Talk:Atlanta United FC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acmelzer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2015

The following is a closed 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: moved by Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs). Jenks24 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Atlanta MLS team → Atlanta United FC – Name change is official, per MLS's website. Coming directly from the league is a bit stronger than being reported by news outlets. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Bmf 051 (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of the team (although not "officially" - whatever that means - announced) is verifiable to reliable sources both with Sports Illustrated and the Atlanta Journal Constitution (which quotes the franchise president, Darren Eales, on the record confirming the choice of the name). At the very least the name should be updated in the article, and there is no reason to delay moving the page. This is not like some sports fan sites or other websites without editorial control and review speculating and publishing crap like we all know they do based on rumors and what they hope will happen. Both of these sources are real news stories from reputable organizations. --Trödel 01:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We should wait until the official unveiling. It doesn't feel right to have the article have the new name but not have an updated logo for the infobox to accompany it. SounderBruce 03:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Lots of teams have new names before introducing a new logo. See the Baltimore Ravens or the latest incarnation of the Winnipeg Jets. So that isn't really relevant. Bmf 051 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Added the template, so this will go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current discussions Bmf 051 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support -- This should be pretty cut and dried. There is an officially referenced team name, the article would have a far more accurate title, and people can search for the most likely term. 2601:C8:C000:DF31:2900:59D8:EB2A:F517 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - not even sure why this is a discussion tbh, be BOLD and just move it! GiantSnowman 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless one is an admin, the page can't be moved, boldly or not. I've reverted the improper cut-and-paste move. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Support -- I'm with GiantSnowman, this shouldn't be a discussion, as the team name, logo and colors have been officially unveiled, per MLS' website. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree. We just need an admin to move it correctly. - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Table colors

Starting this section to discuss the use of colors on the table headers. The colors were edited here, and they are not WCAG 2.0 AA compliant as required by MOS:CONTRAST. Efforts should be made to find colors readable by all of our readers. The previous colors can be seen here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible" and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR "Colors used in templates such as navboxes and infoboxes, and in tables, should not make reading difficult, including for colorblind or otherwise visually impaired readers" as well as "Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white".

Even Wikipedia:Don't_edit_war_over_the_colour_of_templates mentions: "colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Wikipedia, per the guidelines at WP:COLOUR."

Since the club colors do not pass this bar, we therefor should simply not use custom colors and default back to Wikipedia standard colors for this situation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the editor, we are failing to correctly brand the team based on http://atlpartners.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AtlantaUnited_BrandGuide_151203.pdf . The problem is, the font is wrong (pages 6 and following) and the colours are on page 9. First, the hex colour they lost as "9d223t5" should be "9d2235". So to play by his rules, the three colour choices are #9d2235; #716135; and #000000;. This is the updated table. All possible colour combinations fail as can seen by the link for each:

9d2235 on 000000 - Fails	000000 on 9d2235 - Fails
000000 on 716135 - Fails	716135 on 000000 - Fails
716135 on 9d2235 - Fails	9D2235 on 716135 - Fails

