Jump to content

Talk:D.C. United/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New players

Please don't add potential players to the roster until after they are confirmed by management. Not only is it technically wrong but I feel like its bad Karma... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.215.175 (talk • contribs)

Rename

Would it be OK to rename this page to DC United, or D.C. United if necessary, instead of the current D. C. United? The name with the space seems inconsistent with, for example, Washington, DC. Wmahan. 07:54, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Definitely take the space out, but I'd leave the dots, as the official site seems to use them. sjorford 08:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. Done. Wmahan. 02:33, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Copa

Technically, wasn't DCU eliminated in the 3rd round of Copa Sudamericana? --ZoomZip 20:23, 26 September 2005 (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 06:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Year-by-year

I'm not sure why we changed the year-by-year table. I vote to revert back to the original. Here are some reasons:

  1. I like that the "season-by-season" table provides more information, but I'm afraid this is going to be too verbose as more seasons are added.
  2. Some competitions may not happen in the "season", so "year" might be the correct term
  3. The table is different than every other MLS team and different from teams in other leagues (EPL, for example). While there is not a football wikiproject template for this, I think there is a template for MLS teams. I think this template could be updated, but I think it should be discussed.
  4. Information on how the team has done in the US Open, for example, should be located on the page for the US Open in that year. I think some teams (mainly Kansas City Wizards) have too much information from competitions that should have their own page.

Anyway, I will keep the page the way it is right now, but I may revert if I'm not talked out of my opinions :) --Rballou 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the table in question. If you want to view it, it is still available in history. Please feel free to discuss this formatting here, I know a lot of work went into the table, it just doesn't fit with MLS team pages or football pages so I thought it best to remove it for now.

Adu flag/nationality

While updating the roster, I changed Adu's nationality indicator to "USA":

  • He's capped for the US nats. While this is still reversible (having dual nationality, he can still change his FIFA status before his 21st birthday if so desired), Adu has lately indicated that he will not reverse his status and will remain an American player in FIFA's eyes.
  • He's a citizen.
  • MLS considers him to not be an "international"/"foreign" player, and he doesn't count against the foreigner cap.
  • He lives and plays here. Bill Oaf 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
On second look, it seems that it was only a recent change by a quasi-vandal. Hey, quasi-vandal: stop playing politics with wikipedia. Bill Oaf 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable players?

Is Quintanilla really a notable player? Delmlsfan 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Taking him out now.--dm (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

someone needs to make a template for the dc united 68.98.139.9 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Salaries

Why add salaries? No other clubs nor leagues are doing this. Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.117.15 (talk • contribs)

Why not add salaries? it's useful information, it doesn't matter what other clubs have. --AW 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous poster... The information isn't particularly useful, and the precedent set by other clubs should be followed. Salary information, if it's really necessary, can be part of the players' pages. crynyd 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing back to the salaries. The standard of other MLS clubs should be followed.

Dates & dashes

En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Casal flag/nationality

Yinka Casal was born in London. He lived his life in London. His flag should be England not Nigeria even though he has dual citizenship. Changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.117.15 (talk • contribs)

Why not add both? --AW 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Since he does hold Dual Citizenship, its only fair to have both.Burdman 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Social Responsibility"

Well-sourced, to be sure, but to my eyes finally it's nothing more than PR puffery and not really suitable for the page, so I reverted it. JohnInDC 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I suggest then you check other football club wikis where their work in the community is cited. See Tottenham Hotspur, Vasco De Gama and River Plate for example.

It should be put in there because DC United's official motto is "To serve the community and win championships." That's from Day 1. Not PR. Disagree? Go ask Kevin Payne.

This aspect is part of what make DC United unique.

Well - first, "DC United is unique" and "all the other clubs do it" are mutually exclusive. Further, if the team's motto is determinative then the article should lead with the charitable activities, seeing as championships appear to be secondary goal. And, as much as I admire Kevin Payne, I wouldn't expect anything *but* the PR response from him, were I to ask him his views.
But finally that is all beside the point, which that the edit reads like an ad rather than as a recitation of what the club does. See WP:NOT#SOAP. If it's worth putting in, it's worth doing in a factual, un-self-congratulatory way. JohnInDC 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Year by Year

Should the Copa Sudamericana be added into the year by year table? DC United is the only MLS team to qualify for this tournament, however, its a good visual for the table. jb 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

example:

