Talk:New York Red Bulls

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

All-time top scorer[edit]

I don't know how to edit the side box, but Clint Mathis is currently the all-time top scorer, having passed Savarese this season. See: http://www.metrofanatic.com/team/stats.jsp?ALL=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.211.3 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox on all MLS tams states that the informaton includes MLS regular season games only. Mathis has not yet passed Savarese in MLS scoring for New York. KitHutch 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna[edit]

Claudio Reyna will join RBNY, watch for official annoucement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.95.86 (talk • contribs) 01:01, January 14, 2007 (UTC)

Sinsa Ubiparipovic[edit]

Ubiparipovic is Bosnian-born ("Ubiparipovic, a 5'9", 155-pound 23-year-old from Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the 2006 MAC Player of the Year": http://redbull.newyork.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20070112&content_id=81737&vkey=pr_rbn&fext=.jsp&team=t107) but has a green card ("would be a Youth International for only one season in MLS, except that he has a green card" http://www.matchnight.com/scouting/player.cfm?&RosterID=2533). Hence his flag should be Bosnian, not US. DR31 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the MLS 2007 Draft page (number 33). I believe we should use the country that it lists on the MLS profile. // Laughing Man 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MLS draft page is not completely correct, it shows the player's place of residence. Ubiparipovic is NOT a US citizen. He is a Bosnian national. MLSnet is notoriously full of mistakes; they don't even list van den Bergh on the roster, for instance. I am sure when they get around to it, they will list Ubiparipovic as Bosnian (with a Green Card). DR31 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything that says MLSnet is notoriously full of mistakes or do you have something that confirm your claims that what they list is incorrect? For a better example than you gave, please refer to how the other fellow Red Bulls draft pick (number 19, Dane Richards) is properly listed. The best source I could find was 2007 MLS official draft results [1] that lists his, although I did find a secondary source that says something on the contrary of what you have recommended. [2] and please re-read the same source you have given: [3]. // Laughing Man 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to claim they are incorrect: Ubiparipovic was born in Bosnia and carries a green card per _MY_ discussions with RBNY. He is not American! To claim he is just wrong. If you need further proof where he was born, how about: "When Sinisa Ubiparipovic came to the United States in 1999, he had seen more adversity in his first 15 years than any young athlete should have to. Born in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ubiparipovic and his family fled to Belgrade and then eventually to the U.S. to escape the war that had torn apart their country for years." Just because someone lives in Ohio, doesn't make them American. The reason why Richards' hometown is listed as Jamaica is because he still lives there; Ubiparipovic's family no longer lives in Bosnia, as the article above shows. 

Hi ####,
Yes, Bosnian-born but has a green card.
##### ########
Red Bull New York Communications
One Harmon Plaza
Third Floor
Secaucus, NJ 07094
201.###.#### (office)
201.###.#### (cellular)
201.###.#### (fax)
#########@newyorkredbulls.com
www.redbulls.com

-----Original Message-----
From: #####@###.###
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:48 PM
To: #########@newyorkredbulls.com
Subject: Ubiparipolic
Hi ####, just to confirm, Ubiparipolic is Bosnia-born but has a green card?

