Jump to content

Talk:LA Galaxy/Archive 1

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LA Galaxy. 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 14:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LA Galaxy. 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}}).

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) 22:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LA Galaxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LA Galaxy. 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) 08:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Gals"

RM'd from the nickname section, but I'm putting it back. I put it there in the first place, 'cause people really do use it. At the BigSoccer LA forum alone, there's 174 uses ([1]) - it's not just a derogatory nickname given to them by other teams. It's more common than "The Sash" - no? Bill Oaf 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New Logo?

Anyone else catch wind that the Galaxy might be changing their logo for the upcoming season? I guess there was an article in USA Today...uh Today. Pharos04 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I read that in either the LA Times or on ESPN Soccernet on the day of the contract announcement. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Beckham

I fixed the section regarding Beckham's contract. The $250 million is a misnomer, that's including his outside endorsements and a profitsharing agreement. SirFozzie 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/soccer/01/11/bc.soccer.beckham.contract/

$50m for Beckham.

Try closer to $250m.

How on Earth can a figure have a misnomer? Dictionaries aside for a moment, this is correct, the $250m figure currently circulating represents more than just basic salary. The $50m constitutes about £100,000/week which is arguably much more than any European club would pay an ex-international well past his prime. --JamesTheNumberless 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this breakdown the BBC [2], Beckham's club derived income (merchandising, salary, profit share) is estimated at $30 mill pa. I can't believe for a second that he would throw his life away like this if his annual club income was only $10 mill- that is probably slightly less than what he gets now at Madrid. $30 mill sounds distinctly more plausible. Badgerpatrol 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Still, his salary is only $10 million a year. and coming to the US is not "Throwing his life away" (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For modern major sports contracts, the actual salary is often not even the largest single component of the deal. The contract will include definitely include payment clauses for merchandising, and it seems for a profit-share agreement also. And yes, I misphrased that- meant to say "throwing his career away", not throwing his life away....same difference really. In any event, $10 "mill pa is similar or slihgtly less than he would have got for staying at Madrid or moving elsewhere in Europe- I doubt he would move to the US on that basis, even if he has basically now given up the football side of his career. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For Footy, maybe (and again, MLS isn't as bad as you insinuate), and again, when reporting on hard #'s, that's all we can go by, what's guaranteed (for example, it's going to be hard for him to earn the 10 million a year for profitsharing with the Galaxy, as they were one of the few teams to report a profit from ANY season recently. See List of largest sports contracts‎, that is all hard salary only, no shirt sales (Most US players get their share through their Players Asociation), and not endorsements. SirFozzie 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that most of the quoted figures are probably bs- but they are the quoted figures- verifiability, not "truth". The bottom line is- he must be getting paid a fortune, otherwise he wouldn't go. The strength of American football is growing and one day they will be a major force- but without meaning to offend anyone, few of the players on the LAG teamsheet would survive in even the second tier of English, Italian or Spanish football, and a couple have tried already and failed. With the best will in the world, there is a long way from Madrid V Barca in the Bernabeu to Los Angeles v Chivas FC in the HondaSuperClassico.... I think this is basically Beckham signallling the end of his football career and the intensification of his media activities. Basically, it seems to be me to be a blunder from both sides- is Beckham the sort of player who will excite Americans who are not already football fans? I doubt it- they seem to think they are getting a young Ryan Giggs; they're actually getting an old David Beckham. His career as a footballer is effectively over. Badgerpatrol 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of new to soccer so please don't make fun of this question. I was just wondering if the New England Rev. would play regular games against Galaxy? Not including championships and such. Thank you.

As a Revs fan, I can tell you they would play the Galaxy 2x a year, once at Gilette, once at the Galaxy's home (the Home Depot Center) SirFozzie 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph before Contents box refers to Pele, George Best and Kris Akabusi (!!!!). He wasn't a footballer he was an Olympic hurdler! Check his own article for evidence.88.110.253.198 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) miles3659 13 Jan 2007

AEG should have invested this money in the LA Kings not in a sport that most Americans yawn about. What a waste of good money. Meh!!!!Orangemarlin 01:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Slight confusion...

Sorry, don't know much about LAG or MLS but that opening has confused me a bit... How can it be two separate teams? Why isn't this mentioned further on in the article? Any care to clear up the confusion? Tbone762 10:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I cleaned up that opening paragraph a bit. The idea was to state that there are two soccer clubs in LA and the Galaxy is one of them (the other being Chivas USA), but I can see how that sentence could be misread. I've changed it just to focus on the Galaxy. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Woops! I understand what you mean now! <looking sheepish> Tbone762 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Supporters

Drew Carrey is a known Galaxy supporter, but the other three? Any evidence or references that they have yet to be at a game or support the club in any way? Perhaps they should be removed and then replaced once the paparatzi have photographic evidence of them actually attending a match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.50.128 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).75.22.50.128 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even have this section? What's the point? It's been removed from most other football club articles (for example, see Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 1#Famous Arsenal fans). I propose that we toss this whole section. howcheng {chat} 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't have this section. In fact, back in the day I used to remove this section all the time. Rballou 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Soccer History

While this table is certainly informative, it doesn't apply to the LA Galaxy entirely. I think it could be best served as a new article, and removed from this page. Che84 04:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be in an article called los angeles soccer history. It takes up half of this page. Good idea though. (68.199.35.102 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

New Colors and Jersey

Anybody hear anything about a new color scheme and jersey design for LA? I thought I remember Lalas talking about possibly having blue as the team's color and redesigning the jerseys and logo. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Thanks. --Crosscountrycpjon 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ha. Just saw the earlier discussion about the new colors and jersey. But does anybody have a reference for this? It might be worth including in the article.

