Talk:Chicago Fire FC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Club + Page Name Discussion

why don't use Chicago Fire Soccer Club Matthew hk 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think Chicago Fire Soccer Club, being the official name of the club, should be used as the title.Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Chicago Fire SC but I like Chicago Fire Soccer Club if you type just Chicago Fire, it will take you to a page with multiple articles for that title, Chicago fire Soccer Club would be better. --Ceezmad (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Fire Foundation

There should be more information about the Chicago Fire Founation, formally the Fire Works for Kids Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIRExNECK (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Name change proposal to Chicago Fire S.C.

Considering the fact that this is their official title, and in the spirit of having the team further disambiguated with a more professional-looking qualifier than just having soccer in parenthesis. I think that this would be a proper name change for this article. All discussion topics can be moved to the new page to keep continuity and the current title would redirect. Thoughts? Unak78 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like people did not like this idea. I think it would be a good one --Ceezmad (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move to Chicago Fire (soccer)

Chicago Fire Soccer Club → Chicago Fire (soccer) — No evidence that "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" is the team's full name on either MLSnet.com or the Chicago Fire website. Revert to previous correct name used that does have ample evidence to support it. —Gateman1997 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

--This is a very borderline subject. S.C. is not used in general team info and game recaps, but the Club does have a semi-permanent sign affixed to the Southeast side of the stadium which says "Chicago Fire Soccer." (This is also used in official e-mails sent by the club.) Perhaps simply dropping the parentheses would be the most accurate title. Granted, admittedly, this may make it seem more like an association, but the club has really stuck to that use. Freedom4all (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Soccer Club" in official name

I don't know if this sheds more light on the mystery or not. I'd rather have someone more closely connected with the club confirm this. After doing a search of MLS and Chicago Fire websites, there are several instances where the phrase "Soccer Club" is used in a proper or official manner. All the pages directing ticket buyers to seats in the supporter's section initially refer to the organization as "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" (examples here and here). However, more significantly, at the end of these team newsletters, it states the document is the official copyright of "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" implying this is the organization's full name. (See at the bottom of here and here) Copyrighting intellectual property under this full name seems to make the inclusion of S.C. very legitimate. Two lines under the copyright in the second link, it encourages readers to contact "Chicago Fire Soccer" at a specific link. That phrase is also noted by another editor just above on this talk page.

Might this case be similar to the club Red Bull New York fielding a team called the New York Red Bulls? i.e. Chicago Fire S.C. fields a team called the Chicago Fire. --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is very interesting, and if someone from the club can confirm this information, I think moving to Chicago Fire S.C. would be more than worth discussing. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is more along the lines that Earthquakes Soccer, LLC fields a team named the San Jose Earthquakes. The name of the team is still Chicago Fire IMO. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Andell Holdings, LLC is the group that owns the club. (And thus the name of a separate entity) --99.191.41.240 (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Soccer Club is not in the official name, and S.C. is definitely not. Therefore, Chicago Fire (soccer) should be the name of the article.JaMikePA (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You have nothing to comment on what has already been said/researched here above? Your statement is coming off as an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems an opinion to you b/c you wish to believe otherwise. Here's the Chicago Fire's history page: Chicago Fire history. The team is called the "Chicago Fire" w/o any additional qualifiers. There is a lack of evidence about "soccer club" being attached to the name of the team in an official communications, and no evidence whatsoever of "S.C." My opinion? No, the team's website says otherwise.JaMikePA (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

S.C. is obviously an abbreviation of Soccer Club, which appears to be part of the team's official name, seeing as it is used to reserve rights at the bottom of a bunch of documents released by the club. If the club's full name is Chicago Fire Soccer Club, then the article should be at Chicago Fire S.C. like Manchester United F.C. and so many others. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Having been to Toyota Park, I've personally encountered dozens of instances where I've seen the phrase "Chicago Fire Soccer Club". Unfortunately Wikipedia is all about verifiability so the only thing backing me up is the the club using "Soccer Club" here online. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Chicago Fire (soccer) won out? too bad I liked Chicago Fire Soccer Club--Ceezmad (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, so somebody else will have to, but it should be changed back to soccer club. The Fire website was changed to say "The official site of Chicago Fire Soccer Club." http://chicago.fire.mlsnet.com/t100/ That should settle the issue.

