Talk:Edmonton Brick Men

Football: American & Canadian Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Unexplained and undiscussed moved[edit]

The team was known as Brickmen despite the logo showing two words. https://www.csl1987.ca/edmonton-brickmen-1987-90 https://funwhileitlasted.net/2018/01/14/1985-1990-edmonton-brickmen/ https://www.whitecapsfc.com/post/2020/06/07/day-history-presented-bmo-vancouver-86ers-play-first-ever-match http://cansha.coffeecup.com/edbrickmen.html RedPatchBoy (talk · contribs) moved it without explanation and without discussion. It should be moved back and all links restored to the correct term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources that show it with two words. The two terms were used interchangebly. Canada Soccer article Statscrew AFTN FC Edmonton article Inter SC Ross Ongaro profile Canada Soccer profile all use two words with a space and even the csl1987 fan site article in your post uses both terms in its article. Even league official documents used both terms interchangeably - 1989 Stats (they use Brickmen in standings but Brick Men on awards page). Does not appear to be one or the other. Agreed though that a discussion could probably be beneficial for more views on this. I changed it to Brick Men under WP:BOLD (also this article had used the two-word term prior to my edits, only the title was singular since this edit. Given Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) believes we should revert to the one word, we can use the WP:BRD policy and discuss with more input from others. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper sources from the time of the league consistently used "Brick Men". Newspaper Example 1, Newspaper example 2, Newspaper Example 3, Newspaper Example 4, Newspaper Example 5, Newspaper Example 6, Newspaper Example 7. Jerseys used two words Jersey example. League stat pages used both depending on which team created them Example 1 two words, Example 2 two words, Example 1 one word - Calgary program All images obtained from the CSL Memories Facebook group RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus cannot be reached, WP:TITLECHANGES says to revert to the title in use when the article ceased to be a stub. The question will then arise as to what comprises stub/not stub format. This was the last edit prior to my move and article expansion. It was mostly unreferenced (one single citation) and contained limited information. I expanded and updated the article with greater detail and fully referenced and moved it to its current title. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit prior to your move was also done by you ; )

I'm fine with leaving the current name and indicating that they were also called Brickmen. That should satisfy the sources and anyone looking for a disagreement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good solution :) RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]