Removed Beckham from Squad List

As is the norm on pages where a players contract is expiring, I have removed Beckham from the listing until he is officially announced as a Galaxy member. This is a LONG accepted wikipedia policy. Additionally, there are ZERO sources as of now that say that Beckham will be formally assigned jersey #23.Batman2005 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

LA Galaxy and Becks

Half of the article is about David Beckham, even talking about how Capello dismissed Becks' wish to play and such? How is this at all relevant to LA Galaxy, and is this club called Beckham Galaxy or LA Galaxy. This article will look so stupid as it stands now in 10 years time, where David will be worth a mention, but not constituting HALF of the article. A Galaxy fan, or somebody knowledgeable should work out this article immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuncay Tekle (talk • contribs) 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Totally agree with you, so I cut most of that out. howcheng {chat} 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone wrote about his new ad campaign. I'll move it to his article.(68.199.35.102 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

New Colours and Crest

I've just seen an article purporting to show the new colours and crest of LA Galaxy. Obviously, the kits should be left alone, as the new kit will be unveiled on Friday. http://www.footballshirtculture.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=457&Itemid=26 User:Mpbx3003 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) It's official. The new kits have been released at shopadidas.com User:Mpbx3003 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not official. It will be official on the 13th during the scheduled news conference unveiling Beckham, his number and the new kits/logos. The page needs to remain current, not what may possibly happen in the future. Batman2005 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, you were completely and totally wrong in your edit summary, the new away kit on shopadidas clearly says that it's "Collegiate Navy," not black. Anything else you'd care to just make up and pass along as you knowing more than anyone else??? Batman2005 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then change it already! How the hell can it become anymore official than their own website?

Perhaps you didn't read the posts. It's not official until it's posted on the Galaxy website. It has not been posted there, ergo...it's not official. Also, sign your posts. Batman2005 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoever normally creates the jersey renderings on the soccer team sites should go ahead and use this template for their rendering, it isn't "official" but this is most definitely the design of the kits. http://www.sitv.com/blogs/whatshot/wp-content/uploads/la-galaxy-07-08.png Squadoosh 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Beckham squad number

Anybody got info about what roster number Becks will wear?? Hjorten 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard or read somewhere he'll be keeping the 23 shirt.

There are no sources on way or the other, the repeated adding of the false/unsourced information is vandalism. Batman2005 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
it is obvious that becks is going to wear #23...here's the image...http://la.galaxy.mlsnet.com/images/2007/07/11/YicAaC5D.jpg
There were images of Reggie Bush wearing a #5 Saints Jersey, and NFL.com sold hundreds of #5 Saints Jerseys with "BUSH" on the back. He wears 25. Batman2005 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Should we add a protection for a bit, preventing edits by well meaning Galaxy fans, who take the kit and badge changes as vandalism?

No, because it is vandalism until they are officially unveiled on the 13th of this month. As of RIGHT NOW the Galaxy wear a gold and green jersey with the corresponding badge. They do not wear the kit which is shown on shopadidas.com. They might in the future, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be treated as such. Wikipedia doesn't print information which may be true in several days time, it prints information which is current. When the new information is unveiled on the 13th of this month, then the changes can be made. Until then it's the posting of speculative information and original research, both of which are against wikipedia policy. There is a section for information about the new kit and new badge in the article, which is the appropriate place for this until an official announcement is made. "shopadidas" is not the official source for information on the Galaxy. Batman2005 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

check the website though, they've changed their crest and colors officially as of the 11th

That's correct, as of about an hour ago. You'll notice that now that it's posted on the page, I have no problem with its inclusion. Batman2005 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the highest resolution logo I could find, I uploaded it. From the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-07/31112658.jpg Squadoosh 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All the new Beckham stuff

Is it really necessary to have this much detail about Beckham's arrival on the team? I mean, clearly it's an important event in terms of Galaxy's and MLS's history, but virtually the entire "history" part is given up to Beckham's 16 mins playing time. We don't have that level of detail on the preceding DECADE! Perhaps it would be better to create a new article along the lines of "Beckham at Galaxy", and move it there rather than have it all cluttering up the main page. --JonBroxton 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much about Beckham to say it's about the club, not just Beckham. He has only played 16 minutes give or take, so i agree there is too much about him. I'm willing to help sort this out if a concencus says we should change it. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with trimming it down. He's not the only player on the team. -- GoDawgs(T) 23:39, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

The new pictures

Many new pictures have been uploaded by a relatively new user : User:Englandfan7. I suspect he is not the creator of these as he claims on each image page (public domain tag).

Some contributions which raises my suspicion:

He may be a well-meaning fan, but I don't think he's going around shooting these himself, being presumably from Indiana.

This guy's uploaded so much stuff over the weeks... He's even the designer of his university logo it seems!