I figured out how to do. It was rather easy.Sixkick (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move of August 2010 to Chicago Fire (soccer)

I moved the page. As these things get cut off, here's my full explaination from the move log:

Boldly moving per WP:COMMONNAME, a policy. That "Soccer Club" is part of the team's full name is dubious in the first place The claimed evidence of the official website stating "The official home of the Chicago Fire Soccer Club" is questionable, as the text is all-caps, so it is impossible to say whether the "soccer club" portion is part of a proper noun. Either way, nowhere else does the website use it, nor does most media, and most links pipe around it. The inclusion of the "S.C." is unsupported WP:OR. oknazevad (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this sudden change in thought odd, considering "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" is in more common use than ever. See here, here, here, and here. One could certainly make the argument that "Chicago Fire" is the common name, but it's hard to deny that the full name of the club as acknowledged by the organization is "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" though it could be reduced to "SC". It's no different that "Liverpool" or "Barcelona" being listed as common shorthand for the full names "Liverpool FC" or "FC Barcelona"; and both those clubs are listed under the latter names. Havari (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's been moved back. Let's presume, based on Havari's links that "Soccer Club" is part of the full name. From the rest of, well, everything, including the Fire's own website, I would still object to using the abbreviated "Chicago Fire S.C." as the title, as that is an utterly unused construct; the short form is always just "Chicago Fire". If, for disambiguation purposes, some mention of the long name should be used, then the while name should be used. To use "S.C." is an original abberation that fails WP:COMMONNAME.oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your rationale is certainly correct. I wasn't the one who moved it, just providing that it's the full name to be used in conjunction with a common name. But truthfully, that same sound rationale should be put to other teams in similar situations; Liverpool, Manchester United, Barcelona – even in the USA, Seattle Sounders. All technically include "FC" in their names, are hardly ever referred to that way, but include it in their page names. It's not easy to solve this one, given typing out "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" is probably too much, and "Chicago Fire (soccer)" misrepresents the club name. Anyway, I don't have an answer but it seems SC was the solution others came to. Havari (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any source confirming that the team's official name as 'Chicago Fire Soccer Club'; I've only ever seen them referred to as the Chicago Fire -- particularly on their website AND in their logo. I propose the page's heading to be changed to Chicago Fire (MLS team) to better differentiate it from the Great Chicago Fire and Chicago Fire (TV series) pages. --MegaThruster127 (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Their COMMONNAME is Chicago Fire, but their official name is Chicago Fire Soccer Club though. See the left-side banner on https://www.chicago-fire.com/ . Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:MLSteams

Template:MLSteams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MLSteams. Thank you. --D Monack 06:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Formatting the Honors section

I have reverted the formatting to the Honors section per the football club template. It had been changed 68.100.240.93. I am trying to set this page up as close to the WikiProject on Football as possible. Rballou 00:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism & roster

Todd Gava was added to the roster, almost certainly falsely, by a guy with a number of phony roster edits, Anas the Great. Just a heads up. Bill Oaf 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gutierrez's national affiliation

Guti was born in Colombia; should his flag be Colombian? --No, as he has been capped by the USA. --GoHawks4 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Municipal Flag

"The Municipal Flag is also favored for display by fans of the club; similar to the use of the flag of Catalonia for FC Barcelona." Unless I'm mistaken, no one considers the City of Chicago to be a seperate and distinct nation from the USA. Cdh1984 13:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense -- The implication wasn't that fans think that Chicago is a separate nation, it's that they use the city flag a lot which should be pretty obvious

