Jump to content

Talk:Chivas USA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:C.D. Chivas USA)

Accents in names

[edit]

Although there should be accents in the names of Mexican players, there shouldn't be in American names (and those who are Mexican-born, but are naturalized Americans). "á" is not an English letter. The official Chivas website is trying to hispanize its Americans. And the English version of the website does not use accents on the roster page. --Dryazan 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is indeed an English letter, it's an English letter with an accent. In this case, unlike, for example the Norwegian letter "å" which cannot be separated into two parts, the diacritic mark is not part of the letter. In fact, Spanish uses acute, diaeresis and tilde, but not diacritic marks.203.148.171.30 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the club roster in both the English [1] and Spanish [2] versions, there are NO accents for ANY of the players. If on the other hand, you look at the text in the articles for each player, those articles use the accents in both the English-language and Spanish-language version (see Aarón López [3] for example, or this press release [4]). American names are not universally accent-free. For one non-hispanic example, the singer Beyoncé Knowles from Destiny's Child. BlankVerse ∅ 12:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand that. However, when I -- and others -- started to created MLS-related content on Wikipedia, the decision was made to keep accents out of American players names, for the reasons stated above. I have worked the past year under that assumption. Please do not revert it on me. --Dryazan 12:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But you know, it's not a huge deal. I would like for the player pages to be located at the accent-free name, but if you want to switch it back here, and use the López|Lopez pipe, go ahead. --Dryazan 12:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where and when was this decided, and by whom. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football clubs, for example, doesn't say anything about how to name players. BlankVerse ∅ 12:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football clubs does not say much. Most MLS pages were created (or updated) by myself, Chris Edgemon, and others. As for when that discussion took place, can't remember. Sorry. Unless we look at the players' birth certificates or naturalization papers, we don't know if they had accents. But they probably don't. Orlando Perez was always "Perez" when he played for the MetroStars, DC, and Chicago. Now with Chivas he's suddenly "Pérez"? Lopez, Mexican-born and all, was "Lopez" at UCLA: [5] What happens when he gets traded away? --Dryazan 13:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removing diacritics from spanish names makes as much sense as putting accent on foreing names in Spanish because the name complies with the accentuation rules, imho. About names "probably" not having accents, is just as accurate as saying that "probably have accents". I doubt anybody in USA types accents, they're not easily typeable on a keyboard set to English language. At any rate I think this should be discussed properly on the wikiproject talk page. SpiceMan (会話) 09:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accents in writing

[edit]

I modified the "adiós soccer, el fútbol está aquí" so it conforms with accepted Spanish grammar. Names are one thing, but placing the diacritical marks is another. --Sirimiri 05:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guevarra is still with RBNY. The trade has not been confirmed at this point.

Palencia

[edit]

Apparently, early media sources confirming his move had jumped the gun. At any rate, the transer to Pumas is still probable, and I'll stick him back in the roster if it definitively falls through. Anyone else who wants to put him back before then, go ahead, because he's still not really gone. Bill Oaf 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

I am a WikiPedia novice but have made the following changes: Only official team nicknames have been listed (Chivas USA, Red-and-White, Chivas), with 'Goats' being removed; the team's marketing slogan has been updated, as 'Adiós Soccer...' was dropped in favor of 'Está en Tu Sangre' following the 2005 season; and the 'C.D.' form of the team's name -- not used in team marketing or communications since late 2005 -- has been replaced by the full form (Club Deportivo Chivas USA), with short form (Chivas USA) on second reference. However I would also ask if someone could help me change the official title of the page to remove the outdated 'C.D.' form. Thanks, Piercekeegan 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, given that, the question really is, which name do we move the article to: Chivas USA or Club Deportivo Chivas USA? Thoughts, anyone? howcheng {chat} 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Shirts

[edit]

The picture of the home/away shirts, while much prettier than the hodgepodge approximations we have usually on team's websites, they are eggregiously outdated and are in serious need of update. Can someone with a little more technical skill work on this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Season article

[edit]

Your club doesn't yet have a 2009 Season article, we are hoping to get each of the MLS teams up and going like these; Sounders, Fire, Dynamo, Wizards, and TFC. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at anytime. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Clubs

[edit]

The bulk of the "Fan Clubs" section of the article is essentially plagiarized from the cited ESPN article. Some paraphrasing is done, but several sentences are taken directly from the article without being appropriately quoted. Furthermore, some of the statements in this section are presented as factual, while they are clearly expressions of opinion in the cited article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.86.216 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conference champs

[edit]

Talk:New York Red Bulls#conference champions

just adding a link to a centralized discussion on division champions conventions. Please post comments there.

