Jump to content

Talk:Denver Outlaws

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]

@GoRebs & @Drmies, instead of continuing to edit war over this page, or fighting on my talk page, let's have a discussion here.

For added context, when the new Denver Outlaws franchise was created, some discussions did take place on whether or not to have separate pages (linked here and here). The consensus was that the two teams should have their own pages.

To reiterate my position though; I think the two teams should be held on separate pages. I think that it's fairly clear that despite sharing branding, the two teams are entirely different organizations, with little to no continuity between the two, such that having multiple pages would benefit someone who is unfamiliar with the histories of the MLL and PLL. Additionally the is precedent for similarly named teams to be held on separate pages, like the NLL's Boston Blazers and Boston Blazers, or the NHL's Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree because Mike Rabil and Paul Rabil answered this specific question on their podcast because I asked them because of this. Go give it a listen. It's from August 13, 2024 on the One on Ones with Mike and Paul podcast titles "Breaking Down the PLL Playoff Scenarios". At the 24:30 mark you will hear my question which is this exact question. I'm correct and it's fairly clear I'm correct because the owners of both the PLL and MLL and MLL Outlaws and PLL Outlaws (who are the same Outlaws) said so. Go look at the Cannons page. Why isn't that two separate pages? GoRebs (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Cannons' history is held on a single page because there was significant continuity held between the MLL and PLL there. Through the MLL–PLL merger, the cannons retained their entire coaching personnel and a significant amount of their players. The Outlaws cannot make such a claim, they're a rebrand of the Chrome Lacrosse Club, with whom they share continuity (coaches, players, etc.).
If you treat the two Outlaws franchises as one and the same, that would mean that from 2019 to 2021, the franchise was competing across two leagues, as the Outlaws in the MLL and as the Chrome in the PLL, which is clearly not the case.
The history and proper context of the MLL team is still held on the Denver Outlaws (2006–2020) page, it should stay that way. SammySpartan (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mike and Paul and the Denver Outlaws official twitter page says otherwise. So the PLL itself disagrees with you. It's complicated I get it but you aren't even trying to understand. GoRebs (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also they sell official Denver Outlaws merch that says Established 2006. How is that possible if they were established in 2019 like you're saying? GoRebs (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing new in professional sports for an organisation to claim the history of a spiritual predecessor in order to better legitimise themselves to a prospective audience. Hell, we even saw an entire league attempt to do it last year. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. You call up the textile manufacturer, you tell them to sew the words "Established 2006" on the scarfs or ball caps or whatever, done deal. This sort of thing happens all the time: or are you really asserting that the present-day Birmingham Stallions or Michigan Panthers have the slightest thing to do with the original 1980s USFL teams? Ravenswing 18:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You all know more about Wikipedia than I ever will but I know more about the Denver Outlaws than you ever will. Having no talk of the MLL Denver Outlaws on the PLL Denver Outlaws page is a disgrace to professional lacrosse history because they are the same franchise that belonged to my city of Denver. Hell even the PLL Championship Trophy itself has all the MLL Champions listed on it but the Denver Outlaws Wiki page can't? That's malpractice in a very complicated history of professional outdoor lacrosse. GoRebs (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy looking through those other conversations about