Also, why were all the images removed from this entry and the Section 8 Chicago entry?? They were taken by fans who want them on the pages, so where's the violation?? —Krasny (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

History update and General Manager listing

added paragraph regarding the announcement of new manager Juan Carlos Osorio. Also updated status of Nate Jaqua being traded to Houston and removed vandalism regarding John Guppy's listing.jb 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The new coach to the coaching chain and added John Guppy as GM. With out a named GM, those duties belong to the president and CEO. Just because you may not like Guppy, doesn't mean the article should have such entries as "This team hasn't had a real GM since 2005"jb 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

2009 Roster Discussion

I say we wait to update this, there are some names that are not on the official Website as of 1/20/2010. like:
Krzysztof Król (on loan from Białystok) he sounds very interesting but there is no news on the fire website about him.

How about we wait until early March to update the roster, there was a section for Transfers in and out, lets just update that section and latter we can rollforward the official roster.

Also the link would need to be updated, it istill has the one from July 2009.

This is the official website roster Jan 2010--Ceezmad (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the update is properly sourced, we can add it the official roster. I looked at the links provided when Król was signed, and it seemed uncontroversial to me. Tribalfootball is reporting it here [1], and several Polish-language webites are reporting the same thing [2]. So long as the news is properly sourced, I don't see a problem. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

here is the future roster, it is a work in progress:

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
1	GK	USA	Jon Busch
2	DF	USA	C. J. Brown
3	FW	USA	Calen Carr
5	DF	USA	Tim Ward
7	MF	USA	Logan Pause
9	MF	BIH	Baggio Husidić
10	FW	USA	Brian McBride
11	MF	USA	John Thorrington
16	MF	GUA	Marco Pappa
18	MF	USA	Mike Banner
21	MF	USA	Justin Mapp
22	DF	COL	Wilman Conde

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
23	FW	BUL	Stefan Dimitrov
24	DF	USA	Daniel Woolard
29	MF	USA	Peter Lowry
32	DF	USA	Dasan Robinson
34	DF	USA	Austin Washington
40	GK	USA	Andrew Dykstra
—	MF	USA	Corben Bone
—	GK	USA	Sean Johnson
—	DF	USA	Steven Kinney
—	DF	POL	Krzysztof Król (on loan from Białystok)
—	DF	USA	Kwame Watson-Siriboe
—	MF	USA	Drew Yates

--Ceezmad (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about what I added, reverted back to the roster on the website, then we can add ins/outs. Then later on when we have an updated official roster we can update it. sounds good? --Ceezmad (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound good. It's absolutely fine the way it is. All the additions have been properly sources from legitimate third parties. There's nothing that needs changing. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, fine, now the problem that we have is that the link is wrong:

Current roster As of January 20, 2010.[3]
this takes you to the MLS website that still shows the old roster.
Please correct that link to a source were the currect roster being displayed on the page is shown. Thank you! sorry for the inconviniance.--Ceezmad (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps ESPN has a more current roster? by the way here is a good link for the krol kid http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/spieler/32591/krzysztof-krol/transferdaten.html --Ceezmad (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no link to the current roster because the MLS site hasn't update it yet. However, the roster shown here is correct because a) all the people who have left are no longer shown and b) all the people who have joined ARE shown. All these transfers were added with proper sources to reputable third party publications, and are completely uncontroversial. The link here [4] will show these changes once MLS gets around to updating it, so there's no need to change it to another link. Just leave it alone. It's fine as it is. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I will not touch it. I was just trying to follow the warning

 -- Do NOT add new players before their signing is officially announced by the club

And since the roster was not updated I figured they were not official, but then again you can't get more official than the draft. --Ceezmad (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Season