So I agree that we should go to a plain table until resolved. I will allow another editor to make the request as I have now made a request at 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the colours presently in use are unacceptable as a clear breach of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color. The article should be unprotected and plain wikitable colours used. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've unprotected the article, and anyone who understands WP:CONTRAST is free to change it to a complaint scheme. I've asked Jamesmiko to discuss here if he thinks there is a better color scheme which still meets the MOS, but it's clear the current version isn't compliant, and that there is a consensus here to that effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The consensus here seems to be to use default colors for now, possibly with a change to be discussed later without the "pressure" of the immediate accessibility issue. Any change to that should be discussed first. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Contrast is always a problem when backgrounds are coloured to represent a sports team. An alternative is to use a coloured border; it's not difficult, you use the |titlestyle= parameter just as you do for a coloured background. See for example the navbox at Libby Lane#External links. This one is done with the {{Anglican navbox titlestyle|bishop}} template, but it comes down to |titlestyle=background: #FFFFFF; border-bottom: #7F1734 5px solid; border-top: #7F1734 5px solid; - here, the #7F1734 is the colour  . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I tell you. It's like you can't even go to work around here any longer. All the discussion happened while I was in the coal mines. Glad we achieved consensus and I was barely involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, I think that the border might be a good suggestion. @Jamesmiko:, what do you think. Would borders be enough? Do you have another suggestion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the border is fine, but why is everyone so worried about color blind people being able to see colors for only this one team, Walter Görlitz? Every other team's page has the actual colors. In fact, NBA teams have their own infobox to protect actual team colors. Jamesmiko (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We do care about those others; but please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so Wikipedia excuses itself for setting double standards. You guys threaten me with warnings and condescend to me, but can't even enforce a single standard for all pages? That's the very definition of hypocrisy. Jamesmiko (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're so bothered about colour-blind people being unable to read the text in other teams' articles, why don't you just go ahead and enforce the standard yourself? You know exactly where a problem exists and do nothing to fix it. Isn't that even more hypocritical? --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, I assume you're talking to Walter Görlitz. I am arguing against articles being reduced to the least common denominator. It's not like there's a massive protest for websites to feature colors friendly to color-blind individuals, nor some major advocacy for it. I agree, that Walter should go ahead and make every single article on Wikipedia comply with WP:CONTRAST and not just this one.Jamesmiko (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: It's not that no-one cares about those articles, it's that we haven't seen them. Link me to an article that doesn't comply with WP:CONTRAST and I'll most happily fix it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13, just to call your bluff, go to all 32 pages of the National Football League and make them comply with WP:CONTRAST. If not, then you're not being a fair admin. Jamesmiko (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: I'm not going on a wild goose hunt through a whole category of pages. Give me one page (or even all 32!) and point to a specific table that you think should be corrected. (I could save you the trouble and tell you that both the NBA and NFL templates have had discussions about color contrast, which I was involved in. There are no color contrast issues to my knowledge. We corrected them.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

All I know is that the current colors used in the table are incorrect, IMO. The current gold color should be  #716135 , and not whatever it is right now. I am trying to change the consensus so that the colors used are  #9D2235  for the background and  #FFFFFF  for the foreground, based on the Atlanta United FC brand book. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: The discussion started above and continued below. At this point, the return to white likely won't receive assent by @Jamesmiko:, but the best solution we have is listed below where we modify the borders, not the background:

Role	Name	Nation
Head coach	Gerardo Martino	Argentina
Technical director	Carlos Bocanegra	USA

Feel free to comment on that or any other options you may have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I'm fine with it so long as the colors used and reached by consensus match the colors in Atlanta United FC's brandbook and comply with contrast guidelines. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not convinced that the source I provided (from this website) is legitimate. All I did to find it was Google Search "Atlanta Falcons Style Guide" and that was the URL I clicked on. I've checked to see if that URL is legitimate, and I'm not entirely 100% sure. In the mean time, I think the colors that should be used in the tables and templates should come from Atlanta United FC's website, since that at least is official, AFAIK. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Colors on templates

Okay, so I've been threatened with warnings by a few admins who cite WP:CONTRAST as their reason for removing actual team colors from team infoboxes. First of all, every sports team page features team-specific colors for their userboxes, to include the NBA articles which protect such colors from random editing. Every other MLS team has team-specific colors, so why is Atlanta United FC the first and only time WP:CONTRAST is an issue? Why does Walter Görlitz only care about applying this standard to one team, and not all of them? The only answer from an admin that I received was, in paraphrase, "You can't appeal to other articles to justify points on another." Well, that means Wikipedia has a double standard and cannot legitimately enforce any rule fairly. Either all articles have the same rules, or they don't.

The problem with WP:CONTRAST is the position that the majority should suffer because of a small minority. It's like saying, "You can't have steak because a baby can't chew it." First of all, most Wikipedia articles are not color-blind friendly, and the vast majority of public websites have colors that do not fit into the realm of color-blind friendly. For example, Google's logo is full of red, blue, and green. No one complains about their colors. The whole basis behind WP:CONTRAST is not a normative or conventional standard. However, if WP really wants to enforce this, then they must do so equally and across the board. I should not be threatened with warnings for edits other Wikipedians make freely. Admins, please learn how to have adult conversations instead of being so easily offended and abusing your admin privileges to ban people for highly selective reasoning. If we can't use team colors for Atlanta United, then remove them from all articles that violate WP:CONTRAST. If not, I don't want to hear any more hypocrisy from Wikipedia admins.