the pages you were the only one who was disagreeing. The consensus is total nonsense it's just you doing what you please. GoRebs (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — To build upon what I stressed in an earlier discussion on the issue, these are two seperate franchises. One verifiably folded in 2020, and the other started in 2019 – they literally co-existed at one point in history. If anything, merging these two histories into one simply because they share the same intellectual property would be "malpractice" that'll make understanding the "very complicated history" of these two franchises even more difficult for readers. The practicality of covering two different organisations that have nothing to do with each other, and have overlapping seasons, is poor. How would such an article be structured, even? — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to ask @Emoore2914 to chime in on this discussion, because they've also been adding a ton of MLL-related material to this page, as well as some folk who participated in previous versions of this discussion (@Jsfxmn, Bes2224, Ravenswing, Marlinite) Because I want to have some kind of definitive result of this matter. SammySpartan (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The continuation of the Denver Outlaws' identity in PLL, despite their previous MLL history, has created confusion among fans and historians. Addressing this issue is vital for maintaining clarity and consistency in lacrosse recordkeeping.
    Overlapping Branding and Historical Recognition One of the key concerns is the overlap in team identity. The Denver Outlaws were a dominant franchise in MLL before the league's merger with PLL. When PLL expanded and absorbed MLL teams, the Outlaws' branding remained a central aspect, leading to branding confusion. This situation resembles the overlap between the Chrome Lacrosse Club in PLL and the MLL's Denver Outlaws.
    However, PLL has acknowledged the Denver Outlaws’ historical record in MLL, reinforcing their legacy as one of the most successful teams in professional lacrosse. Additionally, the league has recognized how key figures, such as Eric Law, have brought the Outlaws’ team culture and identity into the new PLL framework.
    Precedent: Boston Cannons' Transition to Cannons LC A precedent for this merger can be found in the transition of the Boston Cannons. When PLL absorbed MLL, the Cannons were treated as a new team, rebranded as the Cannons Lacrosse Club. PLL officially recognized the Boston Cannons as an expansion franchise rather than a direct continuation of the MLL team. A direct comparison of their rosters from 2020 (MLL Boston Cannons) to 2021 (PLL Cannons LC) highlights significant changes:
    • The Boston Cannons' 2020 roster consisted of 25 players, primarily from MLL.
    • Only a handful of players from the 2020 team remained on the Cannons LC 2021 roster, while the majority were newly added through the PLL entry, expansion, and dispersal drafts.
    Player Retention and New Additions:
    • Retained Players from 2020 to 2021:
      • Zach Goodrich (Midfield)
      • Tim Edwards (Midfield)
      • Nicholas Marrocco (Goalie)
    • Notable New Additions in 2021:
      • Lyle Thompson (Attack)
      • Ryan Drenner (Attack)
      • Shayne Jackson (Attack)
      • Paul Rabil (Midfield)
      • Deemer Class (Midfield)
      • Brodie Merrill (Defense)
      • Jack Kielty (Defense)
      • Holden Garlent (Defense)
    This comparison shows that while a few key players remained with the team, most of the 2021 roster comprised new additions. This roster overhaul reflects the team's strategic approach to integrating fresh talent and adapting to the PLL’s competitive landscape.
    Similarly, the Denver Outlaws should be recognized as a continuation of their MLL legacy rather than a distinct PLL entity. Additionally, PLL has acknowledged and valued the Outlaws' history, emphasizing how Eric Law and other key figures have maintained the Outlaws' culture within the PLL structure.
    Counterarguments and Rebuttal Some strongly oppose merging MLL Denver Outlaws history with PLL Outlaws, citing explanations from PLL leadership, including Mike Rabil and Paul Rabil. This argument is based on their direct response to a fan question in the August 13, 2024, One-on-One with Mike and Paul episode "Breaking Down the PLL Playoff Scenarios." At 24:30, the Rabil brothers addressed this issue, confirming that PLL and MLL Outlaws should not be conflated. However, despite their position, the historical and branding confusion necessitates a formalized merger in reference material such as Wikipedia.
    Conclusion While PLL leadership has suggested keeping the Denver Outlaws' MLL and PLL histories separate, the historical continuity, branding overlap, and precedent set by the Boston Cannons indicate that the Denver Outlaws' full history should be unified. Proper documentation of this transition is essential to preserving the integrity of professional lacrosse history and ensuring accessibility for fans and researchers alike. Emoore2914 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    furthermore, the continued circulation of incorrect founding dates on social media makes it even more critical to officially acknowledge that the Denver Outlaws were founded in 2006, not 2024. Emoore2914 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you have ChatGPT write this? This hardly makes any sense in regards to the Outlaws, and the sentence "This situation resembles the overlap between the Chrome Lacrosse Club in PLL and the MLL's Denver Outlaws." is entirely gibberish. SammySpartan (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should follow the structure of the Boston Cannons page as a model for organizing the history of the Denver Outlaws and their transition within professional lacrosse. There are two possible approaches to structuring this information effectively.
    One option is to merge the histories of the Denver Outlaws from Major League Lacrosse (MLL), Chrome LC (2021–2023), and the rebranded Denver Outlaws (2024–present) into a single cohesive narrative. This approach would begin by detailing the Outlaws’ tenure in the MLL, highlighting their achievements and role in the league. It would then transition to their move into the Premier Lacrosse League (PLL) under the Chrome LC identity, explaining how the franchise adapted to the new league structure. Finally, the focus would shift to the 2024 rebranding, where the Chrome identity was retired, and the Denver Outlaws name was reinstated. This method ensures that the entire history of the team is preserved in a single, well-organized account.
    Alternatively, we could maintain a separate page for Chrome LC to document its existence from 2021 to 2023 as an independent entity within the PLL. In this case, the Denver Outlaws page would be structured to merge the history of the MLL Outlaws with the new PLL version of the team, incorporating relevant details from the PLL’s history page. This would allow for a more distinct separation between the teams while still acknowledging the connections between them.
    Both approaches have merits, and the decision should be based on which format best presents the history of the franchise in a clear and comprehensive manner. Emoore2914 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the passion you seem to have, but you glossed over Chrome, and talked extensively about the Cannons here. If you agree that all iterations of the Cannons are a single, continuous franchise, despite the changes you highlighted, then surely you'd also agree that Chrome and the PLL Outlaws are also a single, continuous franchise. They inherited staff and roster contracts, and their pick in the 2024 PLL College Draft.[1][2] Primary sources,[3][4] and numerous reliable, third-party sources,[2][5][6][7][8][9] also reported it as Chrome being rebranded, not Chrome being folded.
As I asked above, if we are to merge the two articles, how would you propose we structure it, as it'd cover two different, co-existing franchises? As far as I'm aware, there's no precedent for this – even the Charlotte Hornets, which Paul Rabil discussed in the aforementioned One On Ones with Mike and Paul episode, does not have a co-existence problem with the New Orleans Pelicans that a proposed merger of these two articles would have.

References

  1. ^ "Return of the Outlaws: Denver getting professional field lacrosse team back in 2024". The Denver Post. The Outlaws will inherit the roster and coaching staff of the PLL's Chrome Lacrosse Club, and the Outlaws will get the No. 1 pick in the college draft...
  2. ^ a b "The Denver Outlaws Rise From the Ashes For a New Start in PLL". Inside Lacrosse. ...as Chrome LC sets up shop in the Mile High City, the team's original name has been left behind [...] Add the college draft's first overall pick to the equation, and we're looking at a major franchise reboot...
  3. ^ "The PLL and Whirlpool Brand Proudly Welcome 8 Teams to Home Cities". Premier Lacrosse League. Denver Outlaws (formerly Chrome Lacrosse Club)
  4. ^ "Denver Outlaws complete flash rebuild, look for worst-to-first turnaround". Premier Lacrosse League. Soudan's been on a roller coaster as head coach of the Outlaws/Chrome franchise.
  5. ^ "Premier Lacrosse League Championship Series announced". USA Lacrosse. The Chrome Lacrosse Club — now the Denver Outlaws...
  6. ^ "Return of Denver Outlaws highlights PLL's host cities announcement". USA Lacrosse. The most notable assignment is the rebranding of Chrome Lacrosse Club as the Denver Outlaws...
  7. ^ "PLL 2024 Season: 10 Things to be Excited About". Inside Lacrosse. The offseason also included the rebranding of the Chrome...
  8. ^ "New York Atlas: Premier Lacrosse League picks NY as one of eight markets assigned teams". Newsday. Denver, which was assigned the Chrome, but which has rebranded as the Denver Outlaws...
  9. ^ "Premier Lacrosse League Announces Home Cities For All Teams". Front Office Sports. ...and one franchise rebranded. Chrome LC became the Denver Outlaws...
AFC Vixen 🦊 20:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFC Vixen, I’m telling you what the PLL wants—it’s not coming from a random company but directly from the league office. They have a clear vision for what they want the Denver Outlaws to be. Emoore2914 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party sources are prioritised over primary sources, and even if the opposite were the case, I literally just gave you two citations in which the PLL themselves explicitly recognise the Outlaws as a continuation of the Chrome franchise. Also, who are you to talk like you speak on the PLL's behalf? Do you have a relation to the organization? If so, you need to disclose it. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They also stated that the Denver Outlaws from the MLL are a continuation of Chrome LC’s history. The first source of this information comes from the CEO, founders, and president of the league. All marketing and official statements regarding the Denver Outlaws originate from the MLL era, Chrome LC, and the newly rebranded Outlaws. Emoore2914 (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. The MLL Outlaws and Chrome co-existed, so it's empirically not a continuation. Once again, primary sources like the PLL do not take precedent over independent third-party sources, which are important for verifiability. We don't care about what an organization claims, we care about whether such claims can be verified. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source for this information comes directly from the Founder, CEO, and President of the PLL in an official announcement. In the video linked here[[1]], between minutes 24:00 and 28:00, they discuss their vision for the Denver Outlaws' branding. During this segment, they outline how they want the team’s identity to be presented and positioned within the league, emphasizing its connection to both the MLL’s Denver Outlaws and Chrome LC. This provides direct insight into the league’s official stance on the transition and historical continuity of the franchise. Emoore2914 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the PLL takeover is not a matter of opinion. They are presenting facts, not random speculation from people on the street. This information comes directly from the league, not personal viewpoints. Emoore2914 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're clearly not listening to what anybody here is trying to tell you, so I'm not entertaining a discussion between us any further, lest I repeat myself ad nauseam. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening to me. Just because you want to keep it the same doesn’t mean it is the correct decision. I will report you because you are making decisions based on opinion rather than facts. I have laid out all the facts, but you are choosing to base your decisions on your own viewpoint instead. If someone is sharing their opinion rather than citing official sources, they should not be editing Wikipedia pages as if their interpretation is factual. Emoore2914 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I came here from WP:NPOVN) @Emoore2914 On what the PLL wants, see WP:OWN. WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing might also be of interest to you, and perhaps WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia, since you know what the PLL wants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch the video? Additionally, @AFC Vixen has not considered other people's opinions about this page. Both he and @SammySpartan are the only ones opposing the merger.
@AFC Vixen has talked about consensus, referencing the discussion here: [[2]]. However, it seems like the only "consensus" he acknowledges is his own opinion. Emoore2914 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a "she". — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the information. Emoore2914 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AFC Vixen has talked about consensus, referencing the discussion here: [[2]]. However, it seems like the only "consensus" her acknowledges is her own opinion Emoore2914 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you'd prefer to think so, I don't doubt. That you're routinely ignoring every other voice is apparent. Ravenswing 03:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AFC Vixen's argument is entirely persuasive -- if the franchises co-existed, I don't give a good goddamn what some podcast or what a team's marketing department wants credulous fanboys to believe. We operate off of verifiable fact here, and when there are differences of opinion, we operate off of consensus, not on anyone's unsupported claim of authority. Ravenswing 18:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The podcast and statement come from the CEO, President, and founders of the PLL. All marketing originates from the PLL headquarters and by the PLL. You stated that we operate based on consensus. The consensus of the PLL and its fans is that the Outlaws began in the MLL in 2006 and were reborn in 2024 Emoore2914 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Demonstrably not all of its fans, and the purported "consensus" of some company is irrelevant here. With that, I see that you're a new editor, and you'd do well to review WP:CONSENSUS, among other policies. Beyond that, that we have two editors with 55 edits between them coincidentally piling onto this dispute supporting a merger raises issues of sock/meatpuppetry. Ravenswing 18:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That and these two IPs causing trouble, too: 132.194.13.133 and 67.172.157.86. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]