DR31 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Laventure, MatchNight is right! He was born in America, and yes, although he's called up for Haiti, he has not played for them; in fact, he has NEVER BEEN TO HAITI prior to this last year! "This will mark the first time Altidore and Laventure will travel to their families' former homeland." DR31 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that in general, in football-related articles, the country listed in the squad templates normally would designate which national team they would be playing for. In the case of Ubiparipovic, it seems he was born in Yugoslavia (now Bosnia and Herzegovina), he and his family fled to Serbia (Belgrade), and then moved to United States. It seems to me because he has not yet been capped for a national team he has many choices -- that is, if he is good enough to end up on one of them. I still think we should wait until MLS/RBNY update his profile before we speculate and perhaps you can expedite this through your RBNY contact? Just as an example, there were other former international MLS footballers who decided to play for the US national team, such as Predrag Radosavljevic. // Laughing Man 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a large % of players don't play for a national team, so in this case, the Wikipedia convention is usually give the country of birth (and in cases like this, as for many other former Yugoslav or USSR-born players, the country that would have been their birthplace if the current world borders applied). Now, if Ubiparipolic gets US citizenship and drops his Bosnian one, then he should be classified as an American, definitely. Or if he plays for the US national team on some level: witness Laventure; if he gets capped for Haiti, his flag will flip. But Sinisa needs to become a citizen first. DR31 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find a source that he has citizenship in Bosnia-Herzegovina instead of Serbia? All the sources we have found have stated that his family fled from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbia during the wars. // Laughing Man 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? No. And you're right, for all we know, he could have Serb citizenship. But the Wikipedia policy is to go with the place of birth in these questionable cases. If I get a chance to ask him about it later this year, I will. All I know is that he's definitely not American... Yet. DR31 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources to back the articles -- in this case the using the official MLS profile for an article about an MLS team seems to be the best source available, and it lists United States as his country. I really don't care at this point but I still recommend we leave with what MLS lists instead of speculating, especially since he was not born in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he was born in Yugoslavia. // Laughing Man 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Angel[edit]

Due to the laws of football set out by FIFA, Angel is not "IN" the New York squad as stated in the article until the next transfer window. Therefore, I recommend taking this out and adding a note somewhere about how the deal has been agreed upon but not to include him in that column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.135 (talk • contribs) 00:42, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metrostars logo.gif[edit]

Image:Metrostars logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain?[edit]

I think Reyna is captain and Angel and Kovalenko are vice captains (68.199.35.102 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

New BADGE[edit]

can someone try to put our new badge up —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELREYDECOLOMBIA (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New badge? Nothing on the website. Malpass93 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.metrofanatic.com/story.jsp?ID=4724 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELREYDECOLOMBIA (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (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 15:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Player photos[edit]

Pics of most of the first team are now on flickr here. All of these are free under CC-BY-2.0 and can be uploaded to commons. Nanonic (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Away colors[edit]

While the new away jerseys are a darker blue than in 2008, they are not black. Can anyone chamge the kits in the article? KitHutch (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (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) 01:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull New York → New York Red Bulls — This has been annoying me since I started editing MLS articles, so figured I'd run a move request on this article. Per WP:NC(CN) the most common name for a subject is what should be used as the article title. In this case the common name for the team is New York Red Bulls. Red Bull New York is the name of the entity that owns and operates the team and the subject of the article covers the history of the team from before RBNY purchased the team (or even existed for that matter). The first sentence of the article even says that the team's name is New York Red Bulls. A google search for "New York Red Bulls" returns 850,000 hits, while a search for "Red Bull New York" returns only 102,000. I think and 8 to 1 google hit ration is a pretty good indicator that NYRB is the common name for the team, not RBNY. — Bobblehead (rants) 17:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little hesitant to definitively say "yes." Is this article about the club or the club the team fields? In most cases the club and team share names. In this case I might say Red Bull New York is the appropriate title. They do call themselves Red Bull New York. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do call themselves "Red Bull New York," then how come not once on today's broadcast were they referred to as "Red Bull New York?" Every mention of the team was "New York," "Red Bulls," or "New York Red Bulls." If we are going to name sports team articles after the corporations that own them, then the articles for the New York Rangers and New York Kicks should be merged and renamed "Madison Square Garden Corporation." KitHutch (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Obviously I'm going to be supporting this move since I'm the requestor. In addition to WP:NC(CN), ever since the New York/New Jersey MetroStar article was merged into this article, the article stopped being about the corporate entity that owns the team and was about the team itself. As such, the name of the article should be New York Red Bulls, not Red Bull New York. Aside from the 8:1 google hit ratio for NYRB, it is perhaps most telling that almost every link to this article is either to [[New York Red Bulls]] or [[Red Bull New York|New York Red Bulls]]. It doesn't make sense to me that we would be making people type out additional characters just because someone made the decision to name it after the corporate entity that was created to buy the team rather than the team itself. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Team website: NewYorkRedBulls.com; MLS website: New York Red Bulls; and the article itself on Wikipedia states that the team name is New York Red Bulls. Since the article itself is about the team and not the governing organization, the page should be New York Red Bulls. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes, the title should be New York Red Bulls. That's what everyone I know, both online and in the real world, know it as. As you state, Red Bull New York is the company that runds the team, and not the team's real name. This site should go by what people know it to be in the real world, so as not to confuse them.Openskye (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - the page should be moved to the common name. GiantSnowman 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All the media that I am familar with call the team the New York Red Bulls. KitHutch (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure It really should be looked at closely as to what's appropriate. It isn't that unusual for official and common names to exist like this. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're having the move discussion, so if you have any objections, include them in the discussion section. It's also not the same thing as referring to Arsenal F.C. as Arsenal or Manchester United F.C. as ManU. This is like naming the article for Arsenal Arsenal Holdings plc. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination as per all the reasons outlined above. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move makes sense, the name of the team should be the name of the article. Camw (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article is about the team, not the corporate entity that owns it, and should be named accordingly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The company that owns the team is Red Bull New York, but the teams name is New York Red Bulls. TJ Spyke 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supporters Groups[edit]