User:BU Rob13, I get that you can't comb through every article. However, what I have yet to understand was why User:Walter Görlitz picked only one MLS team to make an example of instead of making WP:CONTRAST an issue for all 23 MLS teams? It the rule is so absolute, then why be so selective in applying it?Jamesmiko (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this question earlier. I imagine he happened to notice it in the course of regular editing and made the quick fix. Systemic changes to large groups of articles are hard to do and terribly boring. Very few editors have the patience or time to do them, especially given that you often just wind up wasting time finding articles with no issues. For instance, I have multiple accessibility projects (such as the horrible coding of {{Infobox AFL biography}}) that I'd like to be working on, but I have no free time with which to do them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Jamesmiko (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: I believe you seriously misunderstand WP:CONTRAST. All colors on a page don't have to be black and white. It's just that the background color behind a text color must have a high enough contrast ratio to allow color blind individuals to see the difference. Google's logo, for instance, is perfectly fine from a color contrast perspective. Each text color is a sharp contrast against the white background. Again, link me to an article with a color contrast issue and I will fix it. It's not that no-one cares; it's that most editors are ignorant of the accessibility issues and the limited people who understand them can't comb through each of the over 5 million articles on Wikipedia and find every issue. We correct them as we come across them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with gold letters on black? That should be enough contrast for WP:CONTRAST. Jamesmiko (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the gold and the black. Is it a dark gold? Then possibly. Is it a light gold? Probably not. I'd need the hex code values (or a link to the page using the gold and black so I can find the hex code values). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been at work for 12 hours now and I come here to find that you ignored the table I created above in the "table colors" section. It lists the black on gold (incorrectly I might add) as "716135 on 000000" (it's actually 000000 on 716135) with a link to a tool that tells you that it fails and why, but in case you're going to ignore the table again: https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=716135 yes, that fails. And the reverse does as well: https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=716135,bg=000000. The gold you propose below, A29061, is not compliant with your team's guidelines and https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=A29061,bg=000000 is marginally acceptable, but you'll be a hypocrite if you use it because you yourself stated that only the team's colours are acceptable to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, the previous colours were marginally acceptable and I did check all MLS team colours when they were added, but the editor who made most of those already knew about CONTRAST and so I didn't have to verify that the contrast was acceptable.

So just to reiterate: I am not persecuting you or your team. Their colours are simply not acceptable withing the confines of WCAG 2 web accessibility guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: To be clear here, there's nothing mystical about color contrast issues. Go to this page, type in the hex code values, and check the output. If WCAG 2 AA Compliant is "Yes", then that is sufficient. If possible, you'd want WCAG 2 AAA Compliant, but given the desirability of team colors, AA is fine here. It complies with the guideline, which says AA is required and AAA is desirable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How about his hex for gold: #A29061 on #000? By the way, User:BU Rob13, I appreciate you having a conservation with me.Jamesmiko (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: That would be AA compliant, yes, and very close to AAA compliance as well (6.7:1 ratio of contrast, whereas 7:1 is AAA). Interestingly, my first knowledge of accessibility came from an interaction similar to ours, but I was on your end. I was a content creator in the area of Canadian football and a major accessibility issue was discovered in {{Infobox gridiron football person}} which caused everyone in the topic area (especially me!) a headache. Eventually, I helped find a reasonable method to solve the issue, learned a lot in the process, and now I'm a member of the Accessibility WikiProject! It's a confusing set of guidelines that are inherently hard to wrap your head around when you don't face the same difficulties others face, but it's super important. I see Wikipedia as the great equalizer. Not everyone has access to the same educational opportunities, but everyone can come to Wikipedia and learn something. It's very important to me (and many others) that everyone truly means everyone. It's a huge part of our free knowledge movement.

I'm sorry that our initial interaction was a bit hostile; on an unfortunately regular basis, editors stomp all over articles creating massive accessibility issues and attempting to invoke local consensuses to ignore accessibility issues. I'll be glad we had it if you take an interest in our accessibility guidelines, though. If you're interested in helping to evenly apply the accessibility guidelines to articles which may currently have problems, please do let me know and I'd be happy to help you navigate them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So I see you made the change here at 2016-10-18T23:56:18‎, before getting consensus. This page was locked to all editors but admins because of your insistence in ignoring CONTRAST, and was only unlocked when we had a consensus to leave it at default colours. Earlier in your editing day, at 2016-10-18T23:14:49, you removed this consensus edit and claim that complying with CONTRAST equates to ruining editor's experience on Wikipedia, at, but after you started your discussion here. I will let an admin deal with you now since you clearly don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia with other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why - having abandoned the "official" colours - Jamesmiko arbitrarily chose a gold (#AB9767) that fell short of a colour difference of 500 on the black background? It would have been just as easy to have picked #CAB279, which has the same hue and saturation, so that it passes https://www.w3.org/TR/AERT#color-contrast as well. What problem would there be with  this combination  ? --RexxS (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent question. It seems capricious and arbitrary.

A different question is, are we satisfied with the colour selection? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally no. The text of WP:COLOUR uses the phrase "when feasible", but I have yet to see a genuine example of where it is not feasible to meet WCAG's standards for both contrast and colour difference at the highest levels. It is relatively simple to use Snook's tester to alter the lightness ("Value") of a colour up or down until it is compliant. I seriously doubt that Atlanta United FC would find that Wikipedia's use of a gold somewhat lighter than theirs problematical - especially as they actually got the hex value for light gold wrong in their own guidelines (it is actually #928856 in that document!) --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Capricious, Walter Görlitz and RexxS? No, #AB9767 derives from the team's official website. Instead of making accusations, all you have to do is research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmiko (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you two are bitter that I actually found a color that you can't willfully misinterpret WP:CONTRAST to bully me further. Checkmate Jamesmiko (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes., capricious. My interpretation was that two days ago you were insisting and edit warring to use the "official" colours, but when people warn you to stop, you drop that argument that, pick some other colours that you like, apply them without gaining consenus.

AB9767 on 000000 current colours	FFF340 on 9d2235 original colours
Team colour: pride and passion	Team colour: premium and excellence - metallic
Team colour: strength and power	Team colour: premium and excellence - non-metallic listed as 716135, but actually 84754E based on RGB values

How are your colours (cell A1) better than the original (cell A2) ?

How do your colours (cell A1) accurately reflect the team's colours (rows two and three)?

Are you OK with not having the actual, official team colours that you claimed "are official and legal documents from a business that restricts the use of their brand, name, and colors" and variants thereof? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To all the other editors, are the current colours, with a colour difference of 425, acceptable? If not, does someone have a better colour scheme? The original scheme only had a colour difference of 318, so the new scheme is better than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Role	Name	Nation
Head Coach	Gerardo Martino	Argentina
Technical director	Carlos Bocanegra	United States

There. No problem with contrast. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the only one being capricious is the one who acts like he owns the page. If you think I'm being capricious, then what how do you describe your same contention with me? What rule says I have to gain consensus to make an edit? Nowhere, as all editors are free to edit as long as their edits follow policies. You don't own this page, nor does your consensus. By the way, finding a code that matches an official team color is not hypocrisy. Take responsibility for your actions and stop deflecting. Jamesmiko (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, #AB9767 derives from the gold menu bar on the team's official website at http://www.atlutd.com. Therefore, it is an official color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmiko (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That's looks cleaner and honours the official colour scheme. What if we were to use the official colours?:

Role	Name	Nation
Head coach	Gerardo Martino	Argentina
Technical director	Carlos Bocanegra	USA

This uses correct MOS:CAPS for the roles and avoids WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no complaints and no further discussion, let's apply this to the article and the template. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Error

I accidentally messed up the gold stripes of the shorts pattern because it was my mistake. Can somebody please fix it? Matthewishere0 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nickname

@Walter Görlitz: The article in question uses the nickname in the sub-header. Why is this considered "unsupported"? Thanks, wilson (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Because there's no discussion of it in the article and there's no reference in the article to support. 16:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So, one source using it, but not discussing it isn't enough? If so, that sounds fair. The reason I'm asking is that this source has used the nickname at least one other time. Another reference. It does feel like they are trying to create the nickname. Thanks, wilson (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems. The first is that you still have only one writer, Rob Usry, using the term. Google supports the term as referring to Adidas and the Chinese flag. http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/11/15/atlanta-united-fc-uniform-mls-expansion-jersey and http://www.ajc.com/sports/pro-sports/atlanta-united-unveils-new-logo/gdq5HKSWQrqxMpj1pa2sEL/ reference it, but only in relation to the jersey, not the team name. Nothing else using that phrase at si.com. ESPN.com does not use it in relation to the team and mlssoccer.com does not use it at all.

