Talk:Houston Roughnecks (2024): Difference between revisions

Line 25: Line 25:

*::XFL, USFL, UFL, theyre all different leagues and so technically we can argue the same for the team. Remeber, the new Gamblers will be the 3rd version, the 1st disbanded in the 80s with the og USFL, the second merged with the 1st version of the Roughnecks to form the second Roughnecks, so the rebeanding of Roughnecks to Gamblers will be thus the third Gamblers. [[Special:Contributions/2606:8700:A:10:34DD:D345:2085:7B94|2606:8700:A:10:34DD:D345:2085:7B94]] ([[User talk:2606:8700:A:10:34DD:D345:2085:7B94|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

*:::Other USFL/XFL/UFL teams have similar lineages, and use a unified article. These teams have short histories which do not require standalone articles. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 19:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

*:::Professional football teams change leagues all the time without becoming new entities. It’s more common in arena football but in the case of the Gamblers, it’s a fairly clear line of continuous operation from 2022 through the present day. While the leagues have changed around the team, the team has still existed and operated continuously. Therefore, absolutely no need for splitting the page. [[User:JMyrleFuller|J. Myrle Fuller]] ([[User talk:JMyrleFuller|talk]]) 21:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

*:There’s really no good reason to do this. Splitting what is already a short article into three stub-like pages full of wikitable porn would not only confuse readers, but make it more difficult for editors to keep updated. One franchise, one article – it’s more practical for everybody. — [[User talk:AFC Vixen|AFC Vixen]] 🦊 05:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

*::Here’s a compromise: I propose at least spliting out Houston Gamblers (2022–2023). That way, everyone wins! [[Special:Contributions/2606:8700:9:5:FDCB:58EC:1D7:712D|2606:8700:9:5:FDCB:58EC:1D7:712D]] ([[User talk:2606:8700:9:5:FDCB:58EC:1D7:712D|talk]]) 17:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

*”’Support”’ as [[Houston Gamblers (UFL)]], and also suggest [[Houston Roughnecks (XFL)]]. [[User:NotJamestack|NotJamestack]] ([[User talk:NotJamestack|talk]]) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

* ”’Comment”’ — Thoughts on making [[Houston Gamblers]] a disambiguation page, [[Houston Gamblers|Houston Gamblers (1984–1985)]] for the historic USFL franchise, [[Houston Roughnecks (2020)|Houston Roughnecks]] for the XFL franchise with a {{tl|About}}, {{tl|Distinguish}}, or {{tl|For}} hatnote, and [[Houston Gamblers (2022)]] for the current USFL/UFL franchise? — [[User talk:AFC Vixen|AFC Vixen]] 🦊 05:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Do the Gamblers even practice in Houston? If so, where? 2601:2C6:837F:4580:B8A8:C64E:2279:EAC (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Roughnecks (2024) → Houston Gamblers (2020s)Houston Gamblers (2020s) – The UFL has announced that the team is returning to the Gamblers branding immediately. https://www.theufl.com/news/united-football-league-announces-new-vision-2026. I propose tha the Houston Gamblers (2020s) page, which serves as a redirect to this page, become the mainspace page. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I guess “2020s” is probably best since they are rebranding for 2026 but have existed for longer. Sontails1234 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but suggest Houston Gamblers (UFL) as it is least ambiguous. The original Gamblers never played in any league known as the UFL and the disambiguation fits other teams that have changed leagues. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good point. “Houston Gamblers (2020s)” was the article title before the rebranded to the Roughnecks, so I was thinking we could just change it back, but your suggestion makes more sense. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this disambiguation tag wouldn’t have been possible at the time of article creation since Houston Gamblers (USFL) is ambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Houston Gamblers (UFL) as a better alternative per above. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We could also consider Houston Roughnecks (2020) → Houston Roughnecks (XFL). 162 etc. (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but support the spliting of the page to Houston Gamblers (2022), Houston Roughnecks (2024), and Houston Gamblers (2026). They may have the same history and lineage but are still technically different teams. 2606:8700:A:10:34DD:D345:2085:7B94 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they have the same history and lineage, then they are not different teams. 162 etc. (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XFL, USFL, UFL, theyre all different leagues and so technically we can argue the same for the team. Remeber, the new Gamblers will be the 3rd version, the 1st disbanded in the 80s with the og USFL, the second merged with the 1st version of the Roughnecks to form the second Roughnecks, so the rebeanding of Roughnecks to Gamblers will be thus the third Gamblers. 2606:8700:A:10:34DD:D345:2085:7B94 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other USFL/XFL/UFL teams have similar lineages, and use a unified article. These teams have short histories which do not require standalone articles. 162 etc. (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professional football teams change leagues all the time without becoming new entities. It’s more common in arena football but in the case of the Gamblers, it’s a fairly clear line of continuous operation from 2022 through the present day. While the leagues have changed around the team, the team has still existed and operated continuously. Therefore, absolutely no need for splitting the page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s really no good reason to do this. Splitting what is already a short article into three stub-like pages full of wikitable porn would not only confuse readers, but make it more difficult for editors to keep updated. One franchise, one article – it’s more practical for everybody. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a compromise: I propose at least spliting out Houston Gamblers (2022–2023). That way, everyone wins! 2606:8700:9:5:FDCB:58EC:1D7:712D (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Houston Gamblers (UFL), and also suggest Houston Roughnecks (XFL). NotJamestack (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Thoughts on making Houston Gamblers a disambiguation page, Houston Gamblers (1984–1985) for the historic USFL franchise, Houston Roughnecks for the XFL franchise with a {{About}}, {{Distinguish}}, or {{For}} hatnote, and Houston Gamblers (2022) for the current USFL/UFL franchise? — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1980s USFL and its teams remain the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews analytics seems to suggest otherwise, with Houston Roughnecks (2024) receiving fivefold the total and average pageviews over Houston Gamblers from 1 January 2024 to 8 October 2025. [1] I’m unconvinced a team from a short-lived league that went defunct forty years ago should have so much precedence that a disambiguation page that’d make navigation less confusing for readers should be prevented from creation. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply