Talk:New York City FC

This article was nominated for deletion on May 2 2013. The result of the discussion was delete.

A fact from New York City FC appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Major League Soccer franchise New York City FC is co-owned by Manchester City FC and the New York Yankees?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New York City FC.

Wikipedia

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Football: American & Canadian Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with New York City Football Club

The club website indicates "FC" not "Football Club". Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Full name isn't necessarily the most WP:COMMONNAME - for example, we refer to the NFL team as the New York Giants, not New York Football Giants, Inc, and Real Madrid C.F., not Real Madrid Club de Fútbol Mosmof (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Actually, nowhere in the release is the "FC" actually written as anything but that. Sure, we know what it comes from, but that does not mean it is actually part of the name. Subsequently, the article is a duplicate effort, containing no unique information, with an inaccurate title, created later, and an obvious redirect. So I did just that. No need for a long bureaucratic discussion oer a good faith error. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was done before the request was made! Man are you fast!

Just to clarify, it's not only the common name, it's the ONLY name. I have never seen it in print yet as "Football Club". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the second paragraph of the actual official statement by the actual new club themselves make abundantly clear that the FC does in fact stand for Football Club and is only an abbreviation, though admittedly for the rest of the article they then only use "FC". To a native English football fan, the very concept of calling your club XXFC and the FC not standing for Football Club is patently ridiculous anyway. However, I myself wrote the vast majority of this article, including the FC usage which you yourself are defending here, and to make this clear, the reason I personally did it, regardless of why you and everyone else believes it should be done, because a simple "FC" appears to be the common MLS/US usage for the suffix "Football Club" and I wanted to adhere as well as I could to US English standards. Granted I found it very hard to write assuming the club was an "it" (singular) and not a "they" (plural) but that's just because I've lived my whole life doing that and I can no easier think that way than I can remember to spell the word "colour" without a "u". After all, if I was going to UK English, the FC would have included full stops (i.e. F.C.). But it seemed obvious that I try to write the article in the style of other MLS club articles, and so that's what I did.

But I think I'm confusing things by saying too much already, so to summarise. The club IS a "Football Club" not an "FC" but I say keep the "FC" because that is standard US English parlance. Falastur2 ^Talk 00:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. Squad correct as of June 4, 2014.^[1]


No.	Pos.	Player	Nation
U	CM	Frank Lampard (DP)	England

86.146.176.144 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done He would first have to sign with the team, which he hasn't. There are rumours that me may, but we don't move forward on rumours. It's because editors were adding rumours to the article that the article is locked now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Roster". nycfc.com. Retrieved June 4, 2014.

Jersey numbers

Where are the jersey numbers from? On nycfc.com they are not listed. We know that Villa was announced with his usual #7 and Lampard will have the #8, but the others? Punkers79 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the full list on the drop-down list on this page. Also, the numbers are all confirmed from the club's footage of their first training camp, where the players' training kits have had visible squad numbers on them. Example. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Fitzgerald and citizenship

I changed the nationality for Akira Fitzgerald from Japanese to American. While he hasn't been part of any age-level or senior US national team squad, he was part of his state ODP team that feeds into youth national teams - I think that's sufficient evidence of declared international allegiance, considering he has spent his entire youth and senior careers in the United States (plus, here he is training with the U.S. (women's) national team!).

Though I think there's a larger issue with the note, Where a player has not declared an international allegiance, nation is determined by place of birth. Squad correct as of January 13, 2015. This is fine for countries like the U.S. where citizenship is a birthright. It gets murkier for people born in Japan, like Fitzgerald, where being born there doesn't automatically make one a citizen. It seems that if there's enough uncertainty, the country should be left blank, rather than simply using the country of birth. Mosmof (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to add MLS makes a clear distinction between domestic and international players, and there's no indication that Fitzgerald counts against NYCFC's international slot. Also, based on the stated criteria, Ryan Meara should be labelled Irish, right? Mosmof (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald definitely doesn't take an international slot. You don't even need to have American citizenship to be counted as domestic, you just need to have whatever the US version is of Indefinite leave to remain - they only need to have a green card. Considering Fitzgerald has been in the US since at least his school days, he definitely has that, and he's almost certainly a US citizen. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries?

I made an edit where I listed both the New York Red Bulls and Orlando City SC as rivals of the club. While I admit that I could have written and sourced it a bit better, I do believe that something should be written about it, since rivalries with both of the aforementioned clubs seem to definitely exist with NYC, even if only through the fans' eyes. Homie C (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've only played two league games. Really hard to say who their rivals are at this point. The Orlando thing might never amount to anything after a few weeks. (See WP:RECENTISM.) While the NYRB derby is likely to stick around, they have never actually played a game yet, so it's also more predictive than reality. Either way, I think it should be removed until something real develops. oknazevad (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the best we can say is the rivalries "seem to exist" based on Facebook posts, the whole section should be left out for now. Offside Trap (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Offside Trap[reply]

Sister club/parent club

@Arials101: I will gladly provide ten far more authoritative sources which show that MCFC and NYCFC are sister clubs, not parent and daughter. Please find them below:

I think I got a bit carried away and found a few more than 10. My bad on that one. Please note, however, that I have provided you with a mix of 1) actual club sources from both sides of the Atlantic, 2) reputable news sources from both sides of the Atlantic and 3) miscellaneous other commenters from both sides of the Atlantic. I hope this will be enough to reinforce to you that the relationship between the two clubs genuinely is a sister-sister relationship.

I acknowledge that when NYCFC was originally founded, it was as a mostly-owned subsidiary of the Manchester club, but simply put this is not how MCFC's owner nor those making the decisions wanted the clubs to be organised, and rapidly after NYCFC's creation they created City Football Group to become the new owner/holding company for both clubs so that they would both de facto and de jure become equals. CFG wants the two clubs to be treated as side-by-side entities and has worked hard to reject the notion that NYCFC exists simply to service MCFC. The people who continue to use the "parent club" label, in my experience as a MCFC fan who is deeply interested in all CFG matters (and as an admin of the NYCFC fan forum, so I know both sides of the coin) fall into two categories - press sources which are trying to push the "MCFC are ruining football" moniker, and MCFC fans who want NYCFC to be their feeder and are upset that that is not the path that CFG has taken. As an active member of both team's communities, I've seen a lot of this sentiment around, and it's just not representative of the truth. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a lot. Have you tried an internet search for the other term though? Mine turned up these eight (out of about 10,500 results). Those are all from the first page. So now you need at least eighty, and your search shows about 12,100 results so you won't hit 10:1.

Manchester City is part owner and they appear to want to market themselves as "sister clubs". The sources seem to be slightly in favour of the latter term, but don't use hyperbole to suggest a preponderance of sources when they don't exist.

I'm in favour of using the more common term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Does tens of thousands of sources not count as a "preponderance"? I could cite another 30,000 if I just google Manchester City "sister club". Admittedly I will never get close to 10 to 1, but the point is that the "sister club" term is extensively used and - by your own admission above - is the more commonly-used. That said, I'm slightly concerned by the idea that you are only interested in using the more common term, however. I admit that this is following a consensus principle, and consensus is accepted on Wikipedia, but it is accepted for when there are multiple viable alternatives and there is a need to determine which has precedence in usage here, such as whether to use a footballer's real name or their common nickname. The two terms "parent" and "sister" are mutually exclusive, and by the same logic that persuading the majority of Wikipedians to support me in claiming that the Moon is made of cheese does not make that statement correct, I would argue that we should not allow weight of sources alone to decide this one as if both were equally viable and need some kind of a show of hands to decide.

The reason I resorted to my 10 to 1 claim originally was not to advocate chasing the majority usage, it was to highlight that just because you can quote a news source to support your claim, it does not necessarily make it justifiable in its usage on Wikipedia, especially when contradictory evidence is available and yet conveniently ignored. Further, what I was trying to highlight above is that if you look at the authoritative sources - i.e. mainly those written by the two clubs - the term "parent club" is never used. Does that not carry any weight in the discussion at all? Falastur2 ^Talk 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few things here. You don't have to ping me. This article is on my watch list. I will see all the talk page activity.

I don't know why you made the reply in the first section. I am in favour of using the term "sister". What I'm not in favour of is your hyperbole that it's ten times as common as "parent". If you're going to go to extremes, you had better be willing to back up your claims. If you want to discuss rationally, I'm in favour of listing.

You continue, in your second paragraph to try to justify your 10:1 claim: it just can't be justified. Sorry. You then seem to think that I don't support the term you prefer. Just to be clear, I am in favour of the term "sister". I'm not in favour of exaggerating to make a point.