Someone needs to start working on creating the 2009 season page! I would have no problem taking the time to do it, but I have absolutely no knowledge on how to do so.JanderVK (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The season page has been created, can you now begin editing it? Morry32 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Bobblehead's got that covered :) But yeah, I'll work on whatever needs to be updated if I get to it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Don't have this page on my watchlist, so I wasn't aware of this discussion, but anywho. The season article I created is a very minimalist template for the 2009 season. Aside from the match results chances are that the article won't be maintained with team stats and news unless someone takes it upon themselves to get that information going, it won't be included in the article. For some examples of what a maintained article looks like, check out 2009 Kansas City Wizards season, 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, and 2009 Toronto FC season. The Fire article is quite a bit behind those other articles and could do with some serious updating if anyone wants to take it upon themselves to do that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How should the season format be, 2008-2009-2010 they are kind of different from each other.

2010 Contents [hide]

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Overview
         o 1.2 Foundation and Success
         o 1.3 Nomadic Existence
         o 1.4 Upheaval and New Home
         o 1.5 The Hauptman Era
   * 2 Club logo and colors
         o 2.1 Kit Manufacturers
         o 2.2 Shirt Sponsors
   * 3 Supporters
   * 4 Players and coaches
         o 4.1 Current roster
         o 4.2 Notable former players
         o 4.3 Head coaches
   * 5 Front Office
         o 5.1 Club Presidents
         o 5.2 General Managers
         o 5.3 Technical Directors
         o 5.4 Assistant Coaches
         o 5.5 Team Physicians
   * 6 Ring of Fire
   * 7 Honors
         o 7.1 Domestic
         o 7.2 International
   * 8 Year-by-Year
   * 9 Club records
         o 9.1 Team Awards
   * 10 Home stadiums
         o 10.1 Average attendance
   * 11 Club system
   * 12 Television and radio
   * 13 References
   * 14 External links

2009 Contents [hide]

   * 1 Squad
         o 1.1 First-team squad
         o 1.2 Transfers
               + 1.2.1 In
               + 1.2.2 Out
   * 2 Club
         o 2.1 Management
         o 2.2 Other information
   * 3 Competitions
         o 3.1 Overall
         o 3.2 Major League Soccer
               + 3.2.1 Standings
               + 3.2.2 Results summary
   * 4 Matches
         o 4.1 MLS regular season
         o 4.2 MLS playoffs
         o 4.3 SuperLiga 2009
         o 4.4 U.S. Open Cup
         o 4.5 Friendlies
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links

2008 Contents [hide]

   * 1 Current roster
   * 2 Changes for the 2008 MLS Season
         o 2.1 In
         o 2.2 Out
   * 3 Statistics
         o 3.1 Appearances and goals
   * 4 Competitions
         o 4.1 Overall
         o 4.2 Major League Soccer
   * 5 Standings
         o 5.1 Results summary
   * 6 Matches
         o 6.1 MLS regular season
         o 6.2 U.S. Open Cup
         o 6.3 Friendlies
   * 7 References

--Ceezmad (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

season pages format

What should be the format to use for the season pages?

This is what I will use for the 2007 season, Let me know if it there is an official format that I need to follow.

1. Intro

2. Review by month

3. Club/Squad/Transfers

4. Stats

5. Competition

6. Matches

7. Reference

8. Links
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceezmad (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

conference champs

Talk:New York Red Bulls#conference champions

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

Nlsanand (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Page name revisited

I changed the Chicago Fire's page title back to "Chicago Fire (soccer)" because "Chicago Fire SC" is not and has never been the team's official name. Any comparison to the English Premier League is an apples-and-oranges argument when discussing an American team. For example, the Minnesota Twins of Major League Baseball have "Baseball Club" in their logo, but the team is not called the "Minnesota Twins Baseball Club." The same argument can be made according to the San Diego Padres' former logo. Furthermore, "FC" is used officially by the Major League Soccer clubs based in Dallas, Seattle, Toronto, and Vancouver. Any form of "Soccer Club" or "SC" has never been used by the Fire and should not be considered at the same level of usage by the aforementioned teams.