The supporters section is a bit fragmented and could use a rewrite. Since this was an edit that was larger than I would normally make I thought some discussion was appropriate. I was considering the following "A variety of supporters clubs and groups have grown around the team since it's inaugural year. The first of these was formed in 1995, prior to the inception of the team itself, as the Empire Supporters Club. In February 2005 a second supporters' group took the name MetroNation. After the purchase and rebranding of the team by Red Bull in 2006, MetroNation renamed itself the Raging Bull Nation as a sign of its' continued support for the club. The same year saw the creation of the New Jersey based Garden State Supporters. The groundbreaking for Red Bull Arena in 2007 saw the birth the Kearny Army, a supporters group from the surrounding neighborhoods. Among remaining lesser known supporters clubs are the Cobra Kai Metro Firm, Sparta Metro Firm and The First Row Idiots.

Red Bull New York has designated some sections of Red Bull Arena as supporter specific. These included sections 101 and 102 for the Empire Supporters Club and section 133 for the Garden State Supporters.

In the winter of 2001 the fan and media website MetroFanatic.com was established and continues to host an active fan community."

Appropriate current links/references listed on the page would be maintained. Anyone care to offer input? Adiamas (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text looks good to me. Go for it.oknazevad (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thierry henry[edit]

there definitely should be something about the signing of henry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanbeswag (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, and only if, there's some actual news in a reliable source and not just rumors on a blog or message board. Wikipedia is nota rumor mill.oknazevad (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYRB will announce the signing of Henry to a 2 year contract on Wednesday, July 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa72BeDclSo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackmeister (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we add the information about the signing on Wednesday, July 14th. Not before. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rate[edit]

New Article: 2010 Barclays New York Challenge Antoinefcb (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

conference champions[edit]

Is there any reason to list them as the conference champions in 2008 when we already have them liste as the MLS Cup runners up. This is especially true given that some seasons such as 2001 did not have the idea of conference champions (post season).

If anything it might make sense to mention that they were regular season champions of a division, but even then that's not really official. There's no real parallel in other soccer leagues. We don't list Group A/Group B/Group C champions on the Mexican team pages.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, I think there are four options:

a) list regular season division champions (not really official)
b) list post-season division champions (repeats info covered under runners up, and does not exist for each year)
c) list both (status quo)
d) list neither (most logical option, at least for me)

FYI, I've put links on team talk pages to centralize the discussion here.