Nlsanand (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Looks like a lot of the supporter stuff is just opinion. Honestly reads like a Galaxy fan wrote it. 24.91.118.104 (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing neutrality tag because this is not what the tag is for. I will add an appropriate tag to supporters section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this team in LA

[edit]

I'm the first to say i'm new to the MLS. Im not from LA nor an LA fan. But when I noticed a team from a city I new was not from the US I googled it. I was honestly surprised to see two LA teams in Soccer. Soccer isn't popular in the US nor is the Galaxy of all teams actually selling out. Why does this team exist and for the life of me can anyone tell me why its in LA rather then say in San Jose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose already has the Earthquakes. I do hear from time to time that CUSA wants to move to its own stadium somewhere. Maybe a section could be added about that. I have heard Pomona, Santa Ana, and Fullerton (CSUF Titan Stadium), but amnot aware which of those is serious. YellowAries2010 (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking this to be explained in t he article? Many large European and British cities have multiple clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change in roster format

[edit]

There was a discussion about the new roster format and we have had a trial at both the Timbers and Whitecaps articles and recently Cascadia Cup rival Sounders have converted. The idea is to move all club articles on Wikipedia to the new format as is discussed in the original discussion and more recently at the football project.

My suggestion is to complete the MLS team articles first, so if you could respond at this discussion, that would be ideal. In short, the new layout is slightly taller and less wide, but it correctly impliments WP:MOSFLAG and is better for visually impared users of Wikipedia and others who use readers. I plan to implement the change to this article by the weekend of January 20-22, however other editors could make the change sooner. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"MLS" v. "the MLS"

[edit]