Year Reg. Season MLS Playoffs U.S. Open Cup CONCACAF
Champions' Cup 		CONEMBOL
Copa Sudamericana
1996 2nd, East Champions Champions Did not Enter Did not qualify
1997 1st, East* Champions Final Third Place Did not qualify
1998 1st, East Final Did not enter Champions Did not qualify
1999 1st, East* Champions Round of 16 Third Place Did not qualify
2000 4th, East Did not qualify Quarterfinals Fourth Place Did not qualify
2001 4th, East Did not qualify Semifinals Not Held Did not qualify
2002 5th, East Did not qualify Did not enter Round of 16 Did not qualify
2003 4th, East Quarterfinals Semifinals Did not qualify Did not qualify
2004 2nd, East Champions Round of 16 Did not qualify Did not qualify
2005 2nd, East Quarterfinals Quarterfinals Semifinals Round of 16
2006 1st, East* Semifinals Semifinals Did not qualify Did not qualify
2007 TBD TBD Round of 16 Third Place TBD

* Won MLS Supporters' Shield

In/out players bold

I'm going to unbold those guys, since above that it says "the players in bold have had national team appearances." --AW (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Player transfers - deletion

On the heels of his deletion of the 2007-2008 transfer information earlier today, User:Number 57 was kind enough to point me to the most recent discussion on WP:FOOTY concerning annual lists of in/out transfers on club pages. It's here. The consensus seemed to be, "annual transfers should be covered on the club's season-by-season pages"; but there was also some discussion of how, when a team lacked season-by-season pages (as does DC United), there was really no other place to put it but on the main club page. I found the "Changes for [this] season" section to be kind of useful here and think the page is weaker without it. Do others much care? If so then perhaps it's worth dusting off this dead horse over at WP:FOOTY and beating on it a bit more. If not, then I am sure I can muster the strength to carry on without the section. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Number 57 did offer in his comments to me that he read the consensus broadly and would continue to delete such lists where he found them. The two choices thus appear to be 1) achieve express refinement of the consensus or 2) as you suggest, create a new page. As for (2), I'm not sure whether such a page would get the attention it really would require inasmuch as only 2 MLS club pages even recorded the transfer information in the first place. My (wholly intuitive) sense is that the few people who care enough about recording such events are fans of just one or two clubs, and when a transfer takes place, head for those one or two pages to record it.

Who knows, though. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope others weigh in on it! (Thanks to you for doing so.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JohnInDC that a "Changes for [this] season" section is useful here and the page is weaker without it. Xsmith (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Shirts

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 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable Former Players Section

I was wondering if anyone was interested in organizing this section a little bit more? Possibly in order of first appearance, or organize by country.--The.Narko (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of using DC's list as a template for other MLS "former player" lists. This one is superb IMHO - it's much simpler when done by surname, without all the country sub-sections or unneccesary information. Less cluttered, less distracting to the eye, and if anyone wants more info on each player they can just click on their name.--JonBroxton (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

D.C. United Park

Why is there a section for D.C. United Park, since it is no longer the training ground for D.C. United? I think that the section should be added to the "History" section or the "Home Stadium" section, since it doesn't warrant a section by itself. --98.204.131.137 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Crest

I think someone should put the D.C. united crest with the 4 stars for MLS Cup wins, and add a history of the crest section like most other teams have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShadow7 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

2009 Season article

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) 01:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Average attendance in Year-by-year table

I've been doing a lot of work to the article, trying to get it up to the quality of some European teams. Please let me know if there are any issues with this. One question I do have is regarding the Average attendance section. Could it be combined into the Year-by-year table? I've done so temporarily, but how can we make this more presentable? I've only hidden the attendance section till I get a response. Additionally, if anyone has a source for the numbers, please let me know!--Patrick «» 21:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Copa Sudamericana

CONCACAF has decided not to renew is 2005 contract with CONMEBOL to send clubs to the Copa Sudamericana. D.C. United made it there twice, loosing in the first round each time. Since it doesn't appear we'll be adding any more info to it, is it worth keeping the column in the Year-by-year table for this? Mostly its full of "Did not qualify" and half of it is "Started in 2002".-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a very well written article and I can see much effort has been put into it to make sure it is meeting all GA criteria before nominating it. There are a couple of small problems to be fixed, but after they have I think it would be safe to pass this as a GA article. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Citation needed for
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    See below

Current Problems

  • In July 2006, D.C. United proposed building a new stadium along the Anacostia River as part of a redevelopment plan for Anacostia Park. However disputes with the Council of the District of Columbia over the proposal forced the team to consider other sites. - Please cite this to a reliable source. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk
  • The Screaming Eagles feature many singers, and also try to increase community support around D.C. United. - Any notable singers? Or just people that sing as a recreation? Please find a reference to these facts. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk

Summary

Lead

  • Is great, summarises and defines the club without going into the detail needed in a new section. I'd say perfect length as well. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk

History

  • Originally had a slight concern that ownership should be mentioned in the early history, but seems to be sufficiently covered later. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk

Colors and badge

Stadium

Supporters and rivalry

Ownership and marketing

Players

Head coaches

Statistics and records

Year by year

Achievements

References

  • Pretty good, if I was to be real nit picky I'd say reference 21 needs a retrieval date if someone can find it in the history. To be even more fine tooth, I'd say keep consistency with the dates for retrieval by having them either all numerical or alphabetical, not both. I think this would be something you'd look for in a FA nominee article though and the current references are all of Harvard format. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk

Hopefully you guys can fix this, I'll be putting the article on my watchlist and hope to pass it soon! JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Westy, thanks for taking the time to review the article, I really appreciate that. I've found references for the places you requested we add some, and tweaked the wording where necessary, such as with the Screaming Eagles. If there's anything else you think we need to do, please let me know. Hope to hear your thoughts soon!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Patrick for the quick response to my comments, I can't see any more problems with making this a Good Article. Good stuff! JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Good stuff! Thanks again for taking the time to look it over. And if you have any thought in the coming days, by all means share them-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

MLS Reserve Division

MLS Reserve Division has been repeatedly deleted from the page, isn't it considered a Domestic Honor as well?

I haven't been editing the entry it but if I had my druthers it would be left out. The Reserve Division is just - an invention, a convenience to the league, a way to keep bench players playing and sharp. They keep track of wins and losses because that's what they're used to. It's not like it *counts* for anything. To my mind, it's just Spring Training that runs concurrently with the season and listing DC United's Reserve Division "championships" just clutters up the main article. JohnInDC 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest take out SuperLiga. It's invitational friendlies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.88.90 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Team name

I've reverted the edit asserting that DC United was named in part because it the team is located in the capital of the "United" States. Obviously the "United" derives, first, from storied teams with that term in their names. But the suggestion that the team also chose "United" because Washington DC is the capital of the "United" States strikes me as pure inference, a supposition derived from the coincidental appearance of the same word in the traditional "United" name and in the name of this country. If this was a deliberate choice then it needs to be sourced, and by something more reliable than a fantasy league-affiliated web site that by all appearances has DC United material compiled by a single guy (link here). Indeed the site itself is pretty offhand about the claim ("Nickname: Located in the Capital, it seemed appropriate that the name would be United for the United States"), and altogether omits the far more obvious traditional soccer name derivation. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the fellow just made it up. JohnInDC (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted this edit, and reiterate my two concerns, namely, that this proposition is questionable at best and that the source cited is not a reliable one. We don't know who writes the site, who edits it (if it is edited at all), where they get their information, or what standards they have for publishing the facts they assert. And again, as I noted, this particular assertion on that web site is tossed off like some cute observation that occurred to the author as he was trying to figure out what to say about the team's name. I ask the editor who is making the changes to please address these issues here, with more than just contrary assertions, before reinserting the edit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point, but the same site, on the same page, shows Tom Soehn as the current DC United coach. JohnInDC (talk) 14:47, 25 June 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) 03:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

SuperLiga in table

Hey, I started a thread on Talk:Major League Soccer about the SuperLiga column in the Year-by-year table to see if there were comments about when to remove it, since I have to think its a matter of when and not if.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Task Force and stadium list

First off, all interested parties should see the new D.C. United task force setup as part of WikiProject Football. This will give us another means to organize updates here and at the variety of related articles including DCU seasons, tournaments, and notable players. Hopefully, this can be the spearhead of a push to FA quality, like other great world clubs, and Seattle. Second, I wanted to mention the list of stadiums that I removed today. I think it gave too much prominence to these one off occasions that DCU played at UVA and GMU, displaying them as if they were on the same level as RFK as the team's homefield. Also, the 2001 game in Richmond was against the Richmond Kickers, so it wasn't a home game anyways. Wikipedia's also suggests that prose be used when appropriate, and I think its fine for this sort of thing. I know JonBroxton added this table and similar ones to other MLS articles in January, but I wanted to see if other editors had an opinion on the list.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 04:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of "United" in name

It currently reads:

The team's name was chosen as a reflection of European team names such as Manchester United or Newcastle United. D.C. United however departs from the common British practice in which "United" typically refers refer to a club formed by the union of two existing constituent clubs.

Which isn't incorrect, I guess, and it's sourced, but Manchester United is a really, really, really odd example to use immediately preceding a sentence about "the common British practice". Considering that the most famous example of "United" in the world doesn't follow the "the common British practice" either, it seems best to drop the second sentence altogether. --67.243.10.208 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ok, since it says typically. It also demonstrates that DC United was not itself formed from multiple teams --AW (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, "typically" seems too vague to be verifiable. And since it's obvious that D.C. United isn't particularly special in that it is not a union of multiple clubs, I don't see why the second sentence needs to be there. --67.243.10.208 (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, the reference for that isn't actually about DCU, and I don't know of a one that might be. I looked for articles about the name from 1995, and didn't come up with a good one. MLS did that to a number of clubs, Houston Dynamo, Real Salt Late, where the names were from successful European teams. I would though like to note that the name doesn't indicate the same situations as any of the thirteen "United" franchises in England.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 2:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I've been seeing this claim on multiple MLS team pages (particularly when using "D.C. United" as a precedent for the later Euro-style name changes), but I'm not seeing sources that state that this was the actual reasoning behind the name. Given that the team's name is clearly NOT derived from the usual circumstance (joining of two previous teams), isn't it more likely that the name is derived from Washington, D.C.'s status as the capitol of the UNITED States? (I will grant that the particular name was probably chosen due to the English precedent, I just don't believe that it is accurate to say that it was derived from it.) 69.174.87.20 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this explanation from many DCU fans too. Makes sense to me; we just need sources to confirm it. JonBroxton (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"Derived from", "a reference to" - sort of seem like the same thing to me. It's pretty plain that DCU was trying to free ride a bit on the traditions of the established leagues, as did the later examples above. This notion about "United" referring to the "United" States comes up periodically and in addition to its tenuousness - the association is hardly obvious - is never sourced. JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at a variety of stories from 1995 when the teams were announced, and there isn't a good reasoning given for the name, or really any of the original names. Its just marketing, and MLS folks probably took both the European and patriotic connections in mind. So no, like John said, there is no source I've seen to say that the team name comes from one specific line of thought. Currently, the article says it "alludes" to other team names, and I'm fine with that.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:50, 10 August 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) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationalities of certain coaches & staff

An anon editor recently changed the flag icons of several coaches and staff. I was unable to find anything definitive on the subject in the original ref, and after checking a couple of the changes determined that at least one appeared to correct an error (see http://arlingtonsoccer.com/steve-olivarez/), and the others were at least plausible, so I left it alone. An editor has reverted the changes, citing to the original ref, but since I can't find anything pertinent in that ref, I've restored the IP edits as an apparent improvement. (Perhaps the best thing is to remove the nationalities of anyone for whom we don't have any source, I dunno.) Anyhow I throw this all open for discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nationalities for non-players should be avoided like the plague. They are difficult to source at the best of times, often imprecise (dual nationality, disputed territories, uncertainty over whether place of birth = nationality and so on), often controversial (two countries which historically do not get along, two countries with significant editor bases on wikipedia, etc), and in any case irrelevant to their profession (Fabio Capello is neither English nor Russian).

At least for players sources are more widely available, and there is the argument that they have represented or might one day represent their country. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to disagree with any of that - would anyone object to peeling them out of the article then? JohnInDC (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No one seemed put out by the notion of removing the flag icons from the management / staff table and so I did that - I did all of them because, even though some nationalities are sourced or can be determined (particularly when the subject has a separate Wikipedia entry), many of them are really tricky and making the table consistent with itself - rather than a hodgepodge of some with flags, some without - seemed the better approach. I don't feel that strongly on the issue of consistentcy but I do feel strongly about leaving out the nationality where it can't be clearly and plainly sourced. JohnInDC (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Runner-up as an "honor"

There have been a couple of back-and-forth edits to remove and restore one instance of a DCU 2d place finish from the list of DCU "Honors". It has been suggested that second place is not really an "Honor" and does not belong in the list. I'm agnostic on the issue generally (one could also say that just playing in the championship round is an "honor" even if you don't win), but whichever way that goes, consistency is desirable. Several other runner-up finishes in the table have been left untouched. Either they should all be in, or none. I open the table for additional thoughts! JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the same way. I can't recall what the other teams I watch do for this sort of thing, but I'd look at the Nationals, Wizards, Redskins and Capitals to see what they do. You could also look at a few European football team articles to see if they mention second place finishes. Of course, other MLS team articles would also offer some insight. I'm sure you'll make a good choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Team nicknames

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Club_nicknames. JohnInDC (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on D.C. United. 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 13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D.C. United. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D.C. United. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

D.C. United Academy

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.C. United Academy (2nd nomination). CUA 27 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

