Talk:LA Galaxy

Yallop

I know for a fact that I heard on Tuesdays edition of FSC's "Fox Football Fone-In" that they said that they had heard that Yallop had been sacked by Lalas. However, there is no mention of it on soccernet.com, foxsoccer.com, or lagalaxy.com, so now I don't know what to believe. I guess I'll undo my comments.

-manutdglory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutdglory (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Wooden Spoon and Rebuilding name change?

The team seems to have been "rebuilding" for the past five years. I think we should change it to "Wooden spoon and slump" or something like that. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dode222 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Rebuilding would be a fine heading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No need for specific changes to the lede

The fact that Carson is a suburb is not important. You'll note that we do not stipulate that in other articles for sports teams in LA or in MLS. This has been a longstanding ploy by LAFC supporters to make it clear that they are the true team for LA and Galaxy are pretenders. Similar story with NYFC and New York Red Bull. The trolling can be seen by the non's next edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_dos_Santos&diff=prev&oldid=1022741233. Further, they are not also known as Los Angeles Galaxy, but they were at one point. At most, we could make that statement, but it would be common knowledge that LA is Los Angeles. Again, not explained in any other LA-based sports team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I invite you to visit Colorado Rapids or New York Red Bulls to note the mentions of suburbs and metropolitan areas which contradict your statements above. In addition to this, I submit the following links from The Athletic and FOX Sports which also contradict your statements above. Clearly the initial edits were made by an LAFC troll. However, that does not change the facts about the formatting other club pages utilize nor about what the LA Galaxy are also known as per WP:COMMONNAME. I have noticed a trend in blindly reverting edits in your contributions as well as a tendency to assume implied ownership of other pages, most recently with the Columbus Crew SC debacle. I advise that you become more observant and to avoid engaging in edit warring. A simple discussion like this is enough to clarify disputes and form a consensus. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made the following edits [1] to the intro of the page, following a similar format to that of the New York Red Bulls which solely makes note of its metropolitan area. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I like that edit more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Would "The Los Angeles Galaxy, commonly known as the LA Galaxy," be a more appropriate intro? I am beginning to see your point more about LAFC trolls. I offer FC Cincinnati and Nashville SC as examples where the official name of the club makes no mention of "Football Club" or "Soccer Club" yet references can be found in media articles with those names spelled out. Additionally, the intros of each article also spells out these initials as part of their name. What is your input? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus discussion a number of years ago when the article was moved to LA Galaxy from Los Angeles Galaxy where the majority of the sources (read: WP:COMMONNAME) stated LA Galaxy. I can't recall what the team's legal name is.

The opposing argument at the time was that teams like the Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Dodgers and Los Angeles Kings were all at "Los Angeles" but were all know as the LA {team name}. However, the association football types would hear none of it. The lead changed. All linked references changed, prior to the "official rebranding". I have no strong opinion about your proposal. I am simply trying to honour the editors who desired this change. However, I recognized the LAFC troll activity and it makes no sense to list Carson as a suburb to placate those fandals. It will start an edit war when the Galaxy supporters find the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables and nation information

I understand that table information needs to be readable, but it doesn't help readability to have a nation flag, name, and person's name in the same cell of a table. I don't even think it needs to be included for any list, with the exception of current players, because that information is important for MLS roster rules.

Keeping a flag icon next to a name is a nice way to split the difference, but if the alternative is to have a bunch of crowded tables with nationality information (that isn't always complete), can we just do away with it altogether? TortelliniAlfredo (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Then fix it correctly rather than ignoring MOS:ACCESS (the names or three-letter acronyms should be present) and WP:OVERLINK (no need to link to nations unless you think someone is going to come to this article and expect to be able to link to the nation from here). The correct format should be name, nation and then role but someone keeps changing it here, there any everywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these are hard-and-fast rules at all (there are no specific sports roster rules on those MOS pages), and including the 3-letter acronym actually crowds the table and makes it unreadable. This featured article uses the style I've been trying to implement here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C.#Coaching_staff. TortelliniAlfredo (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason there are no roster rules is that the majority of the football project wanted a compact list. Go talk to ACCESS to see what the rules are. A "feature article" is not reviewed for any unified set of standards. They usually make sure that there is WP:NOR, references are not dead, and grammar is correct. I have yet to see accessibility or compliance with manuals of style or many editing guidelines come into play in a feature article review. AS a result holding a feature article up as an example of everything right is a waste of time. Go talk to ACCESS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If the consensus for the football project was to use compact lists, why are we deviating from that consensus? TortelliniAlfredo (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for that either. I stated quite clearly it was a preference of the majority in the project, but it was agreed that this preference violated foundational rules. We have attempted to make the "compact" format compliant with both ACCESS and OVERLINK, but most do not care. The fact that the new format caused problems on mobile devices halted that effort and no further attempts to meet the criteria has been attempted. As such, the North American rosters use the accessibility friendly, but overlinked roster format while most others use one that ignore both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

What needs to be added is for it to be more updated, As in the 2021/22 year. Most of the sections are only up to 2020. Gigis2002 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)