Wanted to address this issue to clarify. According to just about every major style guide, you only use "the" before an initialism when it's grammatically part of the name, as it would be incongruous to omit it there. Thus, "the National Football League" becomes "the NFL." Same goes for the NBA and the NHL. We don't say "the MLB" because it's wrong—we also don't say "the Major League Baseball" except when it's used as part of a longer construct like "the Major League Baseball record for consecutive games played is 2,632." The pro soccer league is called "Major League Soccer" without a leading "the" and the correct form therefore follows the example of "MLB." The majority of Wikipedia articles—including the rest of the Chivas USA article aside from the spot I changed—also goes with "MLS." True, some media outlets get it wrong, but that's not a valid reason for getting it wrong here. 1995hoo (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media regularly calls it "the MLS".
I could go on, but I won't.
More importantly than external usage, it's consistently used on Wikipedia this way. While I don't disagree with your statement, correct usage gives way here to common usage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "the ... record" is a bad example since the term is used as an adjective there, not as a noun. If you want to use it as a noun try "I will never play in ... ." It keeps the term as a noun. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've cited five of seven sources from the United Kingdom. By your own admission in an edit summary, as well as by standard WP:ENGVAR policies, those are irrelevant. If media sources are to be considered controlling, then North American sources are the relevant ones for a North American pro sports league. You've offered two. Second and more importantly, however, you've failed to establish that "the MLS" is the prevailing common usage so as to trump proper grammar. You've cited two potentially relevant media sources. I could turn around and cite you a large number that do not use that form. You're incorrect when you say "it's consistently used on Wikipedia this way." I don't have the time to go through every single article that's potentially related to MLS (that would include players, coaches, international competitions like the CONCACAF Champions' League, etc.) to verify every single instance of the initialism's usage, but the main Major League Soccer article, for example, consistently uses the form "MLS" when referring to the league except, of course, in the scenario where the term is being used as an adjective (such as "the MLS record-holder" or the like, where we seem to agree it's entirely appropriate to use "the"). In addition, I took a look at MLS's own website and they consistently use the form "MLS" as well.
As I said, that's the logical form. Just like with "MLB," no leading article is used with the full name "Major League Soccer," so it's unsound and illogical to apply one to the initialism. As the Chicago Manual of Style's online FAQ states, "use 'the' unless the abbreviation is used as an adjective or unless the abbreviation spelled out wouldn’t take a definite article." (Source: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations.html ) In this case, the abbreviation "MLS," when spelled out, wouldn't take a definite article unless it were being used as an adjective ("the Major League Soccer record book" or whatever).
I know there are certain government agencies that insist on using a different style (the EPA, for example, routinely refers to itself solely as "EPA"; I think the FDA does this as well), although even there, that's usually an in-house style that's often not followed elsewhere (the Supreme Court, for example, uses the leading article when referring to those agencies). In-house style does not and cannot control for "standard usage," though, because sometimes it's flat-out incorrect. For example, the Washington Post stylebook requires reporters and editors to refer to a particular British political party formerly led by Tony Blair as the "Labor Party" (with a capital "P" denoting a proper name). Obviously, that's completely wrong. The name is "Labour Party" and it's a proper noun; regardless of what one's stylebook says, it's wrong to Americanize the spelling unless the reference were generic (say, "Tony Blair attended a conference of world Labor Party leaders"), much as it's inaccurate for the Brits to refer to the Twin Towers in New York as the "World Trade Centre." In other words, media outlets have their own peculiar rules for doing things the way they do them and their stylebooks demonstrably contain inaccuracies. Media usage is therefore of questionable controlling value.
Finally, if you advocate "the MLS," then you should also advocate the form "the United" when referring to D.C. United and omitting the "D.C." part of the name. Some media types persist in doing this; I also know of one soccer fan who does it with the specific intent of annoying people. I recall for many years D.C. United press releases always ended with a paragraph headed "Note:" asking media outlets not to say "the United." It's decidedly non-standard and weird. But if you advocate "the MLS" simply because some media sources use it, then presumably you ought to do the same with "the United."
Perhaps this issue ought to be hashed out on the main MLS article's talk page, as I don't think it's fair for either of us to claim that the two of us going back and forth is sufficient to establish a "consensus" among interested Wikipedia parties. As a courtesy to you, I won't change it back in this article for now, though I may do so in the future if I deem it appropriate. 13:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I will not carry on this discussion in two (incorrect) locations. If you change it against consensus here, or anywhere, I will simply revert it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where else is this discussion ongoing, because "the MLS" is very very wrong. —howcheng {chat} 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has moved to Talk:Major League Soccer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. While opinion was fairly split about this, the points showing common name seem to be stronger here, more based on policy and guidelines -- and more compelling -- than the desire to be consistent with particular football club articles. -- tariqabjotu 16:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Chivas USA → Chivas USA – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Chivas USA is the common name. A simple search shows Chivas USA is more common than C.D. Chivas USA. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 06:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC) MicroX (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, news outlets support Chivas USA over C.D. Chivas USA.

Site Chivas USA C.D. Chivas USA
ESPN FC 16,000 results 792 results
Yahoo Sports 21,000 results 121 results
FIFA 10,400 results 134 results
NY Times 21,400 results 96 results
RSSSF 40 results 3 results
MLS Soccer 67,700 results 971 results