The second problem is that you are missing the key element: you need to include a paragraph, or at least a sentence, about it in the article, and supply the reference there. Infboxes should summarize referenced content in the article, not simply store important facts.Walter Görlitz (talk)

I agree with Walter Görlitz. Nicknames usually develop over time and are fairly easy to cite because multiple reliable sources use them. This is a brand-new team, so it's not likely to have any established, well-known nicknames at this point. While it's certainly possible this first nickname could gain traction and start being used by others, it isn't there yet. If you have to "dig" to find a source for a nickname, that's a great indication it's not established yet. I run into the same issues with stadiums and arenas as editors want to add nicknames as soon as the place is built or renamed, just because some fan blog or a single writer refers to the facility as such (or editors just make up nicknames themselves). Not everything has a nickname (or doesn't yet) and there's nothing wrong with that. Just wait until it actually happens. Again, that's of no surprise with a brand-new team like this, and will be the case for Mercedes-Benz Stadium once it opens. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Opening Game

@Walter Görlitz: Recently removed some excess context that was given for the opening game. The attendance statistics that were removed are of only minor interest, as they are not record setting or otherwise notable by themselves. I am less certain about the removal of the statement that Yamil Asad scored the team's first goal (although the time was perhaps excess information). After reviewing all articles for MLS teams I found that half of them mention the team's first goal scorer in their team's history section (Although Minnesota United FC's edit is mine, and Orlando City SC's article has far too much information about the opening game). This survey has left me uncertain as to whether this information should be included on this page. Let me know your thoughts. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Check Montreal, Portland and Vancouver as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, Montreal has no mention of who scored first, just that their first game was 2-0. The other two do have a sentence stating the team's first scorer (Kenny Cooper and Eric Hassli, resp). GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed your earlier point. I'm fine with adding the goal scorer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Brad Guzan

@Walter Görlitz: @Notch505: Brad Guzan has not signed a contract with Atlanta, and is not loaned out by them. However he did sign a "pre-contract", with many outlets reporting that he would make the move to Atlanta at the end of the EPL season. Is this a fact worth presenting on the page, and if so where wold be the appropriate place? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If by "many outlets" you mean MLS or the team itself, then let's update the subject's article and this one, otherwise drop it until there's official confirmation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atlanta United FC. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121070705/http://corporate.homedepot.com/wps/portal/%21ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDdwNHH0sfE3M3AzMPJ8MAF0sDKND388jPTdUvyHZUBAB6afqn/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfMEcwQUw5TDQ3RjA2SEIxUEY5MDAwMDAwMDA%21 to http://corporate.homedepot.com/wps/portal/%21ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDdwNHH0sfE3M3AzMPJ8MAF0sDKND388jPTdUvyHZUBAB6afqn/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfMEcwQUw5TDQ3RjA2SEIxUEY5MDAwMDAwMDA%21/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108042058/http://www.atlantafalcons.com/roster-staffs/arthur-blank/ to http://www.atlantafalcons.com/roster-staffs/arthur-blank/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Golden Spike