Nlsanand (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most logical is to keep things the way that are. That's what other North American sports leagues do, and MLS is a North American sports league as well as a soccer league. I am not sure why you are saying the regular season division champions are not official. Those championship are listed as such on team/league websites. When it comes to post season division championships, I do have a Red Bulls' scarf that lists them as "Western Conference Champions." KitHutch (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's only a couple of the pages (Columbus/RBNY) that list both of them. Several pages like Colorado/Dallas list neither (as for the reasons above). We don't want to start listing every non-accomplishment. I'm pretty sure the league only recognizes the division champ as the post season champ (hence your scarf). I've never seen it officially recognized on a league site (the teams may mention it, but that's more an exercise in self-aggrandizement) At least with the post season champ, there's some type of trophy. And even then, the post season champ is already reflected by the fact that they are shown as MLS runners up. I would also note that if we were really to consider these divisional championships as valid, then we should list the runners up. Then we would end up with twelve "honours awarded" each year to a possible eight different teams: (MLS Cup, Supporters Shield, East reg, East playoffs, West reg, West playoffs, with each having a winner and a runner up). For instance in 2010 that would be: (Colorado, L.A., New York, Colorado, L.A., and FCD) and runners up (FCD, RSL, Columbus, San Jose, RSL, and LA) that's seven this year. This is turning into an exercise in awarding unnecessary awards. We need to make a value judgment on this at some point. Also, what about 2001, there simply wasn't a western conference playoff champ that year, it can't be awarded because they used a 1-8 playoff system. There's gotta be some form of rationalization (as well as standardization as teams seem to be at different extremes). Nlsanand (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of plural verbs[edit]

Just to expound on my edit summaries, it is a quirk of American English that sports teams seem exempt from the usual convention of groups getting a singular verb, especially if the team has a nickname that is a plural noun (as most teams do). The exception is when the city/state/school/other geographic designator is used as short hand for the team name.

So, to use an example from the NBA, the Los Angeles Lakers are an NBA team. The Lakers play their home games at the Staple Center. Los Angeles is the defending NBA champion.

This applies to MLS teams as well, as seen in this 2010 MLS playoff preview from The New York Times here.oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New "Red Bull Takeover" photo?[edit]

Having a similar Red Bulls vs Galaxy photo in two sections is redundant. Can we get something that really symbolizes the takeover? Like some executive or player holding up the new scarf or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.221.37 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were more than just similar. They were from same game in 2007. So I took one out. But the one I left in actually belongs in the Red Bull takeover section based on date. Getting a picture of an executive holding up a new scarf, as you suggest, would likely be non-free content. Non-free content that doesn't really add anything should be avoided. I don't know how much a picture like that would actually add. It'd just be a guy holding up a scarf/jersey/whatever. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyrant who runs this page[edit]

Whoever is running this article treats it like a personal fiefdom, making up all sorts of fake rules and immediately undoing any edit. Don't forget, Wikipedia is a PUBLIC forum; it's not meant to be run like a medieval polity. Case in point is my attempt to add Teemu Tainio to the list of players training with the team in preseason. Whoever holds the keys to this article has stated--without any backing or authority--that players not on the current roster are not allowed to be listed on the site. Yet the wiki pages of some other MLS teams include a separate section dedicated to trialists and and unsigned players. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_Kansas_City. So my request is that A) people stop micromanaging this article and making up fake rules, and B) that we, in fact, add a sub-section for the numerous players who are trialing with the team. --pavlovscat567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.48.187 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname: Metro(s)[edit]

Apparently "it has been decided" not to list "Metro(s)" as a nickname for this team. I can't find a reason for this decision anywhere, and even if I could, it would be wrong. A large proportion of the fanbase still refers to the team as "Metro" as can be heard in many of the chants at Red Bull Arena. Do you want a citation or something? Iggi (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typically that field of the infobox only includes one nickname, and additions of "Metro(s)" have been reverted previously by multiple editors (as seen in the page history). That said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad addition, but I wanted to see what other editors thought first. The continued applicability of the nickname to the team outside a small group of die-hards is a question that I have, but it's not a deal breaker to me. oknazevad (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it's perfectly fine for a club to have more than one nickname. It's not that uncommon anywhere in world football, and NYRB fans clearly still use Metro. JonBroxton (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (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]