--MicroX (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common name versus legal name argument. Perhaps you could look at some other clubs in the same light such as: Chelsea F.C., Arsenal F.C., Manchester United F.C., Real Madrid C.F. and any other number of clubs, and for one in MLS, try Chicago Fire Soccer Club.
In short, my vote is No Move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support There are going to be some very unhappy editors if we pursue this to their logical conclusion, but the fact is most club name prefixes and suffixes are really only necessary as disambiguation, much like "Inc." with company names. Now, I'm only an American, but not once have I ever heard anyone say "I'm a Manchester United F.C. supporter." In Walter's list above, Manchester United and Real Madrid should be the actual titles; the others require disambiguation, which might as well be WP:NATURAL. Chivas USA is unambiguous and more common than the official name. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you support the change of all club names, not just this one. Understood. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wherever that could be done without ambiguity. Tottenham Hotspur yes, FC Barcelona no. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Only ones like Manchester United and Real Madrid that do not require F.C. or C.F. to disambiguate the club name unlike Chelsea F.C. and Liverpool F.C. that do need them to disambiguate. --MicroX (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per point five of WP:CRITERIA. Using the official names of clubs (with features like FC, CD, CF etc) ensures that the naming of football clubs is consistent. If we start allowing common names, we'll end up with a mixture of names like Manchester United but Liverpool F.C.. Number 57 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in response to BDD above, the real common name for Manchester United is probably "Man U" (very few people would ever bother to say Manchester United in speech unless they were being very formal). Do we really want to go down this road? Number 57 18:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about what people say, it is what is found in reliable sources. I don't think respectable news outlets will be publishing news articles with "Man U" in the prose. --MicroX (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency among article titles is great. It's an argument I frequently make myself, but it shouldn't be followed slavishly. Disambiguation is really a separate issue. If I argued Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state) needed to be moved to Georgia and Washington, since no other state have disambiguators, or that every other state needed to be renamed to include disambiguators, you'd think I was crazy. Besides, if "Manchester United" is "very formal," what exactly is "Manchester United F.C."? --BDD (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Manchester United, you've missed the point - it was that Manchester United is not the common name, so if not using common names, why not use the proper name? Just "Manchester United" is a halfway house. And re Georgia and Washington, there are two reasons why that's a different argument. Firstly the FC, CF etc are parts of the names - they are not Wikipedia-invented disambiguation terms. Secondly, they are two out of 50. A far higher proportion of football clubs require disambiguation due to them sharing names with towns (in some countries (like Italy) the majority of clubs are merely Town name + FC or something similar) or other related sports clubs (basketball departments for instance), so we would end up with a complete jumble. Number 57 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair point, club prefixes and suffixes are at least natural disambiguation. But given that they're not commonly referred to in everyday usage, we can still call them disambiguation. I don't think a "jumble" is such a terrible price to pay in order to follow the broadly accepted principle that we disambiguate only when necessary. But I don't think your argument about Manchester United is correct at all. I took a quick look at Sky Sports' main football page, and I see references to Chelsea, Napoli, Manchester United, Arsenal, and Newcastle United. Not an "F.C." in sight. Sure, everyday speech will favor colloquialisms like "Man U," but reliable sources like Sky Sports use a sensible middle ground between that and longer, more formal names, and that's what's important. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATURAL states "It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article" however, that's not the case here. The exact title is both possible and desired. Since that's the case, WP:NATURAL doesn't apply at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I call petitio principii. You're assuming that the most desirable name is the official or legal name ("exact title," as you put it). But what's really desirable here is the most common name used by reliable sources. That's Chivas USA. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, your argument falls apart as I demonstrate in the table above that Manchester United is by far the common name. --MicroX (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite the club is relatively recent, GoogleBooks results show that authors prefer the shorter name (see 1420 results) than the "C.D" version (see 64 results). Worth noting is that a few sources in the 1420 results display the longer name (Club Deportivo...), but these are insignificant. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency reasons. "Club Deportivo" should be abbreviated "C.D." or "CD" and included in the article titles, just like "Football Club" is included in other similar articles with the abbreviation "F.C." or "FC". Mentoz86 (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I look forward to your upcoming RM at, say, Club Deportivo Olimpia. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not for football teams we don't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for admitting that. But where you see a practice that should be continued, I see a practice that conflicts with our usual naming conventions and should be fixed. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the section below was created and a discussion was started at the football project as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Actually consensus was no consensus and so I moved it back. The football project voted overwhelmingly not to move because as discussed below, this discussion affects every football article of every English-language team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. That is not the proper way to contest move request results. I've reverted your move and move-protected the page. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you did and I understand why you did it, if you say so, however, you've just instituted a serious precedent and you should have left this to a Football project admin to make the call. Sorry you don't understand how you seriously messed-up. Hope you're willing to discuss this as requested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "Football project admin" stepping in would be absurd. I agree that this is a potentially huge decision, and have no objection to it being challenged on that basis. But it is precisely because of how far-reaching this move is that normal channels should be followed to challenge it, and why someone without a whiff of involvement should ultimately make the call. —WFC— FL wishlist 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normal channels? I offered normal channels and as you can see the admin ignored them and closed the discussion above and not the sub-section that was clearly related to this move discussion. That clearly shows that the admin didn't bother to read the entire discussion and that normal channels were not followed with the move so the anarchy created by Tariqabjotu is the problem, and my attitude to it is a secondary problem. The admin refuses to discuss after being requested to do so and so the admin adminship should probably be reviewed as well. As fro normal channels, if Tariqabjotu is demonstrating said "normal channels" I have little hope for that process, which is not entirely clear since WP:BRD is a normal channel, posting the move notice to the article's head is normal and apparently neither of those apply here either. In short, Nothing about this move followed a normal channel so why should I continue to play by the rules? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applies to other MLS teams