JaMikePA (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Any form of "Soccer Club" or "SC" has never been used by the Fire"

As a great deal of information on this page, above, displays – that's simply not true. Everything from their official website, to their Facebook pages, to their press releases list their full name as Chicago Fire Soccer Club, used alongside Chicago Fire.

I am unsure if "SC" is the best solution, but "Chicago Fire (soccer)" also misrepresents how the club describes itself – they don't call themselves exactly that either. It would certainly be dumb to have the full name typed out. I'm also unsure why the decision was made now, when the bulk of the discussion happened a year ago and went unchanged for months.

Havari (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back because you are incorrect in your comparison. The team uses "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" on all of its media. When the team calls me to renew season tickets, they refer to themselves as Chicago Fire Soccer Club. This is the team name and it is used frequently. Furthermore, this has been discussed and determined. Please do not continue to move the page without using the discussion first if you want to bring up something new.Sixkick (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the page should be "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" not "Chicago Fire S.C." This is not the team's name.JaMikePA (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" either. The team is often referred to as "Chicago Fire", whereas the organization is often "Chicago Fire Soccer Club". It's going to end up being a circular argument like before, someone will come in saying if it's "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" then it should be standardized to SC, and then we'll be back to this again.

This is a problem we're going to continue to have (see the lengthy debate above) given the international protocols' conflict with American convention, compounded by the fact we can't just call it "Chicago Fire" given there is a historical event it shares its name with.

Havari (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If the actual common name of "Chicago Fire" can't be used because it's ambiguous, then we have to decide whether using a parenthetical disambiguator (the inclusion of "(soccer)" ) or the apparent, occasionally-used full name of "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" is better. Which ever we choose, let's stay far, far away from the never used "Chicago Fire S.C."; this isn't Europe, and the other MLS teams that use FC or such always use the letters. The made up use of S.C. is an original construct, and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. oknazevad (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Using the full name for the article title probably is the best choice. Sixkick (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So restored this discussion, which got lost in the shuffle of talk pages (once more). Firstly, I wanted to comment that this has all been very sloppily done, and I'm sure there's issues with proper edit history from this. Is there a admin around who can do a host merge for these pages?

Secondly, and more importantly, there's a clear consensus in this discussion not to use "SC" or "S.C." in the title, as it is unused outside of Wikipedia. Therefore, it's time for a formal request move. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE: I also now agree this article should be titled "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" as it is the club's official name. It can be verified at chicago-fire.com in a number of ways. It is in the browser's window bar title, it is apart of the title prominently at the top of every page on the site, it is featured in news article after news article published by the club, it is the full name given in copyright information, etc. Aside from the website, a trip to Toyota Park will show the full name integrated into signage found in the stadium. I know - I've been there and anyone else who has been can back me up.

However if someone insists on naming this article with a SC, S.C., etc., this person must present verifiable sources that state the club refers to itself in this manner. Otherwise using the name "Chicago Fire SC" will be considered original research (WP:ORIGINAL). Additionally there is precedence to the reasoning behind spelling the full name. Many MLS clubs use the FC moniker in their official name however they absolutely never spell this out as "Football Club." As Wikipedia editors, we respect this decision and stick to only what our sources can verify. This same logic applies to Chicago: the Fire never abbreviate "Soccer Club" and so we are not to assume its abbreviation is a legitimate name for this article. It doesn't matter if "S.C." is a real abbreviation for some other club or if "international protocols' conflict with American convention." If the Fire do not call themselves SC (like FC Dallas, etc. never call themselves "Football Club"), then it is not our place to condense the name. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if ... "international protocols' conflict with American convention." If the Fire do not call themselves SC ... then it is not our place to condense the name. "

Just to be clear, I agree with this. I was anticipating the inevitable rationale that has happened at least twice previously, in this same situation. Which is why we really need to nail it down for good, as this has been a circular discourse.