DC United founding

The article has long set forth 1995 as the year in which DC United was founded. An editor has changed it (without a source) to a particular date in 1994. This is implausible because 1) the league itself was not formally founded until 1995 or even later, see Major League Soccer and the source cited there; elsewhere MLS says that it wasn't founded until 1996, see this source. A 1994 "founding" for a team in league that didn't exist until the next year is implausible at best, and I've restored the original 1995. JohnInDC (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also important to bear in mind that, under MLS's single entity structure, the different clubs aren't separate entities but rather individually-owned franchises in various cities in the US and Canada. "DC United" could not come into being before MLS because "DC United" is, ultimately, just a division of MLS itself. JohnInDC (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bluhaze777: wrote: "Based on discovering a timeline archive of the first 13 seasons of the league, it is stated that Washington D.C. was awarded an MLS team on June 15, 1994". Teams can be founded before the league starts play. It is, in fact, necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a useful discussion on this point at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive67#Founded_dates_in_the_team_infobox_again. The awarding of a franchise by a league that doesn't yet exist - "Yes when we get our act together there will be a team in DC" - is pretty thin as a "founding date", particularly when there is no such thing as a separately organized and incorporated entity, "DC United". JohnInDC (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's also premature to revise the "founded" date on the strength of an unidentified timeline when various other reliable sources put the date in 1995, or in some cases even 1996 (the year of the inaugural season): DC United interview, 1995; Washington Business Journal, 1995 or 1996; Washington Post, 1996; Washington Post, 1996. JohnInDC (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's also WP:OR to state that the league did not exist until 1995. The date you're referencing is when the first games were played. The league existed as a legal entity well before the first games were played in 1995. I think you should self-revert as we discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
With that said, MLS indicates it was formed in 1996: http://pressbox.mlssoccer.com/content/about-major-league-soccer . Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OR? I offered explicit reliable sources, one of which you also apparently found. I also offered several reliable sources re the club itself. In 1994 the league - such as it was - announced seven cities in which franchises (that is to say, unincorporated subdivisions of the eventual single-entity operation) would be located. As of 1994, the teams had no names, logos, players, coaches, colors, stadia or - most importantly - investors. They were at that point little more than an idea. A promise. It may be fair to say that DC United was "conceived" in June 1994, but "founded" - no. JohnInDC (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. The new content from the league makes it clear when the first games were played. However, the earlier documentation is more clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Everyone here is wrong. You guys are ignoring every single valid fact that I had. I don't appreciate the difficulty everyone here has been giving me. MLS first season was in 1996 but the founding date was in December 17, 1993 which is on the wiki page in MLS. DC United's history even states that the city was awarded for a team in 1994 along with 6 other teams. Why are you guys still disagreeing??? What evidence do you guys have? None of you have your facts straight. That's why I'm done with Wikipedia. I just wanted to contribute to help articles reflect on the advancement of the league keeping it on pace with it. Never I imagined I would even at times be stressed out because of people who are better off and fortunate don't see me in person because of how much anger they have been giving me in these last few years. You guys are not helping soccer in the US, you all are only making it a joke as many others and that is why it won't change because if people like you all who only think they're right on everything. And JohninDC I don't think you have valid information and I live in MD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs)

@Walter Görlitz:, since you believe I'm edit warring, would you please weigh the three sources that expressly say that DC United was "founded" in 1995 or 1996, against another source that says that says nothing about "founding" but rather only indicates that the nascent MLS indicated that a team (as yet unnamed and unfunded) would be located in Washington, DC? JohnInDC (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
And @Bluhaze777: - setting aside the WP:synthesis of insisting that a source that doesn't mention "founding" does, in fact, establish it, if you are going to make a series of edits to articles to change longstanding content based on newly rediscovered archive material that contradicts existing sources, it's a good idea to link to your source and include it with your edit rather than withhold it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I've asked for additional views at WP:Footy. JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Here BTW is a discussion from Talk:MLS that delves into the question of what date(s) are appropriate for a team's "founding". It's a little hard without the full context to figure out what the discussion was about, or precisely what positions the participants were staking out, but @Walter Görlitz:, there you made an interesting distinction between "franchise date" and "founding" - in this edit too. I agree with you that they are not the same, and admit to being kind of taken by your suggestion that the infobox parameter be revised to reflect "franchise date" to remove ambiguity about what's actually being reported there. As you point out, using one to mean the other is just wrong. In this instance anyhow that would be fine with me and a sensible compromise. Again it's a little hard to discern what the parties' positions were in that prior discussion, but I did find it enlightening as applied to this conversation, where we seem to be conflating the terms. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Also for what it's worth, in the discussion above I observed that, because MLS has a unique single-entity structure (that is, the league owns all the teams, which are managed by investors), it didn't make sense to say that DC United had been "founded" before MLS had been formed as a legal entity in 1995. The whole "single entity" thing was the subject of another extended discussion, here. I don't recommend really that anyone go and read it, but the discussion does provide several useful links to MLS and other sources that describe the "single entity" framework, and I offer it up to head off any suggestion that I'm just making it all up! JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
As for "ignoring every single valid fact that [@Bluhaze777:] had", at the point where the edit war commenced, you had a vague comment that there was a source, but none was provided. Now that it has been provided, I think you're in a better position to support the idea. I'm sorry that you're stressed-out. I simply noted on your talk page, and on JohnInDC's, that you were engaged in an edit war. My goal is not to make soccer in the U.S. better (or worse), my goal is to make Wikipedia a better place.
JohnInDC, you were edit warring, and you didn't provide any references in your edits at the time that I warned you. The talk here is good, but as you can see, MLS's publicity department has been busy rewriting history. Just as the Whitecaps were founded before they first played, the league did the same. When did D.C. announce it had a team? When did D.C. hire its business manager? When did D.C. hire its coach (manager)? When did D.C. announce its first player? They were all before 1996, so the team existed before 1996. Now that sources have been provided, do you agree or disagree with them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Several hours before you templated me at 8:31 this morning (EST), I had edited this Talk page 6 times and had provided 6 different sources, four for the founding of DC United in 1995 or 1996, and two relating to the founding of MLS. See these diffs and time stamps. In short, I had reverted an unsourced edit twice (restoring a 1995 "founding"), and in connection with the second revert, opened this Talk page discussion and provided several reliable sources to support my position. Then I stopped editing the article. That's by no stretch an "edit war" and you had no business accusing me of it - particularly with a template message.
I am loathe to hash this out at the Talk page here, but you twice removed my efforts to discuss it a little more privately at your Talk page, and directed me to discuss all these matters in this one place. So if you're going to raise it again, I'm going to defend myself.
Now. There are currently no sources, zero, stating that DC United was "founded" in 1994. There is a source saying that it was identified as a franchise location in 1994. (The same announcement included a New York team on Long Island, making it hard to claim that this PR event represented an event as concrete as the actual foundation of seven teams.) In contrast, again as I noted above, I've provided three reliable sources, plus one maybe less so, that expressly provide "founding" dates in 1995 or 1996, to wit:
DC United interview, 1995 (marginally reliable);
Washington Business Journal, 1995 or 1996;
Washington Post, 1996; and
Washington Post, 1996.
You seem to have the impression that I'm pressing 1996 as the founding date. To be clear, the longstanding material that I restored placed the team's founding in 1995, not 1996. I agree with you that many events took place during 1995 that look like a team might actually be in place and sensibly described as "founded" (including the formal, legal founding of MLS itself, of which the teams are but a component part), and I hope it is now clear to you that I believe, apparently as you do as well, that 1995 is an appropriate date. Indeed the very source that notes the franchise announcement, here, states that Tab Ramos was the first player signed by the league, in January 1995 (meaning that any DC United player would of course have been signed later); and that in October 1995, MLS announced the team uniforms, colors and logos. The Bruce Arena article says that he joined the team on January 3, 1996, but that's not sourced and I haven't been able to verify it yet. Wikipedia is of course not an RS but I don't know of any reason to doubt this bit of information. (Later edit: The timeline says that Ron Newman was the first coach hired, in October 1995, with the others coming in the following 3 months. So DC didn't have a coach either before October 1995.) So to sum up again - the only support for 1994 doesn't mention "founding" and announces a decision that was plainly not cast in stone. Several reliable sources place the "founding" date in 1995 or 1996, and contemporaneous events suggest that 1995 may be the better of those two. Please comment. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, this too. I know that Kevin Payne's LinkedIn page is not an RS, but FWIW it says that his tenure as "Founder, President, CEO" of DC United dates to 1995 (not 1994). JohnInDC (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Talking does not mean you can enter or continue an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I've said my piece on the edit war issue. The histories speak for themselves. I'd appreciate your observations on the substance. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I go with the sources. The source with the earliest date indicates "June 15, 1994: MLS selects its first seven teams to compete in the league. The teams announced are Boston, Columbus, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New York (Long Island), San Jose and Washington, D.C." Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That source (singular) says nothing about either "DC United" or "founding". It says, at most, that at the unknown future date when MLS begins operations, there will be a team in DC. That source doesn't support the edit. I have provided several edits that talk about the organization, "DC United", and its "founding", and which place the date in 1995 (as the article said originally), or 1996. Help me understand why you find the single source persuasive, and why if "franchise" isn't "founding", in this case it is. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Vancouver did not have a team name when they were granted a franchise. The team had to fight with the league to use its name. The date the franchise was awarded is not the question though. Help me understand why you, with competing sources for a founding date, don't like franchise? Old consensus discussions can change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. According to this single source, in June 1994 the organizers of MLS identified several cities that would be awarded teams (that is of course, once MLS began a playing schedule). That is all that this one-sentence timeline reports. The announcement did not name or identify any particular team or teams, but rather just listed several cities where MLS soccer would one day be played. The league (and because of the single entity structure, therefore no team) had no players, coaches, management, venues, names, logos, uniforms or colors - all of which came in 1995. Indeed as of June 1994 (again as best we can tell, see above as well as Talk:Major_League_Soccer#Founding_date_of_MLS), MLS did not have an actual legal existence - meaning, again, thanks to the single entity structure, no team had a legal existence. It's not even clear when MLS finally decided that it had sufficient investment interest in order to go forward at all. (Judging by that same timeline, that might not have happened until early 1995.) There is nothing in that single 1994 timeline statement about "DC United" or its "founding", or for that matter anything to indicate that "DC United" existed in any form at all at that point. That is purely inference, and a tough one to maintain given that, as of June 1994, we know that DCU had no players, coach, uniforms, logos or any of the other things you need for a team. They hadn't taken the first step toward any of that. It is almost too much to call it an "award of a franchise" because there was nothing to receive the award, but even if you do, it's too much to say that the award of the franchise to - well, what was at best the concept of a team - constitutes its "founding", particularly given that at least one team described in the announcement never came into existence at all. If that team was "founded" on this day too, when did it cease operations? In short, "founding" needs to reflect some real-world material event. This announcement is not that. Later in 1995 we have lots of real-world events - investors writing checks, players signing contracts, uniforms sewn, and so forth (not to mention at least one RS that indicates that the team received its main investor that year). In a different case - where for example you had an entity that had been formed to lobby a league (not a single entity) for a franchise, and after 18 months they finally won it - well, there the founding could be long before the "franchise". But no source indicates that's what happened here and we have plenty to say that nothing meaningful and concrete happened in MLS until 1995. That's why I reject the June 1994 date as a "founding". It wasn't that. Thanks again for responding. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
C&P from Football Talk Page; The US sporting franchise system has different concept of "founding" versus the generally more spontaneous English football sense. For instance AFC Wimbledon has a very specific founding date long before any actual paperwork was signed, ground found, players acquired etc. In the end, you go by the reliable source - i.e. the club itself, or other third party. If the MLS celebrated a 20 year anniversary in 2016 then obviously the "founding" answer is in 1996 for MLS. If DC United celebrated their 20 year anniversary in 2015 a year earlier, then that's their choice also. For instance this source gives both dates. Koncorde (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for fishing that one up. I'd stumbled across it but had forgotten to link it. In addition to the on-point headline, "D.C. United officially unveiled 20 years ago this week" it marks October 1995 as the date at which the name "DC United" was unveiled. This points much more clearly a "founding" than the oblique 1994 note in the timeline. JohnInDC (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, based on the sources we've got, I'm inclined to change the highly specific, and not actually sourced, June 15, 1994, "founding" date back to 1995, for which there are sources (as well as the first concrete DC United-specific developments.) JohnInDC (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I see no reason why this article should differ from the actual wikipedia entry on DC United history that makes it quite clear a difference between "awarding" a Franchise to Washington in 1994, and "founding" a team called DC United in 1995. Koncorde (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I guess if you drill down, the real issue is that the infobox has a "Founded" parameter that's been edited to reflect the 1994 date which, for these many reasons, isn't right. (BTW feel free to edit the decades in your last response!) If the infobox caption could be changed, that'd be just as good, though I guess, all of a sudden non-standard. JohnInDC (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ha, you should have seen me crafting my original reply - I could have swore DC United would have had their 30 year anniversary. *facepalm*. Yes, "founded" is an oblique term, with a vague reference to the idea of a "foundation stone" when constructing a grand public building. However it barely refers to modern sporting organisations. Koncorde (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Well - should we take the "founding" date out of the infobox altogether? I'm just - uncomfortable with such a specific statement when the cited (& only) source is so, erm, thin on the thing it's being cited for. JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If we don't have a specific founding date, then we don't really need the parameter. If the original clubs eventually supply a date, we can add it back in. Thanks to JohnInDC for the good sourcing and the calm discusison. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"General manager" history table