@Walter Görlitz: Montreal Impact has the North Star bell. The Portland Timbers have Timber Joey. These elements of their supporter culture have sections on each team's respective Wikipedia page. To unilaterally dub Atlanta United's Golden Spike as "trivial" and subsequently delete all reference is quite cavalier. -Tennisace101 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You're right. It describes the bell in three sentences and only mentions a few key individuals who have participated. I just cleaned that up and tagged it as using primary sources (which is a problem your list, but not the star itself). Portland has their practice described in their mascot section. All of these are useful, when they're encyclopedic. Your entry described the spike (it's not a proper name and should not be capitalized) with a source from MLSSoccer.com, and that could have stayed. The list of all 17 participants from the 2017 season in a table was problematic. That you were already planning for the 2018 participants is even more problematic. Another odd question, if the list is important, why hide it? Along with also goes against MOS:COLLAPSE, I get the feeling you thought it was too much. I think that describing the spike would be both appropriate and useful. However, listing the participants isn't. I know of no other team articles that list the man of the match for every game. It's done in season articles, usually per-match. Since the spike wasn't just for the MoM, it's just a PR or hype tool when it's not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I take your point. By you reverting the entire edit, it made it seem like even the description of the tradition was trivial. Based on other articles, I will only include a brief description of the tradition on this page along with a couple of examples (using language such as "among others") similar to what was done in the Montreal Impact article. Tennisace101 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. So much time. So little to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Strike that. Reverse it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Club vs Team

There's been a bit of a edit war going on over the use of "club" or "team" in the introductory paragraph of the article. I personally have been an advocate for the use of "club" since the article is about the overall organization and all the teams the organization fields in multiple levels of association football in the United States. Of course, like any article about an association football club, the primary focus is on the first team competing at the highest level, but that shouldn't preclude the use of the word "club". Many other articles about teams competing in MLS use the term "club". — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Gerstle (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about the first-division team not the club. It mentions some of the work of the club, but that's incidental. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Except there is no article about the "club" that's separate from the article about the first team. And there's no example of an association football club that has one article about the club and another about the first team. The article on Werder Bremen for example says it's about the sports club, yet the entire article is almost exclusively about the football team that competes in the 1. Bundesliga. As the first team is the focal point of the club, the article should and does focus almost exclusively on them. - C. Gerstle — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Gerstle (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Then be WP:BOLD and write one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And we name articles based on WP:COMMONNAME and that's the name that should be reflected in the article. If they have a different legal name, as you believe they do, then we can mention it, but not make wholesale changes, especially when you're the only editor wanting that change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The common name for the sports club based in Bremen that competes in the Bundesliga has a common name of "Werder Bremen" yet the article is allowed to mention the club's full legal name "Sportverein Werder Bremen von 1899 e.V." in it's article, both in the intro and in the info box. What makes this article different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Gerstle (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please 1) sign your comments and 2) stick to WP:COMMONNAME. I don't care about the state of any other article, only this one. What's the club's the commonname? What does the club call itself in press releases? What does the league call it? What do media outlets call it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

First, I find it quite incredible that you do not care about maintaining consistency in the presentation of articles across this encyclopedia. One would think that for quality assurance purposes you would want there to be a common format in articles about similar topics. You wouldn't consider a discrepancy between, say, two different articles about countries having a consistent format? Second, the media reports and league articles on the club are of course going to use the name of the club commonly used by the public, or at least an abbreviation. I have provided a source that clearly states that the full name of the organization is "Atlanta United Football Club" (www.atlutd.com/contestrules). Thus it is perfectly reasonable, if not prudent, to spell out the full name of the organization in both the info box entry "Full Name" and in the introductory paragraph, provided that it is followed up with a remark that the organization is more commonly known by a shorter name, then use that short hand name throughout the rest of the article. C. Gerstle (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post.

I do care about consistency. Look at all of the other MLS articles if you want consistency, but I'm not willing to play that card. One would think that you would start closer to home first rather than looking far afield. Are you sure you want consistency to be the requirement? I'd rather have COMMONNAME be the requirement.

I can provide sources for every MLS club that gives a legal name that no one know except someone in the back office. And that's the point. COMMONNAME is reasonable, not an unknown legal name that you have to dig into some obscure page on their website or a legal document of incorporation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I fully protected the article due to the edit warring. I have no comment for most of the content at dispute, but there is one thing I want to point out. The generally accepted style is not to use "The" to begin the article. For example, it's Vancouver Whitecaps FC, not "The Vancouver Whitecaps FC". And indeed, the lead of the article was pretty stable until recently. See here for how it looked. Enigma^msg 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and https://www.atlutd.com/contestrules does indeed call the sponsor of the content "Atlanta United Football Club, LLC", so why are you insisting in calling it only "Atlanta United Football Club"? You're missing the limited liability company designation. That's what your allusion to one (of several dozen) German clubs does. Again, you're talking legal name and won't even discuss common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What should I conclude from the lack of conversation? I've restored it to the longstanding name until you offer something concrete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