Kl4m 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All these images have now been removed, and the user has been indefinately blocked. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 08:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Batman" Vandalism

This "Batman" guy keeps trying to vandalize our page. He's already tried to mess with the captain applications and even tried to delete the Miss Galaxy section, citing that it's not "very encyclopedic!" Who does this loser think he is to decide what sections are approrpriate? He's being investigated by Wikipedia for vandalism.

None of my edits were vandalism. The "Miss Galaxy" section is not encyclopedic, and was written as an advertisement. Additionally, there has been NO announcement that Beckham will be the new full-time captain for the Galaxy. Wearing the armband for one game does not make one a full-time captain. It's entirely possible that he will remain as captain, but it's also possible that it was a one-time honorary distinction. Also, I am not being investigated by wikipedia for anything. Batman2005 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I have no idea who this "BATMAN2005" guy is, you have to find his comments above pretty funny. I just saw this: the official website source stating that David Beckham was indeed made the permanent captain of the Galaxy on Tuesday. That is why anal people shouldn't be allowed to be editors - this is what's wrong with Wikipedia. What a joke. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=453915&cc=5901

-manutdglory

Mascot's Page

Since all of Cozmo the mascot's info from it's page is already of here, I think vote that we delete it's page. Agree? Disagree? Portlygrub 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. No objections several months on, so I've replaced the (very minimal) content from Cozmo's article with a redirect to the main Galaxy article. --Jameboy 16:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Superliga.PNG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Failure?

The headings using the word failure seem a little extreme. I would use something more like "disappointment," as using the word failure seems too strong to me for an unbiased article. I am sure that people are going to disagree, so lay it on me. --Crosscountrycpjon 04:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Can anyone tell me what is the reasoning behind using a special MLS Team infobox, as opposed to the standard Football Club infobox? Charles 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename this article David Beckham Galaxy?

Agree completely , i looked up this page to read about the team.I wanted to read about the origins of the team ,fans , stadium , whos funding them etc.... but almost all of the article is about Beckham!! . Just confirms my thoughts that he is participating in a modern day freak show. Is it LA Galaxy or is it David Beckham Galaxy?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.52.106 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LosAngelesGalaxy.PNG

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New 2008 Home Kit

Someone should create an image of the new Galaxy home kits for 2008 to replace last season's. worldsoccershop.com and the galaxy.com store has photos of the new kit up. The old, navy away kits will still be used in 2008. Manutdglory (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MASSIVE Cleanup required

This article is in need of serious cleanup. For starters the article is WAAAAY too long for that of a club only a little over a decade old. The history sections appear to be copied directly from another website, and even if they are not the headings need to be changed to coincide with wikipedia's style guide. They are not sourced and again are monstrously over length. I'm a Galaxy fan and even I realize this is not by any means this storied of a club. Serious reverts will follow without proper justification of the current content. Grant.alpaugh 20:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I trimmed it back. Most of it was added within the last 10 days or so. The excessive Beckham stuff should be trimmed as well. Maybe a nice book can be written at Wikibooks. --Elliskev 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree it need to be trimmed but someone took out the entire 1996-2005 section from history. I just made a new one from scratch so no one can say it's copied. I think we should trim the 2007 season. It basically just talks about Beckham. Portlygrub 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally concur with this statement. There is just waaaay too much information about the 2007 season. howcheng {chat} 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree, why no simply break it down by seasons like on the Houston Dynamo article and start individual articles for seasons like Houston Dynamo season 2008? That way you can more easily summarize and expand on various things that may occur throughout the season?--Hourick (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

The history section of this article suffers terribly from recentism and needs to be pared down if not entirely rewritten. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Isaias Lara

Hi everyone, I just came across this page and there seem to be a lot of strange references to David Beckham as Isaias Lara. Is there a reason for this as I noticed in the history that some of these have been reverted but they have been left in the subsection "Offseason: Departures and Arrivals". Thanks Stevenhorsman (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC) --

Roster

Tally Hall has decided to sign with Esbjerg fB in Denmark, so I have removed him from the roster.

Where is Kevin Harmse in the roster? Gordomono (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is Carlos Ruiz in the roster? Gordomono (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere. He signed for Toronto FC the other day. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks. did not see that on mlsnet.com.Gordomono (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott Bolkan has retired [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.199.138 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://laist.com/2008/11/15/now_that_the_season_is_almost_over.php

Álvaro Pires

Why isn't Pires's name on the roster, I can't find anything regarding him being released? – Michael (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

David Beckham

He's going to be back on March 8. If you don't believe me, read this. – Michael (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

I am planing on doing a major cleanup of this article over the next week or so. I am sure it is clear to many of you that the last three years dominate this page, eventhough they weren't particularly good. I would be fine with moving that information to season-specific articles before I erase it, so I will wait a few days before starting any of my cleanup process. Spydy13 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2009 (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) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Head Captain?

"Midway through the season, Steve Sampson was sacked as head Captain,[3] replaced by Frank Yallop.[4]"

Saw this and had to ask...granted, he was called a lot of things while in charge but I don't recall that one.--EricPZ (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Year-by-year stats

1996 through 1999, MLS scored 3 points for a win in regulation, 1 point for a shootout win and no points for a loss in regulation or after the shootout. Those years should look something like this:

Season GP W WS LS L Pts GF GA
1996 32 15 4 4 9 49 59 49
1997 32 14 2 4 12 44 55 44
1998 32 22 2 2 6 68 85 44
1999 32 17 3 4 8 54 49 29

The way it reads now doesn't make sense as 19 wins (in '96) can't add up to 49 points. It would be 57 points. I know there's a movement by some to count those shootout matches as ties but for accuracy, we should use the correct format which counted the season the matches were played. I'll redo this so it's clean and more accurate if no one has any objection. --EricPZ (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Uniform

They have a new jersey with new colors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.162.50 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

LA has a newer uniform design, mainly on the top...Gordomono (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

IP editor and Los Angeles soccer teams before the Galaxy

An IP editor has been editing the page to imply that the Galaxy existed as a soccer team from before the MLS was founded, under a different name. As I understand it, this is incorrect, so I reverted their edits, but the IP re-reverted, so I've brought this matter to the talk page. It is, of course, possible, that I'm wrong, as I am not an LA soccer history expert, but the reliable sources I've read agree with me, and the IP has not provided any sources. Thoughts?

You are correct. There is, of course, a long and storied history of soccer in LA, from the Los Angeles Aztecs to Los Angeles Salsa, but Galaxy is not a direct continuation of any of these clubs. It was created as a brand new team specifically for the launch of MLS, and shares no linear history with any other team. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
History of soccer in Los Angeles appears to be quite misleading as well, then. Are there any good online sources for soccer history in LA? As I am on a bit of a break from my real-life duties, I'd be glad to improve the article. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Los Angeles Soccer Heritage" section and "MLS" in section titles

Following WP:BRD. Should MLS be included in section titles in this article? For the "club honors" section, it is obviously inaccurate. For the other sections, since the Galaxy has only played in the MLS, I see no need to specify this in each section title. Also, should the History section "Los Angeles Soccer Heritage" be included or moved to History of soccer in Los Angeles? It seems a bit irrelevant to the Galaxy specifically but sounds like a great lead for the history article. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the mentions of MLS in the sections for exactly the reasons you stated. Personally, I quite like the quick overview of LA soccer heritage in the history section as it gives a bit of perspective and context to where Galaxy fits in with things. Providing the section doesn't get any bigger than it is now, and maintains a link to a longer and more in-depth article elsewhere, I think it's fine. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. The context does sound good. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently removed a similar contribution to Seattle Sounders FC. My main reason for removing it was because not a single reference was given for the new content. I can see that's the case in this article as well. --SkotyWATC 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

Here are a few comments about the article:

  1. Check the external links. Some are dead. Some are probably not necessary. Keep only official sites unless the fan sites are especially popular among the Galaxy fans.
  2. Format the references to include publisher, access date, publish date, title, etc. See WP:CIT
  3. More refs are needed.
    • Home stadiums - ref for 27,000 seat capacity
    • Reference in tv and radio section
  4. History section is uneven towards recent seasons. There's one paragraph of one entire decade and then nearly 5 paragraphs for five years. Summarize the recent seasons more and remove any specific scores. If possible, add more content to the 1996-2005 section. It wouldn't be a bad idea to rewrite the entire section. See also the history section for D.C. United
  5. Fix '[not in citation given]'

Please check D.C. United and other GA class football teams for examples.

Hope that's helpful. Mahanga (User talk:Mahanga) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

confference 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) 04:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

SuperLiga in table

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∞ 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename the page LA Galaxy

The official name of the team is NOT the Los Angeles Galaxy. It is simply "LA Galaxy".

The website is lagalaxy.com and losangelesgalaxy.com leads to nowhere. NONE of the MLS or LA Galaxy official merchandise or advertisements mention "Los Angeles Galaxy".

The change likely happened in 2007 at the re-branding when Beckham arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deconomou (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There may actually be some validity to this, in that the team seems to always use "LA' it self. That said, the spelled out Los Angeles is common enough that there's no need to move the article.oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Some validity, but the city name is Los Angeles and should stay as as the full name. Look at LA Dodgers, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, and LA Kings. The only thing in favour is the use on their official site: http://www.lagalaxy.com/. However, we should distinguish branding from legal name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it's official name is LA Galaxy and the club is commonly referred to as LA Galaxy, I think the name should be changed as per WP:Commonname. InTheAM 19:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

They use the name but is it official? I have seen no verifiable proof that it is official. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The contact page on Galaxy website calls them "LA GALAXY" here: [3]. But I guess it isn't as obvious as I first expected. The MLS website seems to use both. I guess it could probably go either way. InTheAM 17:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Is that their legal name or is it the name that the franchise uses? See my previous comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 19 November 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) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Please back the old roster format. This is the format in all the club pages, except in MLS, Why? The old format is clearly better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.12.82.248 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-01 20:31:25
This is explained in the discussion linked above. NASL clubs are being rolled-out currently with plans to move to all club articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

All the team roster in the world are in the old format, why only MlS is in this new format. Lets back to old format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirEdimon (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't speak to the whole world. I can speak to the desire to change to the new format on English Wikipedia. Watford uses it. Several other club articles do as well. A number of other clubs use a variant of it. While I understand what you're saying, you didn't read what was already written: the rest of English Wikipedia is moving to the new template. Over the next year, it should become the primary one used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gaudette

Until he is capped by Puerto Rico, he's technically an American player. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

VANDALISM

This page suffered vandalism by the user 118.97.95.69. He changed nationality and pages of the players Tommy Meyer, Kyle Nakazawa and Chad Barrett. I've tried to fix this. SirEdimon (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Name of Team

MLS standings, Galaxy website, etc. all refer only to the "LA Galaxy", and that is the name they play as, much like "C.D. Chivas USA" is only referred to as Chivas USA. When this way debated previously, someone brought up it not being a legal name (though the contact page, too, uses LA Galaxy), but Red Bull New York plays as the New York Red Bulls, a name used here. Further, as single entities, there is no distinct business entity to have a different name, think the name of the team needs to be changed here. Jntg4Games (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just found that the MLS official club list http://www.mlssoccer.com/clubs lists them as Los Angeles, but nowhere else on the site (especially that of the club), but Chivas USA really needs to be the name of their article. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussed above in the Rename the page LA Galaxy section and nothing new. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 05:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Los Angeles Galaxy → LA Galaxy – In addition to their official website, according to Insights, LA Galaxy is the name the majority of folk are looking for in the U.S., the UK, Australia and Canada. --Relisted. Red Slash 19:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest running the same numbers on the teams mentioned below:
Los Angeles Lakers
Los Angeles Dodgers
Los Angeles Kings
Also Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (three possible combinations there) and Los Angeles Clippers.
I'm curious to see if we're making a precedent or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Organisation LA Galaxy Los Angeles Galaxy URLs
Google News 17,800 13,000 [4]
[5]
Sky Sports 416,000 360,000 [6]
[7]
BBC 914,000 674,000 [8]
[9]
The Age 836 704 "LA Galaxy" site:www.theage.com.au
"Los Angeles Galaxy" site:www.theage.com.au
football.co.uk 25,400 2,560 [10]
[11]
New York Times 1,100,000 220,000 [12]
[13]
ESPN 1,430,000 500,000 [14]
"Los+Angeles+Galaxy"+bbc
Unreal7 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Are there any non-Americans using "LA" mostly for Los Angeles?" - you're kidding right? Only most of the world! GiantSnowman 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already established on grounds of WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:ACRONYMTITLE that the "LA" acronym does not always mean "Los Angeles". Thus the current name is sufficient for the "Precision" and "Consistency" rules of WP:CRITERIA. As previously mentioned, all other articles on sports teams in the city use the full "Los Angeles" name in the title. I also do not see an overwhelming use of "LA Galaxy" over "Los Angeles Galaxy", and even some of the reliable sources cited in the table above are very inconsistent. Yahoo Sports! uses "Los Angeles" in its standings.[16] ESPN uses "Los Angeles Galaxy" in this recap article. The New York Times also uses "Los Angeles Galaxy" in this article too. And here's a BBC article, a football.co.uk article and a Sky Sports article all using "Los Angeles Galaxy". Shouldn't these reliable sources get some kind of consistency first before we start moving the page on grounds of WP:COMMONAME? I mean, Yahoo Sports! re-publishes an article from MLSSoccer.com that uses "LA Galaxy" less than 48 hours after it re-published an Associated Press article that uses "Los Angeles Galaxy". In addition, the page stats in the table above may be invalid, and may be in fact be inflated, because they are inconclusive as whether these reliable sources actually do the same thing as what WP:ACRO suggests Wikipedia editors do: "An acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used", and then can be used for all other instances in the article or work. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both are common enough, and "Los Angeles" is less ambiguous. All the other LA teams are informally called "LA" as well. Using the full name is more appropriately formal for an encyclopedia. and the nomination doesn't really proove the assertion that "LA Galaxy" is the full, formal name of the team. oknazevad (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - both the official and common name of this team seems to be the 'LA Galaxy'; what other teams playing different sports in the same city call themselves is utterly irrelevant. GiantSnowman 09:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Common name, usually. Official name, no. Please see http://www.mlssoccer.com/clubs .Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Common name, usually. Official name, no. Please see http://www.mlssoccer.com/clubs .Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
In their most recent media guide (2011) the most common name is "LA Galaxy", in fact, it's filled with it, but the copyright, the name they use for legal purposes, is Copyright © 2011 Los Angeles Galaxy. See bottom right of page 2. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - just a heads up, what other teams in the same city call themselves is 100% irrelevant to this discussion - we are discussing this team and this team alone. GiantSnowman 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really. Walter already showed the "Los Angeles Galaxy" is the full official name. Bringing up the other teams just shows the commonality of using "LA" as short for "Los Angeles" is not distinct or unique to this team; it's just a common informal usage used about everything LA related. As such, there's no reason for this article to follow such an informality. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per GiantSnowman. If this is the official and common name, there really isn't a good name not to use it. I couldn't find any instances of "Los Angeles Galaxy" on the club's website, so I tried searching "los angeles galaxy" site:lagalaxy.com. It's not entirely unused, but most of those results seem to be Google thinking it knows better than me what I'm searching for. As others have mentioned, this need not affect other Los Angeles sports teams if their usage is different. A better comparison would be Seattle Sounders FC. Everyone knows what FC stands for, but no one would propose moving it to Seattle Sounders Football Club. If a club specifically uses an acronym—not just a phrase frequently abbreviated as one—I don't see a good reason not to respect that, when usage matches it as well. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please read what was written above. Yes, they commonly go by LA, but their official legal name is Los Angeles Galaxy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine, then compare to Virginia Tech and its RM. What is a legal name worth if it's not even commonly used by the entity in question? --BDD (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
But we've also already established that many other sports team names in LA use that acronym and yet the article remains in-place. If we're ignoring that precedent then we can also ignore COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Every other team mentioned in this discussion has "Los Angeles" either in their logo or HTML title of their official website. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll assume you missed the Kings. Their logo is LA Kings. Their current crest is LA with a crown. Their website is http://kings.nhl.com. Not every other team. Your rule has been broken. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. Assuming good faith, I'll assume that the remainder hold true. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
An HTML title is not the same as a URL. Open that link again, hover over the tab to see the full title, and maintain civility. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought that you meant the URL and not the HTML element known as the title tag. I have struck my previous statement in respect of that.
The LA Kings website's URL is full of the term "LA Kings". In fact their logo is simply an LA with a crown. The only place that the full city name appears is in the legal portions of the website such as the title tag and copyrights, not dissimilar from the example from the Galaxy. Thank you for making my point yet again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - LA Galaxy may be their commonname, but it's not their official name. I agree with MicroX. If we're going with consistency on Wikipedia, then this page should be left as it is. – Michael (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There may be legitimate reasons for opposing this move, but it should be apparent from reading WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ON that this is an exceptionally weak argument. --BDD (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Ci couldn't agree more that COMMONNAME is a weak argument! Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I can see this can be argued both ways, and can't see that it's all that important which way we go. But in terms of reader experience, I can't imagine anyone being at all inconvenienced by the longer title, while some will not readily understand the shorter one. So go with Los Angeles Galaxy is my feeling. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Galaxy II and Academy teams

I think there should be a section on this page with info on the reserve and development teams that make up the Galaxy club. Galaxy II should get their own page as well, because they will be a regular team within the USL Pro, with their own branch of the roster and coaching staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutcity (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof That Team Name is Not Los Angeles

I cover the Chicago Fire, and have media credentials, for ChiCitySports.com, and am a sports journalism student. After looking through the AP StyleGuide, I looked up a soccer-specific styleguide, and found the official one for Major League Soccer's website. Intrigued, I went through the team names section, and it clearly shows this:

"LA Galaxy

the LA Galaxy; LA (no periods); the Galaxy Note: The official team name is the LA Galaxy, not the Los Angeles Galaxy. The full city name was dropped when the franchise rebranded in 2007. Note: Do not use periods in LA when referring to the Galaxy. However, use them when identifying the actual city."

Not sure if that is enough to have it changed here, but thought I'd throw the evidence out there. Link: [17] User:Jackson Scofield 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The site is a blog and not a reliable source. If that blog had a link to a reliable source, it would be worth considering. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is the official style guide used by MLSSoccer.com... 00:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Scofield (talk • contribs)
Look at the WHOIS data, the domain name was registered by David Agrell, who worked the Digital Club Services for Major League Soccer and worked for MLSSoccer.com until he became an associate editor for Hearst Magazines. The Style Guide still used by MLSSoccer.com is more than a reliable source. Jackson Scofield (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You know, we should just email the Galaxy community outreach person and be done with this discussion. I know there's one because I actually met him when I was jury duty one day. Heck, let me send a tweet to @LAGalaxy and see if they respond. —howcheng {chat} 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If that does not work, try the league contacts page for the Galaxy: Here Jackson Scofield (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"LA Galaxy" it is. —howcheng {chat} 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Glad we finally got that settled, now what steps/procedure would we have to take to have the page moved and changed to reflect this? Jackson Scofield (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't have it settled. Some jerk named "Walter Görlitz" asked for an official source online and we should really wait for that. See the previous link. All that represents is someone in marketing spouting off. It should in no way be misconstrued as a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
LAGConfidential did an interview with Alexi Lalas. [18] and includes information of the name change. Though, I suppose that technically isn't considered reliable either. Anyway, looking at the history pages on LAGalaxy.com, notice how from the 2007 season onward the team is always referred to as "LA," and before that always as "Los Angeles." I'm seriously still just confused how the league's official style guide, that I showed was started by the league through WHOIS records, is an unreliable source. Jackson Scofield (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
And MLSSoccer.com's history pages list Los Angeles Galaxy clearly as the team name on the side bar until 2007, when suddenly, it changes, in line with all other information we have. Jackson Scofield (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the LAGConfidential source should count as reliable: It's an interview with Lalas, who was GM of the Galaxy in 2007 when the rebranding was done. If you can't accept the word of a person who was heavily involved with the process, I don't know what will satisfy you. —howcheng {chat} 18:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The direct quote is "we wanted an international, cosmopolitan type look. We were trying to be a team that's recognized internationally." but the sentence following it, "The simple quasar logo would certainly do that, and it came with a simplification from Los Angeles to LA", is not. It does look like evidence is mounting that they have officially changed their name, but still nothing definitive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But also see this part: "As the first Los Angeles based team to switch to LA officially there was still some innovation to the new name, but 'thanks to the Baywatch effect, it's understood that LA means Los Angeles.'" I know that it is not Lalas directly saying that they switched officially in what I quoted, but the author used a partial quote within the sentence, which generally indicates that the beginning part is either just rephrased because for whatever reason what the speaker said wouldn't work directly into the story as a full quote or because the author is using that way for the story to flow (rephrased either way). Jackson Scofield (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The big problem is that this happened so long ago that it's nigh-impossible to find any relevant press release announcing the change (crucially, web.archive.org is missing the press releases for July 2007). The closest I got was [19], which is about the new uniform. There's also [20] from the Dallas Morning News blog: "Side note: the club has been just LA Galaxy since their re-brand, not Los Angeles Galaxy."

