockey League which soon dropped to seven teams when Buffalo was forced to withdraw when the roof of its arena collapse in a blizzard. These two leagues did not formally merge until June, 1938 at which time the Hershey Hockey Club was granted a new franchise to operate in that new I-AHL in that league. (In 1938-39 the Hershey Hockey Club operated teams in both the EAHL -- the Hershey Cubs -- and the I-AHL -- the Hershey Bears.) The I-AHL dropped "International" from its name in 1940 and has operated as the AHL ever since.

Thus 1932 is the year in which hockey club organization in Hershey was established, but is was not until 1938 (not 1932) that the organization was granted the franchise in the I-AHL (now AHL) that it currently owns and operates. Centpacrr (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that the Hershey Bears play in the AHL, and have since the league was formed (by merger) in 1938. It also states that the team itself was founded in 1932, making it the oldest pro hockey organization outside the Original Six NHL teams. That's the essential info. Everything g else is pedantry and unimportant. oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (Well, oldest *continual* organization, anyway.) Ravenswing 19:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained in detail several times before, a hockey organization (the Hershey Bears Hockey Club, established in 1932 as the Hershey Hockey Club) is NOT the same thing as a "franchise" which is a license granted by a league (the I-AHL/AHL) to a hockey organization to operate a "team" (the AHL Hershey Bears, franchise granted June 28, 1938). The Hershey Hockey Club established, owned and operated four other "teams" in the T-SHL and EAHL between 1932 and 1939: the Hershey B'ars (T-SHL), Hershey Chocolate Bars (EAHL), Hershey Bears (EAHL), and Hershey Cubs (EAHL). The current Hershey Bears hockey "team" playing in the AHL was not franchised and established from scratch until 1938, not 1932. I am therefore left wondering what exactly about the difference between a hockey "organization" (a business entity) and a hockey "team" (a sports team owned and operated by a hockey organization) operated under a league granted franchise neither of you understand? Centpacrr (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you don't understand, and why you keep getting grief: The fact that's it's unimportant, pedantic detail. The fact that it is sufficiently covered just by changing one use of the word "franchise" to the word "club". The fact that it's exactly the same situation as the Montreal Canadiens, who predate the NHL but are still considered to be one continuous operation. That fact that simply, put, no one cares to overload the lead with trivial details besides you. It's unneeded. Let the history section cover the details (and even then make sure they're not WP:UNDUE, but keep the lead short, sweet, focused and readable. It's just better writing. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then if that is your issue I will shorten the lead even more by removing altogether the misleading statement that the AHL Hershey Bears team was "established in 1932" because it wasn't (it was established on June 28, 1938), and delete the reference to the "league's first season" that fails to include the reference to the merger in 1938 after operating as an interlocking schedule of the IAHL and CAHL from 1936 which the AHL uses as its "first season" for record purposes. In the future if you are going to "shorten" something then please be careful not to do so in a manner that introduces material that is false and/or misleading owing to lack of needed detail or explanation. Centpacrr (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hershey Bears. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125040551/http://www.abc27.com/story/20636821/bears-lose-ou to http://www.abc27.com/story/20636821/bears-lose-ou

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) 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]