IS and not ARE[edit]

The first sentence says red bulls are. It should be changed to red bulls is. Last I checked they were collectively one team. It's like saying the united states are a country. Will I be burned at the stake for changing this?Aryattack (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't burn you at the stake, but I would revert it on sight. The use of plural verbs for sports teams is correct in American English. See a few sections up, where I explained this, gave an example and cited The New York Times as the common practice. oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third kit[edit]

I'm too tired right now to go search for the Commons images needed, but the stripes on their third kit should be red, not white, as can be seen here. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a request to assist on the talk page of someone who works a lot with the uniform templates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just like that it's been fixed. Gracias. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Name 1998-2002[edit]

http://www.espnfc.com/news/story?id=361322&cc=5901 This ESPN article says that the team dropped the New York/New Jersey part of its name before the beginning of the 2003 season, while we have it marked at 1998 here. Any info on this or maybe sourcing for 1998? Jackson Scofield (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may also be worth a look... http://books.google.com/books?id=IEtLjtqaCTgC&pg=PA490&lpg=PA490&dq=%221998+metrostars%22+%221997+new+york/new+jersey+metrostars%22&source=bl&ots=tZx3UcqKDg&sig=Tv1sc_jRZf8hSuyzD1jPhK5Y7VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e2dpU5nTBNK1yASox4IY&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=metrostars&f=false (has New York/New Jersey MetroStars 1996-1997, MetroStars 1998-2000, New York/New Jersey MetroStars again 2001-2002, MetroStars 2003-2005, New York Red Bulls 2006-Present) Jackson Scofield (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, looking through MLS website on the web archive, I do not see any references to the team being the "New York/New Jersey MetroStars" even in 1997. I do, however, see "New York - New Jersey" shown as an image below the MetroStars logo on team pages until a certain year, but no references to the team actually being called that. MLS website history section does show the 1996-1997 teams with the "New York/New Jersey" name though, so I suppose that that is as accurate as it will get for now. Jackson Scofield (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

franchise that or franchise who[edit]

Are franchises things or people? It may be a difference between American and British English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Franchises, like all companies, are things. See here for a good short primer. That said, as noted in the above link, there's no possessive form of "that", so "whose" would be right in possessive cases. (The major difference between British and American English here is the use of singular vs plural verbs, which is different for sports teams in American English than for other organizations; I blame the use of plural nicknames.) oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull Out Section[edit]

Though this is notable it seems that this section violates Wikipedia:Recentism. Taking into the account of how many managers this club has had in their history and probably the unfamiliarity of the fan base with other major sports (see Billy Martin five times as manager of the New York Yankees) that this is more common then perceived. --SimpleStitch (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since recentism is an essay, there's nothing to violate. If the previous coaches for the club had similar organized revolts from the fan-base, then by all means this is inappropriate, but if this is unique, then it makes sense to record it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, sort of, because the groups argument is more like we miss Mike Petke. I actually listened to the Red Bull Rant show about their movement and it was weak.--SimpleStitch (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an appeal to WP:UNDUE or an agreement that it should stay? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter Görlitz, I think this falls under WP:UNDUE because this organized revolt represents a fraction of the fan base. It's not like 25,000 season ticket holders walked out. And I am also not convinced that Wikipedia Neutrality is being adhered to since the section is in the #2 slot? Above Colors and Badge, Stadium, etc.? Look at the Controversy section (and this is an opinionated one-sided controversy section) of any notable figure and that section resides last in the order. Look at O.J. Simpson, his legal troubles start in section #7 and I bet anything more people remember him for the murder acquittal then football. Plus, like I mentioned, this Red Bull Out movement is all about anger because of Mike Petke being fired. Case in point, the History sub-section for 2013-2014 is titled Mike Petke Era, while curiously the 2010-2012 section is not called the Hans Backe Era, even though he was the only manager during this time. --SimpleStitch (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