Bluhaze777 added a table showing all of DC United's General Managers since the team's founding in 1996. In my view a summary table is unnecessary in that DCU has only had two GMs during that entire time; plus the table is cluttery and unattractive. I removed it with an edit summary stating the former; Bluhaze just now restored it along with the assertion that only a single editor "had issues" with it. Let's discuss it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

then be bold and remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I did, sorry, I thought I'd said that. It's out now and I think we're better off for it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I read the first two sentences. Yes., I missed it, and at least that explains why I couldn't see it in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

This page has comments stretching back 13 years to 2004. A lot of those discussions ("Freddy Adu's nationality") are pretty stale, and the page is starting to get a bit long. I propose to automate an archive to put away stuff that's more than, oh, 6 months old. Any objections or comments? JohnInDC (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It should archive now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, good, thanks - saved me the trouble of figuring out how to do that! JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That, of course, assumes it will work. Wait until UTC midnight, which is when the bot usually kicks-in. A little over three hours from now. If it doesn't work, it should explain how I erred. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
How was that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That seemed to work well, and thanks for adding the header. JohnInDC (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of them didn't get picked up so I just moved them over and put them in the right place. I suspect it'll go fine from here on. JohnInDC (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on D.C. United. 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) 05:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D.C. United. 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) 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

