Talk:Minnesota United FC

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Football: American & Canadian Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Separate page?

Is there a reason for making a separate page for MLS? It's still going to be the same, except playing in a new division, that would be like if a team from europe was relegated to 2nd division and creating a page solely for that. It seems silly. 65.197.19.241 (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the article deletion discussion that centered on that exact question. The thing is, while the primary owner and team name are the same, it's a different entity and a franchise under an entirely separate structure. The comparison with a relegated European club doesn't work because the club doesn't reorganize when it moves to a different division; it's still the same club in a different place in the pyramid. Mosmof (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is redundant and contains false information

I've seen the discussion on this article and have to disagree with the conclusion that this is going to be a different entity/franchise. It is going to be the same franchise, they will simply be playing in tier 1 (MLS) of the US Soccer Pyramid instead of tier 2 (NASL). While it is true that the team was not promoted (as stated on the page - one of several errors) they are still going to be the same team. Mixo45 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on Wikipedia? 1) MLS in Minnesota is not a "sure thing" to even happen. 2) It's the Minnesota United FC franchise that would play in MLS, not some "new" expansion club with no assets. I would consider reopening this article deletion discussion. TheScottDL (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Pages

As the 2016 NASL season has ended and Minnesota United FC are starting to announce team decisions for the MLS franchise, would it be an appropriate time to make this page the main page for the team and move the current "Minnesota United FC" article to "Minnesota United FC (2010-2016)"? Cmrobinson (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the team is not the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a bookkeeping question. This page will become the main article for the team going forward, so I wasn't sure if now is the right time to 'promote' it to that, so to speak. Cmrobinson (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really get why it can't be one article. This current structure makes it more confusing, and it's easy enough to have a historical section for the NASL stuff. matt91486 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Pro Team, Not Second

The intro states MNFUC will become the second professional team in St. Paul after the Wild. The St. Paul Saints are an independent minor league baseball team, but are fully professional. MNUFC will become the third professional team in St. Paul. This should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.34.129 (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaugural Home Opener Temperature

@Walter Görlitz: Why was the statement about a record breaking temperature for an MLS game redacted? I don't see the statement as being particularly interesting without that context.GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was vague. Was it the lowest for that date anywhere on the planet? Was it the lowest for the city ever recorded? I misread the following phrase as I was in a hurry. I think I added something back that is more clear. Thanks for checking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club/Team and Firsts

@Walter Görlitz: Since the US does not have promotion/relegation, and since a team has to be reincorporated specifically within MLS, technically the NASL iteration of Minnesota United FC has ceased to be. The MLS version of MNUFC is an entirely new thing, and as such would be experiencing all of its firsts wouldn't it? Surely it is experiencing all of its firsts in MLS? Maybe I don't understand the difference between "club" and "team" correctly. Thanks! (Tyrsan)(talk)

Most franchisees in MLS are clubs in the European sense. They have a "first team" that plays in MLS, but they have other teams, a development team and junior development programmes with several teams. Each team, in this sense, has its own roster of players, a coach and support staff. However, the club is run by a board and has a president. What MLS lacks in relegation does not reflect in the actual clubs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think that makes sense. So the 4-2 win over Real Salt Lake is the first MLS win for Minnesota United FC as a club and as a team, but team is more specific and therefore more proper?(Tyrsan)(talk) 18:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Minnesota United FC (2010–16)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No clear consensus to merge and it's been over 30 days. Additionally appears to be a consensus building in opposition of the merger of the pages. Finally, having separate pages for the two different legal entities is common on MLS team pages that once had a team of the same name playing in a lower league. OrlandoCityFan (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted earlier saying that this article ought to be merged with the Minnesota United FC (2010–16) article. It seems redundant of us to have two separate articles covering the same team over different periods of time. It would be one thing if it was where the teams had different ownership and disbanded with the rise of a phoenix club, a la AFC Wimbledon, Seattle Sounders FC or SV Austria Salzburg, but these two articles of the same involve the same ownership group. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the Sounders had one ownership. MLS franchises are actually owned by the league and are technically all a single entity at that level. I'm opposed to the merger as there is enough in each article to constitute existence of both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons as I opposed the merge at Talk:Orlando City SC. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose as well. The team is run by the same people as before, but with MLS' single-entity structure the team is technically a new venture and separate from the NASL iteration. Mixo45 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mixo45: Creating a technically-different legal entity doesn't mean it's not really the same club. This is an article about the team, not the company. We don't give companies new articles when they change from, say, an LLC to a Delaware C Corp, even though they're technically a new entity. There's no reason we should treat soccer clubs any differently. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It may be "technically" a new entity, but it's the same ownership, same fans, same city, same name. Just because some legal stuff had to take place to move to MLS doesn't mean Wikipedia should consider it a separate subject. Neither of the two articles is terribly long, and a decent amount of content is redundant (such as the stadium section). Having this topic split into two articles is confusing for a reader; the History section of the MLS article, for example, seems to imply that the team popped into existence in 2015. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose New team with the same name doesn't make it the same team. Other MLS teams with the same names as minor league teams have separate articles. If you are so concerned, why not create a "History of soccer in Minnesota" page like there is for Seattle and Vancouver?KitHutch (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stadium section update?

Allianz Field, the stadium, has been built and occupied by the team for several years now. Yet the entire section of the article on the stadium deals with the history and construction thereof. That seems to be good info for the separate page for the stadium, not for the team page. Supremelorderik (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]