As an aside, would it really be ridiculous to discuss just "Chicago Fire"? The historical event does seem to be referred to as "The Great Chicago Fire" and it is listed under that name. The only other conflict was from a short-lived WFL team in the 70s. Both could be redirected through a disambiguation link at the top of the page. Something to consider, perhaps.

Havari (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. That would probably require a wider discussion, as it would require the disambiguation page currently at Chicago Fire to be moved. First, let's get this page to the agreed-upon "Chicago Fire Soccer Club", and then can deal with the COMMONNAME argument for "Chicago Fire". (I still wonder if the parenthetical, as the Wikipedia standard, is still the best solution.) oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If "Chicago Fire" is a disambiguated page, I see no reason why the soccer article should not move there with a clear heading at the top pointing to other uses of the term. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Change in roster format

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) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kit 2012

Under the general info box, someone needs to work on the new kit with the whole Quaker Oats thing. I would except I haven't the faintest idea how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr7ftw3665 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

US Internationals

All the players listed as 'other Americans' in the Overview section have more than one US national team cap, so what is the justification in not calling them internationals? Lordjim13 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a new section detailing all current (and possibly past) national teams AND how many caps they have for there nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebrotherhood (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you show examples of other club or team articles where this is done? I don't think that's the usual way of doing things on club and team articles. It is done on individual player articles though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Third kit 2014

Would anybody be interested in creating the 2014 third kit (high res.) for the infobox? Khvmty (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would create a third kit image, but we haven't seen what the shorts or socks look like yet. Also, the kit won't be worn until October of 2014. StickerMug (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Third Kit Details from CF97

Bringing Up the Page Name Again

I think that the name of the page should be changed to just Chicago Fire. In the case of the page itself, lets look at the other MLS teams. The Colorado Rapids at least at one time referred to themselves as the Colorado Rapids Soccer Club on their website, but the article has always been Colorado Rapids. New York City Football Club? New York City FC. Orlando still seems to have the full name written out, but not worrying about that right now. The team is referred to by MLS as the Chicago Fire. The club itself may be Chicago Fire Soccer Club, but the team is just the Chicago Fire (see: Red Bull New York vs. the New York Red Bulls). I think that WP:COMMONNAME comes into play here.

Though of course, there already is a page at Chicago Fire, but that could easily be changed to Chicago Fire (disambiguation). The first thing that the page refers to is the Great Chicago Fire. Pretty sure most people know it by the name, including the "great" part, and it could easily be put in a note at the top of this page. It then lists the Soccer Club, and includes indented references to Chicago Fire Premier, Chicago Fire NPSL and Chicago Fire Juniors... which one would be unlikely to confuse with the team itself and simply go to the Chicago Fire page. Note that the NPSL team doesn't even exist anymore. The American Football team played one season in a semi-major league and is unlikely to cause any confusion. The disambiguation page may be linked to. I have never heard anybody refer to the Fire Department as simply the Chicago Fire. The TV series is the only one that complicates this at all, but I would like to point out that typing "Chicago Fire" in the search box first yields the Soccer Club, Premier and the placeholder page before it right now, and leaving it in the note would not make it any more difficult to find than it is now. Googling "Chicago Fire soccer" without the quotes yields 84.5 million results. Googling "Chicago Fire nbc -soccer" without the quotes (the "-soccer" to eliminate results of the team or the games it plays on NBC/NBC Sports Network) yields just 20.7 million.

Not a major deal, but I do think it should be changed, as the article is about the team, not the club. Or else, the New York Red Bulls should be moved to Red Bull New York to maintain consistency. Jackson Scofield (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Common name is good, but the problem is that the historic fire is more notable and so adding Soccer Club is an easy disambiguation method. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not dispute the historic fire being more notable, but the "Great" part is almost always associated with it and there would not be a conflict as the current Chicago Fire page is a mere disambiguation. Jackson Scofield (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bastian Schweinsteiger

Please be aware of the confusion over the move of Bastian Schweinsteiger to Chicago from Man Utd - Talk:Bastian Schweinsteiger#Move to Chicago Fire. At the moment, the UK press (for example, the BBC and Sky Sports) are reporting the move as complete, subject to medical clearance and getting a valid work visa. He's also still currently on the ManUtd.com roster page (http://www.manutd.com/en/Players-And-Staff/First-Team/Bastian-Schweinsteiger.aspx).