I'm not sure that either "Red Bulls" or "Metros" are nicknames. The first is simply as shortened version of the club's name while the second is the club's former name. If you look at Manchester United F.C.'s nickname, The Red Devils, it's an actual nickname. They could have Man U, which they are frequently called, but it's just a shortened version of the club's name. Similarly Real Madrid C.F., Los Blancos (The Whites) Los Merengues (The Meringues) Los Vikingos (The Vikings). Maybe they should be removed. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's remove it and discuss here if necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing it. Apparently some editors think "Metros" is still a nickname. I didn't see that in the article. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd happening. "New accounts" are coming in and making the edit every time. I don't want to be accused of edit warring and reverting each different, but the editor appears to be the same editor. The editor makes one edit and the account is not used again after. The four I've seen so far are
  1. CorrectHistory92
  2. A True Fan92
  3. Wackosaurous
  4. Wackosaurus
No discussion. No reason for the change. Is this a problem? If so, can anything be done about it?
I added a citation needed to the nickname. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor shows another version I can request that a sock puppet investigation be undertaken and, if it's the samek IP address, request that the address be blocked and prevented from creating accounts for a period of time.
Back to the discussion. Are there any editors who disagree with the removal? Are there any sources to support either as a nickname? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real opinion one way or another, but would like to point out that it has been discussed before, right on this very page.
That said, I'd like to see some source indicating it is still used now. Then again, there's also something to be said for putting historical nicknames, as the infobox is meant to represent the whole history of the team.
As for the idea of listing short versions of the clubs' full names at MLS team articles, it may not always be obvious what short forms are commonly used. True nicknames that aren't part of the club name, like Reds for Toronto and Toros for Dallas definitely belong. But something like "Metros" here is not so obvious; I was always surprised that people didn't treat the "Metro" part of the old name like the geographic portion of a traditional North American team name and call the team "the Stars" on a regular basis.
That said, I'm removing it again, as the obvious sockpuppets edit warring can't be allowed to stand. oknazevad (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is/are[edit]

Should be New York Red Bulls is, or New York Red Bulls are?

Looking at the differences between American English and British English page, it has 'The Seahawks are the champions', the other MLS pages seem to use 'are'. Which is correct? Red Jay (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The convention in American sports writing is to use "are" typically, unless using the city/state portion of the name as shorthand for the team. So it'd be "the New York Red Bulls are", "the Red Bulls are", but "New York is". This can be seen throughout the sources used for the article. See also WP:PLURALS. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC) PS, The tea "club" and "team" use singular verbs.[reply]
I see that above, but someone should tell them at Comparison of American and British English#Grammar where they use "is". Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have it correct at that link. The only real question where practice seems to vary is for singular nicknames, like "Jazz", "Heat" or "Revoloution", but that's not important here where "Red Bulls" is clearly plural.oknazevad (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't
BrE: Spain are the champions; AmE: Spain is the champion.
Specifically a team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is akin to using "New York is", as I mentioned above. Geographic designators, whether city, state (for some pro teams) or country (for national teams) get singular verbs. Indeed, the link already says that: "The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example where a place name is used to refer to a sports team)." Seems that you missed that part. "Spain" in the example is a place name as a shorthand for the national team. That is singular in American English, whether it be a club or a national team.
The plural verbs really come from the plural nicknames. So "Red Bulls are" remains correct, just as it is well used in the sources. Which was the original question and the correct phrasing for the lead. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against something I didn't say. All I said was that the Comparison of American and British English needs to be updated. You then said it was. It's not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it already covers the situation and needs no updating. The current text there is fine. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be the first time you're wrong. It doesn't clearly cover this. Obviously you're in denial. I'll discuss it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, you have it completely backward. According to the article, in American English the example is "Spain is the champion" and so the lede should read "New York Red Bulls is an American soccer team". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That to me is the confusing thing about the American singular/plural system. Spain is the champion is the correct AmE usage, but it seems once a plural name is included in the team/band name it become plural. So we have New York is, but New York xxxxxxS are. From a random check of American team name, this seems to be the Wikipedia convention. (WG sorry for rolling you back yesterday, I was editing on a unresponsive touch screen, I reverted as soon as I realized, I wasn't being rude). Red Jay (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity I've just looked at Miami Heat and Utah Jazz, who are both treated as plural, despite have singular names. Red Jay (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they were written by British fans or editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The British have been busy, or maybe it was with help from other commonwealth nations or Ireland. I'm surprised it hasn't been corrected. Red Jay (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Active Teams[edit]