Furthermore, I found what appears to be the Galaxy's official brand guide. It appears that this folder was accidentally made public because if you try https://brandfolder.com/lagalaxybrand (URL is slightly different) you're informed that this is a private folder and there's a link to an lagalaxy.com email address (i.e., the likelihood of this being fake is very low). Anyway, in the guide, all the language refers to the club as "LA Galaxy". There's a section which I will quote in its entirety, in case someone changes the access.

TERMINOLOGY
While the legal name of the club is Anschutz LA Soccer, LLC, there are a variety of acceptable names to be used in all less formal applications (such as advertisements, memos and all other casual forms of communication). Choose a name from the options shown, keeping in mind that the inclusion of LA should always be used on international platforms whereas Galaxy without the city referenced is adequate when referencing the team nationally and locally. Including the words “soccer club” or “soccer team” need only occur once in the message or story and should always come before using Galaxy by itself.

Approved names:

  • LA Galaxy
  • LA Galaxy Soccer Club
  • LA Galaxy Soccer Team
  • Los Angeles Galaxy
  • Los Angeles Galaxy Soccer Club
  • Los Angeles Galaxy Soccer Team
  • Galaxy
  • Galaxy Soccer Club
  • Galaxy Soccer Team

So it appears that while "Los Angeles Galaxy" is still an acceptable way to refer to the club, they would prefer the usage of "LA Galaxy" instead, which is consistent with what we're seeing on MLSSoccer.com and on the LAGalaxy.com site as well. Thus, although we still lack an official notification of the name change, I think we have enough circumstantial evidence to meet WP:COMMONNAME. Jackson, I think the problem with your style guide is that we can only take your word that David Agrell is who you say he is; if you found the guide on MLSSoccer.com, it would have a lot more weight. —howcheng {chat} 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I was not familiar with Agrell before I found this. But I can easily verify he was with MLSSoccer.com. First, I found his LinkedIn: here. Then I googled his name and added site:mlssoccer.com and found a few of his articles: here for example. Jackson Scofield (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
So... have we decided on anything? Jackson Scofield (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a preponderance of evidence that a name change is warranted, but no proof that it should happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus to rename the article to LA Galaxy.
Many related pages should be renamed to match, and I will now nominate Category:Los Angeles Galaxy and its sub-categories at for speedy renaming. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Galaxy → LA Galaxy – Although there was a failed requested move in September 2013 and I opposed the move at the time, I believe we have since gathered enough evidence to warrant such a move. Here are the facts:

  1. In July 2007, after they signed David Beckham, they announced a new uniform and a new logo, where "Los Angeles" was replaced by "LA".
  2. Since then, the team's web site was changed to lagalaxy.com.
  3. On the team web site, the team is almost always referred to as "LA", not "Los Angeles".
  4. On MLSSoccer.com, the team is almost always referred to as "LA" (notable exception: [21]).
  5. Other sites still use "Los Angeles", but those numbers are fewer than those that use "LA" (see chart in previous move request).
  6. The team's legal name is "Anschutz LA Soccer". You can verify this at the California Secretary of State web site (search for entity number C2499354). The company's registered address listed there is the same as that of Anschutz Entertainment Group.

Unfortunately, because this took place so long ago, it is now impossible to find a press release or some other official statement wherein the name change is explicitly stated. However, here is some circumstantial evidence:

  1. According to a tweet by the Galaxy marketing team, "LA Galaxy" is the official name of the club.
  2. An interview with Alexi Lalas, who was general manager of the team in 2007 during the rebranding, states, "As the first Los Angeles based team to switch to LA officially..." (note that this is not a direct quote by Lalas, but a paraphrasing by the article author).
  3. A blog entry from The Dallas Morning News states, "Side note: the club has been just LA Galaxy since their re-brand, not Los Angeles Galaxy."
  4. This soccer writer's style guide: "Note: The official team name is the LA Galaxy, not the Los Angeles Galaxy. The full city name was dropped when the franchise rebranded in 2007." The style guide is written by David Agrell (see the site's WHOIS information), who is a former staff writer for MLSSoccer.com (see his LinkedIn profile and an example article: [22]). The style guide claims that "it serves as the official style guide for MLSsoccer.com."
  5. The team's official brand assets refer to the team throughout as "LA Galaxy", although "Los Angeles Galaxy" is still noted as being acceptable. —howcheng {chat} 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey 10 February 2014