While I have no doubt that he 'will' move, there is going to be confusion until the move is finalised, and I expect this, his own and the Man utd article will continue to be changed. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 22:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The correct link for the roster is http://www.manutd.com/en/Players-And-Staff/First-Team.aspx?pageNo=2 . The previous page is his team profile page. Splitting hairs, yes. Sorry for that.

As long as we have sources that support that he's on the Fire's roster, I think it's safe to list him here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to split hairs, you can also have this correct link http://www.manutd.com/en/Players-And-Staff/Players-And-Staff-Search-Results.aspx?search=Type+Keyword&teamid=first+team that puts him on page 1. ;) Darkson (I survived the 525!) 22:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I also have no doubt that Schweini will complete his move to the Fire but the fact of the matter is that he has not yet done so. While his move is being finalised, he is still technically a Manchester United player. By the start of next week, he should have obtained his work visa and he will then be presented as a Chicago Fire player. I agree with PeeJay that the Fire's website completely jumped the gun by prematurely listing him on their roster. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact is that you're editing against reliable sources. I don't care that you're PeeJay's meatpuppet I hope I'm the one to revert your biased edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from using pejorative terms such as 'meatpuppet' towards users acting in good faith. I can't believe people still don't understand how football transfers work in this day and age. It's not my fault the Fire got giddy and put him on their roster before the move was officially completed. I have been told to read the references when my revert got reverted. ALL THE REFERENCES say the deal is subject to a medical being passed and a visa being obtained so the move is not yet official regardless of what the sources are saying. And how is it that it says Schweinsteiger is still a Manchester United player on his own article? I am reverting the Schweinsteiger edits again and leaving a note so please wait until he has OFFICIALLY MOVED. Cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. There are two separate issues. The first is the announcement, which is clearly supported yet continues to be removed. No grounds for that action at all. The second is that the player is on the roster. I can see removing that alone, but a revert and adding a warning (which goes against WP:HIDDEN) is not appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I suppose the announcement of the move can stay and the roster addition can be removed until he has completed the move? I mean he is still a United player according to his own article and Man United's article. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we can agree on that, and the earlier sorry was for suggesting you were associated with PeeJay (that comment was borne out of the complete and total revert of all mention of Schweinsteiger rather than simply removing him from the roster). Now we just have to convince the other editors to keep it this way. And for the record, I don't think I should attempt to make any further edits to the article for a while to avoid the appearance of ownership or breaking 3RR. I suspect that many more fans will want to revert my last edit.

As a side comment, and I should probably make this on the Schweinsteiger talk page, if Man U still have Mr. Schweinsteiger on their employ when they play West Bromwich Albion in a little over a week, I highly doubt that he will even be suited-up. Unless something drastic happens between now and that date, they will not risk (or even be contractually prohibited from risking) him to loss due to injury. Not sure if they have any FA Cup play between now and then, but the same would apply. Both teams want the transition to be as smooth and rapid as possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem Walter. I should have just removed Schweinsteiger from the roster list instead of removing the total mention of the transfer so I apologise for that. I think the move is all but done but the medical and visa have to be sorted before FIFA ratifies it so that's all we're waiting on really. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Move completed: http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2017/Mar/bastian-schweinsteiger-completes-move-from-manchester-united-to-chicago-fire.aspx Darkson (I survived the 525!) 19:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Time for a block for Clubintermiamifan

First, he moved this article to a place it does not belong. Second, he did so without a discussion. Third, this is not the first time he's done similar. If the block is too much, let's start by moving the article back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chicago Fire SC Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CHI Logo-2021.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)