Deleting Active Teams box, following the seemingly end of discussion on Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1#Infobox. If you have objections, please take it up there, so as to keep everything in one place. Elisfkc (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your call Bluhaze777 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified January 2016[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York Red Bulls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 16 February 2016[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York Red Bulls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 29 February 2016[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York Red Bulls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Head Coaches[edit]

Would anyone object to putting the records for each coaches in that box/table?--MattyMetalFan (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York Red Bulls. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conference wins (regular season and playoffs) should be considered a team honor[edit]

The New York Red Bulls (and other MLS teams) follow a season structure not un-similar to other American sports. That being there is a regular season, with teams divided into separate conferences, where the best finishing teams from each conference qualify for a post-season tournament. The "playoff champions" of each conference are given a trophy and a berth in the MLS Cup. There are already separate pages for each MLS conference (see Eastern Conference (MLS) and Western Conference (MLS)) that track the info for regular season and playoff champions. Both the league, federation, and legitimate press outlets have recognized teams, including the New York Red Bulls, for these wins.

MLS officially recognizes regular season conferences winners and uses this titles to determine which team gets into the Concacaf Champions League. The Red Bulls have monuments to the conference victory, were given a trophy, and were reported on as "Conference champions."[4][5] Major League Soccer has also previously cited the Red Bulls as regular season and playoff champions in previous "season recaps" prior to them ceasing to write those in the late 2010s.[6]