[edit]

Returning to my earlier point, this also applies to Chicago Fire (which we have at Chicago Fire Soccer Club) and I'll add LA Galaxy (which we have at Los Angeles Galaxy), Seattle Sounders (which we have at Seattle Sounders FC), Vancouver Whitecaps (which we have at Vancouver Whitecaps FC) and these last two have special dispensation to use the full name to distinguish them from their earlier incarnations). So you had best place Move discussion on those articles since it affects them all for the same reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each of them should be analyzed based on their own sources.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Fire is a disambiguation page itself. Chicago Fire Soccer Club can be left alone. --MicroX (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each them cannot be analyzed based on their own sources. This is an all-or-nothing proposition. Sorry that you two don't understand the nonsense you're spouting. This article will not be moving because it's an ignorant reading of policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't spouting nonsense. We are being logical with our arguments using Wikipedia policies and guidelines for support. Just look at WP:COMMONNAME. The first example they give is of a US President: Bill Clinton over William Jefferson Clinton. Other US presidents don't follow a [NICKNAME] [LAST NAME] naming convention. Each president's common name is different, e.g. George W. Bush, Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy and so on. If we were to follow an all-or-nothing path for naming US Presidents, then we probably wouldn't have Bill Clinton but the awkward William J. Clinton or Barack H. Obama which no one refers them by. --MicroX (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See more nonsense. This isn't a person. This is a football team. A legal entity. No other football team article uses your misinterpreted use of COMMONNAME. Not one. Find me one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How am I misinterpreting it? --MicroX (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stated above. It starts by saying "It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article" but in this case, it is possible, in every case, to use the exact title. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, WP:CRITERIA comes into play here when it states "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles." So changing this would require changing the others or not changing this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you to decide that C.D. Chivas USA is the desired club name? Besides, that quote comes from the disambiguation section (WP:PRECISION) of WP:TITLE. Before you need to disambiguate an article title, you first decide on the WP:COMMONNAME. In our case, there is no need to resort to disambiguation because Chivas USA is the common name. Football clubs are anything but consistent. UK clubs consistently abbreviate "Football Club" but Brazilian clubs don't necessarily follow that pattern.
The title should be "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." The keyword is "similar". Clubs in Brazil have a common pattern among themselves as UK clubs have a common pattern among themselves. --MicroX (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per "And who are you to decide that..." I love it when that gem comes out. It's such a fallacy that there's no really goo place to start taking it apart it. In short, it's consensus and we are legion. There's a discussion at the football project right now and this idea will not fly. The rest of your argument is fallacious as the way it started. I'm sorry you don't understand the guidelines you're quoting.
Every club you mentioned is a foreign team. Last I checked, C.D. Chivas USA isn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you're misrepresenting COMMONNAME whose purpose if for determining DAB page names, not names of subjects in general, but you don't recognize that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to Walter per WP:DENY. Clean up your act, stop trolling, and then we can discuss. I suggest MicroX to do the same. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant template

[edit]

Is the Template:C.D. Guadalajara necessary at the bottom of the article? They are different clubs. --MicroX (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked from there, so it meets the general navbox guidelines. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The clubs are linked, the navbox should remain. GiantSnowman 11:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unbulleted list in nickname