Your underlying points are valid, but your means don't justify the ends. Use neutral tone when discussing and you won't piss me (and likely other editors) off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play. You make good points. I am as much susceptible as many to the reading of neutral comments as cynical or aggressive and of failure to take a minute to think about peoples' true intentions behind their comments - I kind of understood what you were doing with your comment, but I read your calling me out on the 10 to 1 comment as less of an attempt to correct me on what turned out to be a silly assertion, and more of an attempt at making me look silly in general. It is, after all, one of the tactics of debate that you try to undermine your opponent's credibility in order to make their arguments sound weaker - I simply read your comment as this in practice. I believed you were attempting to support Arials' argument, and that you were trying to shoot me down. Having taken a few moments to reconsider it, I acknowledge that you have little reason to do so and that it wasn't your aim, but hopefully you will recognise that I am hardly the first person to make the mistake of misreading neutral tone on the internet.

As a final aside, since I have come on bended knee to acknowledge my mistake and beg for forgiveness, I will add this one retort in response to your own comment: I had no idea that you had this page on watch. How could I have known? This is not information freely available to me. All in all, I didn't view pinging you to really be that big of an inconvenience compared to the potential inconvenience of not informing you and then you replying two days later and then me not noticing for another week. I also have this page on watch, as I have many others, but it doesn't mean that I always realise when there's a new talk page message for me. Considering that my ping to you was one thing in my previous reply that I genuinely did with completely honest intentions thinking I was actually helping you out, it grates slightly that I find myself having to apologise for this also. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. We can't know what is on whose watch lists. Sorry for assuming that it was obvious. I do have all MLS team articles on my watch list, and several season articles as well. Glad we sorted that out. Shall we wait for further feedback or do you want me to self-revert the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to leave it to you. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home kit needs update

It may be a super small detail, but the home kit is still shown to have the inaugural season patch on the bottom. As of this season, it does not. Homie C (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I also changed the color of the socks for the home kit, since this season they've worn sky blue socks every time they wore the home shirt. SixFourThree (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Remove game logs from Hudson River Derby section

Going into the team's third season, I think it's time we eliminate the game logs from the "Rivalries" section. Eventually, it will become clutter and I figure now is the best time to phase it out as opposed to later. HOMIE C ^Talk 06:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the game logs belong anywhere it's at the Hudson River Derby article, but even there it's quite a bit of clutter that's only going to grow. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good call. SixFourThree (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

2017 Uniform

Sports Illustrated originally indicated that NYCFC would wear orange shirts with their road uniform, based on a photo distributed by Adidas, but are now reporting that the navy shorts will continue to be the primary, and as such have updated their original article.[1] SixFourThree (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Uniform evolution Section layout

I didn't want to revert without comment, but is there any reason why the first uniform should be isolated from the rest and centered on the page? No other MLS page handles the first one this way just because it's the first one. I'm going to put it back the way it was SixFourThree (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

No reason. Good revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York City FC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Y 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) 12:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current format of the "Year-by-year" section

I noticed that on the page it only has the last three "completed" seasons from the club (even though NYCFC is still playing in 2018). A majority of the other MLS Wikipedia articles show every season the team has played under its year-by year section, both those that go back decades and newer sides like Portland. Also, the stub at the top or the article says that "For the full season-by-season history and other data, see List of New York City FC records and statistics." However no year-by-year chart or information is on that page.

Wouldn't it be easier to just list all the year-by-year information on the main article and follow the standard that's been set? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi fan controversy should go somewhere in here.

As reported in HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-city-football-club-far-right-extremists_n_5c76d679e4b062b30eba721a the Irish Times https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/mls-must-eradicate-the-cancer-of-neo-nazi-hooliganism-1.3839383 and The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/mar/06/proud-boys-and-skinheads-mls-faces-an-incursion-from-the-far-right it surely rises to notability? I’m not an experienced editor. Might someone who helps maintain the article write this up in a NPOV way? 69.86.18.9 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Claudio Reyna 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and corrected huge amounts of stats on several NYCFC wiki pages!

In the last 20 days I have updated and corrected huge amounts of stats on several NYCFC wiki pages! I spent many nights to update and correct not only this page (Notable former players and academy members and attendances, for example), but completely the rosters and the player statistics of the 2018-2020 and 2021 (our great year...) seasons! Therefore, I have completely updated the "List of New York City FC records and statistics" page (player records with Appearances and Goalscorers of the first 10 NYCFC players and list of seasons section). Already in June 2017, I updated the 2015 and 2016 seasons. This time it was a really backbreaking job, but I'm glad I did because I am the number 1 fan of the NYCFC!!! I only hope that these pages can be updated from time to time and not completely abandoned for years... Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Home Stadium(s)

I'm going to add Citi Field as another home stadium in the infobox; the 2024 schedule has 9 matches at Yankee Stadium and 6 at Citi Field, with two more TBA. SixFourThree (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[roster-1] "Roster". nycfc.com. Retrieved June 4, 2014.

[1]