It seems clear that New York should follow the same precedent set by other U.S. Sports teams and recognize how MLS awards both trophies and international competition spots. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. You are being misleading stating the MLS recognises them while linking to their own website which clearly shows they do not, as it has an official trophy count for each club on the very site that does not include said titles, which you have already seen https://www.mlssoccer.com/history/trophies/trophies-by-mls-club. This is a standard that is consistent with other established sources for football club honours used across the project, including Soccerway, which also doesn't list them https://us.soccerway.com/teams/united-states/new-york-red-bulls/6571/trophies/. Whether the media choose to report or not report on something is not the point here, as media reporting does not make something an official title. The media reports on friendly tournaments all the time, like for example the International Champions Cup, but that does not suddenly make it official. Nor does your reference to a line in a recap from an archived site. People can call them what they like, and as the 'conference finals' are the equivalent to knockout stage games of the MLS Cup, they will always exist and if American media wants to refer to them as that, that is their choice. But it doesn't mean anything, especially when the official MLS website has a clear trophy count for each club and does not include said 'titles'. Davefelmer (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's already been established is that MLS teams follow this format, which you have consistently been undoing and pointing at Soccerway as a be all, end all. MLS and USSF recognize regular season conference champions and use those titles to determine which teams go to the Champions League. MLS specifically calls teams "conference champions" in stories and a trophy is awarded when the conference playoff winner is determined. That's all that matters here. Also the ICC is literally a friendly tournament so that does not even remotely factor in or relate. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making things up, nowhere is it established that MLS teams follow this format and you keep saying the MLS recognizes them as titles despite seeing the same official MLS source over and over that shows they do not. Do you think if you keep saying it that it'll become true? Nobody cares what they are sometimes referred to as, the English media frequently refers to 'winning' a top 4 place and the 'top 4 trophy' yet that doesnt make finishing 4th an actual honour no matter how the media choose to reference it, because the Premier League does not consider it an honour. The same way the MLS official website clearly lays out what they consider to be their clubs' trophies and it doesnt include the content you speak of.
As for your complaint in the edit summary of the statistics page, the "2001 MLS Preseason Tournament" and "Walt Disney World Pro Soccer Classic" are listed not as honours but in the Friendly Trophies section of the article, which is fair because that's what they are. WikiProject policy sees that we don't include friendlies/youth/unofficial stuff etc on main pages but they can go on statistics pages so those are in their correct and properly formatted place. If you want to add an "Unofficial Honours" or simply "Unofficial" section on the statistics page and keep the conference titles on there like that, I would not be opposed. Davefelmer (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop making things up, nowhere is it established that MLS teams follow this format"
Please explain your previous edits on Toronto FC and Seattle Sounders FC removing this format from those pages. It was established through their continued existence and use on pages such as that and other MLS team pages. Wikipedia projects relating to this topic does not seem to have a "set rule" for this and after searching WP:FPL I have found nothing to demonstrate these "discussions" you've apparently had.
I appreciate the compromise on the Records and Statistics section and I will totally implement that. If that can be a recognized way to list these accomplishments, I believe that is acceptable. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Please explain your previous edits on Toronto FC and Seattle Sounders FC removing this format from those pages."
Dude, none of that constitutes a consensus or established format. A few pages existing in the wrong format unsourced until they were noticed and had proper, official MLS sourcing brought in to correctly list the section is all that was. Otherwise you could play fast and loose with these notions. For example, the MLS most decorated clubs page I previously linked for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_records_and_statistics#All-time_most_successful_teams shows that they havent been formatted that way and so on and so forth. We can only go by what the most reliable sources show and when the MLS website itself literally lists club honours hauls for their clubs that dont include said info, its an open and shut case. The main, most primary source we could get (as well as established others used on the matter) clearly shows the official stance so there's no further room to go 'oh hey but these newspapers refer to them, maybe they are official titles after all" etc when the league itself says they are not. And if you do not believe the discussions, you are more than welcome to start a new one up and get the same consensus verdict. But I believe if you thought there'd be a different outcome, or truly could not find the discussions in question, you'd have done so already.
I'm glad though that we ultimately do agree on the statistics page and I hope that I've have provided effective clarification here. All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"But I believe if you thought there'd be a different outcome, or truly could not find the discussions in question, you'd have done so already."
To be honest only reason I haven't done so is because I've only recently discovered this and instead of running to the project I'd rather try to discuss it here. My initial objective was to make sure these titles were mentioned with the team in some form and them being on the records and statistics page does that. Plus I can see a Red Bull fan or team official saying the Supporter's Shield win was the team's first major trophy, which by default would make the conference trophy a "minor honor." I might see about making an official argument for it at some point but my overall goal was accomplished here through a back and forth.
I am very happy we were able to come to a conclusion. You made your point, and while I was argumentative at first I have come to agree based on what has been established. Those honors should not be on the main page (unless a further discussion is had).
The only minor gripe I have right now is the titling of that sub-section as "unofficial" since it is an official thing (the league does call the team "conference champions" in official press releases, articles, and such). I hate to keep saying it but I do believe they are recognized at around the same level as the friendly trophies. Similar to how the Atlantic Cup is handled and how I'm sure the Hudson River Derby will be handled once that trophy is complete. Can we come to an agreement for a different name such as "Conference" or my previous "Conference honors" suggestion? All the best to you as well. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too am happy we've been able to have a productive discussion here between ourselves rather than getting messy with arbitrations and the like. This is always the better way. I take your point when you say "I hate to keep saying it but I do believe they are recognized at around the same level as the friendly trophies." and upon reflection I agree. How about changing 'Unofficial' to 'Conference' and/or grouping the sections together as "Friendly/Conference" or "Conference/Friendly"? I think that is the most fair and balanced outcome. Cheers, Davefelmer (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds perfect! Let's go with the first option since the way "Friendly" is organized right now (with them in order by earliest first year won to most recent) it would look awkward to put the conference stuff in there. Unless you have a better option. All the best, ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, looks fine to me! All the best to you too pal, Davefelmer (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Red_Bulls&oldid=1207185604"