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Have you read WP:RS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not the club's official name. There are no RSes to support that. That argument was thoroughly discredited in the last move request. It's also not the common name as that too was discredited in the last move request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, WP:COMMONNAME was not discredited in the previous move request. [23] - There is not one single mention of Los Angeles. Soccerway now refer to the club as being LA Galaxy (the title being an artifact of the original database entry). SB Nation uses LA Galaxy. MLS Soccer does as well, with the occasional usage of "Los Angeles Galaxy". Reuters - 1 mention of Los Angeles Galaxy, 3 of LA Galaxy (one of which includes the official statement of the club's president). It is clear that their primary name in reliable sources is LA Galaxy, and that the club almost always identifies itself as such. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If you scroll up you will see that it was discussed above and discredited because the move never happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I concur that at the time, we did not have enough evidence to support COMMONNAME (and remember I opposed the move back then). However, things change. Now we have a statement from a Galaxy employee, we have the MLSSoccer.com style guide, and we have the Galaxy brand assets. All of these indicate that the club self-identifies as "LA Galaxy" and the table above shows that media organizations use "LA Galaxy" more than they use "Los Angeles Galaxy". —howcheng {chat} 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
We do not know that the Galaxy twitter feed is form an employee or someone in Bangalore. I asked for an official link and none came. It's not a RS.
We do not know that the blog is the official MLSSoccer.com style guide or it's just a blog. It's not a RS.
Why don't you read what others write? I'm feel like I'm wasting my time again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Walter, the Twitter profile identifies it as the "Official Twitter of the LA Galaxy." If it's run by some guy in Bangalore, he's pulled off quite a coup by embedding it in the club's official website! --BDD (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yet the "official" dude in Bangalore (for all we know) can't provide a link to their website that supports it, yet their official media guide (linked in previous discussion) lists Los Angeles Galaxy as the legal name and LA Galaxy where there isn't the space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Although your speculation is possible, it is not very probable. For example, on February 5, the person live-blogged a closed-door preseason game, so they had have been there in person. Additionally, you forgot to include that link to the media guide last time. Would you mind putting it here now? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 03:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on the distinction between the two, e.g. Red Bull New York vs. the New York Red Bulls. Jackson Scofield (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion 10 February 2014

Any additional comments:
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just thought I'd note that there is a marked change in how the club refers to itself on its official website from 2006 to 2007. In their review of the 2006 season, they consistently use "Los Angeles" with only one use of "LA", whereas the opposite is true in their review of the 2007 season, with zero uses of "Los Angeles" after that point. – PeeJay 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I see it too, but does this reflect a marketing strategy or an official or legal name change? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's 2014

Somebody please update the page. Add a section for the post-Beckham era (that's a bad name for that section anyway). Since 2012, LA had a rough season, and then won another championship. Somebody please make a new section. Also, LA doesn't stand for nothing for god's sake. It's LOS ANGELES GALAXY. Stop being hipsters and rename it to it's original, and legitimate name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.104.22 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In a summary of their first season, the club's own website refers to them as Los Angeles Galaxy, so I guess that's their original name. [24] Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gerrard's pre-contract

There are multiple sources that support Gerrard's pre-crontract signing. He should not be added to the roster until he has joined the team. Similarly, adding a mention to the fact that he has signed the pre-contract is common in association football articles. It does not predict the future since it clearly indicates that it about a current action (pre-contract and when it will become a contract) and not a future event (he is playing for the team). While things could happen to prevent him signing for the team (not limited to natural disasters or man-made catastrophes that would render the entire league insolvent or lesser possible but equally improbable events) it is simply a not to editors not to add material to the roster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Most decorated club"

Would someone please correct or clarify what is meant by "most decorated club", as the article linked by that very statement shows DC as being the most decorated, not LA. As it is, either that article is wrong, or this one is. Resolute 13:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They do have the most MLS Cup wins but not Supporters Shields. They also have played more friendly matches, but it should be referenced. I'm tired of the DC United/LA Galaxy fights. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the current wording, both here and at DC United, satisfy the facts. We should also mention, in each article, how many times each club has won the wooden spoon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think your current wording does clarify the issue sufficiently. Thanks. Resolute 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Active Teams

Deleting Active Teams box, following the seemingly end of discussion on Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1#Infobox. If you have objections, please take it up there, so as to keep everything in one place. Elisfkc (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LA Galaxy. 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) 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Number changing

So I don't understand why this IP hopper insists on changing 2 players' numbers. I will be off and on for a while, so if anyone spots these vandalizing edits, please revert on sight. I want to wait another week before going back to RPP to re-request semi. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Uniform evolution

This section is too wide for my screen. Is it necessary to include all of these? If so, should it be multiple rows? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Frankly it excessive in minor details and is plainly unencyclopedic trivia. oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Patrick. Viera.

Why has he replaced the logo?

Fixed Thanks for pointing out the vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Team History

2017 onwards needs to be a separate section in the club history. This is the post-Arena era and does not in any way tie in with the First to Five 2013-2016 period, which could be renamed First to Five and Bruce Arena's Departure. 173.231.112.10 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this should be done. The team has changed dramatically in the last few years.

Dode222 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Avoid WP:RECENTISM and you should be OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add

Winger Aleksandar Katai, who had been signed in December 2019, was released by LA Galaxy in June 2020, following controversial Instagram posts by Katai's wife.[1][2]

I can't see how having two appearances with the club constitutes a notable player, at least not worth mentioning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Galaxy release Aleksandar Katai following racist posts by his wife". Los Angeles Times. 5 June 2020.
  2. ^ "LA Galaxy part ways with Aleksandar Katai | LA Galaxy".

Dominic Kinnear as interim manager

The manager slot on the infobox was listed as vacant. Per the club's website, Kinnear is still the interim manager, and IMO should be listed as such. I've made the change, but please someone who is more experienced tell me why I am wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dode222 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LA_Galaxy/Archive_1&oldid=1095227562"