DC United is / DC United are

In US English, whether a sports team is treated as a singular or plural noun depends on its nominal per its nickname - so, "Tigers", plural; "United", singular. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals. Evidently DC United employs the plural formulation on its website (though largely it seems to avoid the issue by using other constructions); but commonplace media usage is consistently singular. See, Washington Post; Washington Times; WAMU; AP; Reuters. I think the singular is appropriate here, but my restoration of that form was quickly reverted, so I am opening up the issue for discussion and consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a pairing from the Seattle Sounders official website that illustrates the MOS rule nicely. In the first, the article refers to "Seattle Sounders FC", and uses the singular. Link. In the second - written a day later - the article refers to "Seattle Sounders", and uses the plural. Link. Same website, same team, different verb number. JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
New York Times routinely uses the singular in discussing NYCFC - here and here; plural for the Red Bulls here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm with John on this one. United is.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Usually, sports teams in the United States are handled with the plural "are." The exception is soccer which is usually handled with the singular "is." There are of course exceptions to both of these, but we handle it case by case, not as a blanket as a recent editor seems to think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): You could have explained this more clearly in your edit summary here, which was not very clear, and here instead of referring to some "AP STYLE Guide", which is inaccessible if it is not bought. I am well aware about the NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB using plural for teams (the first three leagues being my main editing interest), and since MLS is also based in U.S. and Canada, I thought the same applies here. However, since soccer is somewhere at the bottom of my interest (sounds strange for someone who is from Europe) I could not care less about the singular vs. plural situation. I have the right to be bold and if I get reverted then I sometimes leave it to others to deal with the situation (I either have no interest in the subject or something has been clarified). – Sabbatino (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: A couple things here. First, I apologize if I wasn't clear enough in my summaries. Second, yes you can certainly be bold here, but that usually applies once. If you are reverted you should not be bold again. I was not the first person to revert you but you added it again in at least two articles (maybe more) and I noticed it and reverted you and answered on the talk page here. Third, it's one thing to be bold on an article, and it's quite another to be bold on 21 articles in a row as you did on August 7. That was a blanket change which I noted here. Soccer is way down on my list too as I mainly deal with tennis related articles. I did a couple reverts to something I thought was wrong, posted here on the talk page, and then I was going to move along back to tennis. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. American English (and Canadian, too) as a whole, in contrast to British usage, typically uses singular verbs for collective nouns, treating the group as a single unit. So "the team is" instead of "the team are". However, the typical convention for North American sports teams is to have a two-part name, with the city or other geographic designator (or school name) followed by a nickname; the definite article is also usually used when the nickname is used. Most nicknames are plural nouns, though singular ones are not unheard of. This creates a grammatical inconsistency in American English, as the choice of singular or plural verb will vary with the sense of the sentence. This is because a construction such as "New York Giants is" sounds awkward and ungrammatical. The proper construction is "The New York Giants are", even though American English normally uses singular verbs for groups. If just he nickname is used, the plural also applies. However, if just the city/state/school/whatever is used, it defaults to the typical American use of the singular, so "New York is playing Philadelphia today", in contrast to British usage of "Liverpool are playing Chelsea today".

Now, for MLS teams, it gets a bit more complicated, as many of them don't follow the classic North American naming convention, and many have the typical-for-soccer "FC" or "SC" suffix, which throws off the sound-sense of the sentence by making the nickname not necessarily the last part of the full name, so it no longer seems plural. Conversely, there are some who, having been exposed to British usage through watching English soccer, default to plural verbs when the full name is used even though terms like "club" get singular verbs in American English. It is something where consistency becomes more difficult to ascertain; the example of the Sounders mentioned above is a good one to show how the exact construction can vary even for the same team, and that a blanket usage is not applicable. oknazevad (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. On the heels of this discussion, and the Sounders example, I've been reviewing local media coverage of several of the teams, and have concluded that, in the main, they follow the nominal number of the team nickname. I'm going through the bulk edits and restoring common American & Canadian usage, according to that rule. (If I can quickly find a local report that shows it one way or the other, I will go with that; but it's laborious, and I only have so much time to spend to spend on research in repairing a series of edits that, on the whole, seem to be unsupported.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I've cleaned up the entire list now. I left a couple of plurals in place, given local reporting. Interestingly - and for future reference - the LA Times uses the singular for LAFC and the plural for Galaxy. This parallels the practice of the New York Times and Seattle Sounders (noted above), and gives further weight to the observation that North American English tracks the apparent number of the team + nickname, rather than hew to one form or the other exclusively. JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 8 August 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Add all the jersey image of team.

All the jersey of team can be added as It will give a good look with the images in the content. The page seems to have low number of images. (suggestion) Lucaschuaa (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The jersey evaluation of DC united can be added and place the series of jersey images from the day 1 of team until today. Lucaschuaa (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources for them all? Is there an encyclopedic reason to add them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of 'American'

Scans in an odd way that DC is the only American team to win the Copa Americana. Couple of cases in the text for use of the actual name of the country - USA - if only to avoid annoying Uruguyans. 139.5.123.134 (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D.C._United/Archive_1&oldid=1241308832"