All I have are more legal documents about sponsors and liability release forms for parents enrolling their kids in the club's academy (https://atlanta-mp7static.mlsdigital.net/elfinderimages/ATL%20UTD/Tickets/Atlanta%20United%20Release%20and%20Waiver%20of%20Liability.pdf) that refers to the club as "Atlanta United Football Club, LLC". C. Gerstle (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've also looked at similar documents for other MLS clubs and they all make it clear when their legal name is not their club's name by including a DBA statement (e.g. KSE Soccer, LLC, dba "Colorado Rapids" or OnGoal, LLC, dba "Sporting Kansas City"). The ones involving Atlanta United have no such disclaimer.C. Gerstle (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to alert a larger community to discuss. If you're interested, mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or possibly Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Club_names_in_Major_League_SoccerC. Gerstle (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of "club" vs "team", I personally think it would be redundant to have a page for the club and one for the first team given that the first team is the focal point of the club and is the primary topic of any article on a football club, such as the Manchester United article. But let's say that we accept your premise that article is too focused on the first team to be called an article about the club. What additional info about the central organization would you recommend? C. Gerstle (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting

Because of the limited scope that you created in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 118#Club names in Major League Soccer you only got consensus to state that the team's name should include club, not that the article is about the club rather than the first division team. It's still about the latter. What the "FC" stood for was not the question we were discussing above. Granted, for the new Cincinnati team the "F" part is still a question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Intro Section Inadequate

It was brought up that the current introduction to this article is inadequate. I created this talk section to address this. Here is my first draft of a new intro, but I'd like to get other editors on board to craft a thorough and appropriate one:

Atlanta United FC is an American professional soccer club based in Atlanta, Georgia. The club was founded in 2014 by Home Depot co-founder and Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank as an expansion team in Major League Soccer. [2] The club is the first MLS club from the Deep South region of the United States.

The first team began play in 2017 as a member of the Eastern Conference of Major League Soccer (MLS) and was only the third MLS expansion club to qualify for the MLS Cup Playoffs in their inaugural season (after Chicago Fire SC and Seattle Sounders FC). The club also broke MLS records for regular season and playoff attendance in their inaugural season and broke the long-standing record set by the New York Cosmos in 1978 for highest average attendance of any first division soccer club in the United States. In 2018, the club launched a reserve team to compete in the USL Championship, and the first team finished runners-up for the Supporters' Shield behind the New York Red Bulls and qualified for the 2019 CONCACAF Champions League. In that same year the club broke its own records for single-game and average attendance.

The first team plays its home matches in Mercedes-Benz Stadium in downtown Atlanta. The current manager is former Argentina and FC Barcelona manager Gerardo "Tata" Martino.C. Gerstle (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. But there will be an update after Saturday's match (to indicate how they finished this year). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

How long should the goal/assist records lists be?

I propose that we limit the all-time goal and assist record lists to the top ten. If there is a tie toward the bottom, then we can include more than ten for that reason, but I think that otherwise, ten is a reasonable place to stop. Otherwise, the list can become unwieldily long. At the moment, the assists record list has a top ten, plus several players tied for eleventh. I want to remove the elevenths and only have the top ten, but I wanted to post here first to make sure no one had any opposition to it. It would still be a good idea to keep track of the players with three assists or two goals so that when they get their next assist or goal, we will know that they need to be added. Let me know what you all think.Jacoby531 (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Top ten. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

Change "tailgate" back to "supporter" as the descriptor for the type of group Footie Mob is with the "Supporters" section content. The change to tailgate was made to create a derogatory descriptor for Footie Mob by characterizing the group as less than a fully functional supporters group. In fact, Footie Mob is the largest supporters group for this team.

The changes was made here for no other stated reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=838398739&oldid=838032398&title=Atlanta_United_FC Natlanta2 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 18:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Atlanta United FC

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Atlanta United FC's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "atlstats":

• From List of Atlanta United FC records and statistics: "Statistics | Atlanta United FC". Atlanta United. Retrieved December 19, 2018.
• From Atlanta United 2: "Statistics | Atlanta United FC".

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)