[edit]

An editor continues to add an unbulleted list to the nickname parameter and in a recent edit stated the unbulletted list should be kept, per WP:UBLIST. However UBLIST doesn't prescribe that all lists must be bulleted, in fact I'm not sure any other MLS club article uses unbulleted lists for nicknames. The template doesn't prescribe unbulleted lists, or commas for that matter. So I'm not entirely sure why it's required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a list of items it shall obviously be displayed on separate rows. The WP:UBLIST policy clearly states that unbulleted list templates should be used in such cases, particularly in infoboxes, rather than separating the items with <br /> tags. Also, the WikiProject Football manual of style recommends listing multiple nicknames on separate rows. The fact that the infobox template documentation lacks precise recommendations may be a drawback of itself, rather than a guideline that shall be followed. The other MLS club articles should use the same style and that fact that some of them may not use such a style is not a reason not to use it here. Using unbulleted lists instead of commas provides a better readability for that field of the infobox. BaboneCar (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not obviously. It should not be used in infoboxes. As shown, no other MLS articles use it. If it was obvious, they would. I don't even know of any European club articles that use it. If it were obvious, it would be used there as well. In fact, the use of list templates is currently a hot topic of debate in many infobox templates which clearly indicates it's not at all obvious. In those lists, they usually prescribe bulleted lists.
Our lists are not separated with breaks but commas so our lists do not run afoul of the guideline you're mentioning.
Since there is no documentation at the template:Infobox football club and I have seen no other examples where an unbulleted list is used speaks to the fact that it's not at all prescribed.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#manual of style does not recommend unbulleted lists for anything, and there is no MoS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs.
To whom does it provide "better readability" for that or any field?
This appears to be a personal preference imposed with unrelated guidelines. Why are you prescribing this for this one article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Football manual of style does recommend listing multiple nicknames on separate rows in infoboxes. The WP:UBLIST policy does recommend using the unbulleted list template in infoboxes. Please do not give examples of other articles which do not follow these policies, as they are not reasons to be followed here. It provides better readability to everyone who comes to the article. BaboneCar (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it shows separate rows does not mean it recommends it. Perhaps you should bring this up there rather than here. The list here was using the correct, contemporary comma lists.
UBLIST's "for example in infobox fields, or to replace lists separated with <br />)" is not a mandate, it's a suggestion. The values here were separated by commas before you changed them.
Guidelines are not policies.
My point that no other articles use this was not to indicate that they were somehow wrong it was to indicate that 1) the standard is commas, not breaks. Has been for about two years, and 2) you have a lot of work in front of you if you insist on imposing this lunacy consistently.
Readability was not hindered before you changed it.
I'm sorry. I can't stand your misrepresentation of the facts. Please self revert here and take it up in the correct location. I will be reverting it here within several hours if you do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style shows the style that has to be followed and it does not use commas, so they should not be used. The UBLIST policy is there to be followed, except where good reasons exist for not applying it. And yes, mainly in infoboxes, it shows where particularly the template shall be used. And it does not use commas, which shows that they are not appropriate. The fact that the commas were used for about two year means that a wrong style was used during this time. We came to a point where you want to impose your opinion because you don't like the Wikipedia policies and you want to do it by skipping them. BaboneCar (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're either a liar or deeply confused as you're not applying the guideline correctly.

You are most certainly a META:DICK, but at least you're a consistent dick. You have escalated by applying your preference to MLS club articles. Now, pick a European league to apply your preference to. I suggest the Premier league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UBLIST only recommends for lists that have 30 items or more, even if it is in an infobox. Nicknames for football clubs range from 1 to 5 in general. --MicroX (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club Culture → Revenue and profitability

[edit]

Is there any objection to re-naming the section from "Club Culture" to "Revenue and profitability" since all refrences to the club culture have been removed and all that's left is the jersey sponsorship, which in the other MLS articles I've read is under "Revenue and profitability?" Num1dgen (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chivas USA. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chivas USA. 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.


  • 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) 11:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chivas_USA&oldid=1226384092"