Talk:New York Giants (soccer)

Keep article, Do Not Delete

Absolutely ridiculous that this article was deleted. All the New York Giants have a common history which is clear if you read the article. New York Giants II played seven seasons in the ASL under this name. ASL then the top league in the United States, They were known as New York Soccer Club for only a short period, and New York Giants III were ASL champions using this name. These are reasons alone for preserving article as is. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• They have a relationship, but one more like ships passing in the night than "a common history".
  It is quite reasonable

_ _ to claim, as i did in the 07:44, 1 November 2009 edit summary reading

replace bad multi-topic article by Rdr to Dab portion, preserving (probably already duplicated) material in approp. talk pages

that the effect of the edit (which is far from a deletion, as it involved neither deletion of the title nor discarding of the content, and amounted to a conscientious refactoring of the content) was appropriate, and

_ _ to anticipate that it would be a non-controversial refactoring.

Now, that being said, YMMV. But even so:

1. Coverage of that relationship cannot stay at New York Giants (soccer), which is the format for a disambiguated title, and users have a reasonable expectation that following a link to that name will take them to a single soccer team named "New York Giants", not to one that presumes to cover 3 teams in one article. If you want such an article, make your case for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams.
2. The principle is well established that our primary coverage of sports teams is team by team, not name by name. A clear example that i'd have thot editors working on NY Giants would have taken to heart is San Francisco Giants, whose third sentence makes clear that it is equally about the New York Giants baseball team. Another is Washington Senators: all main-namespace pages on baseball teams by that name seem to be navigational pages, with the exception of the one for the 1890s team. The article under discussion cannot (with the possible exception of the 1890s Giants) obviate e.g. the New York Soccer Club article, even if that team is better known as "New York Giants". (Such a problem is not an excuse for a cluster-fuck article, but an occasion for discussion of other titles: i know too little to choose among the possibilities, but renaming New York Soccer Club to e.g. New York Giants (NY Soccer Club) poses no fundamental problem that i can foresee; some titles do need to be clumsy.) The action without adequate discussion that actually gives offense is the one expanding the discussion of the hinky relationship among the teams into one duplicating details that have nothing to do with the relationships among the three Giants soccer team: they can be adequately provided via a link to each team's full history, and (tho the usual concern of maintenance duplication doesn't much apply to defunct teams) avoid cluttering the relationship article with material that the readers don't need to look at in multiple articles.

--Jerzy•t 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• First of all can please try writing English and not jibberish, are you taking drugs are what ? What you have done is vandalism, end of story. Article is well established with dozens of links directing to it. You clearing have no knowledge of this particular subject Djln--Djln (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why this article is written this way

There has been some discussion regarding the appopropriatness of an article dealing with multiple sports teams having the same name. For similar articles, see American Soccer League, Fall River F.C., Philadelphia Field Club, New Bedford Whalers, Brooklyn Wanderers. There may be others. The historical turmoil of soccer in the U.S. has led to multiple teams with the same name. Many times, these teams have existed only briefly before folding. Then, a few years later, a new team with the same name comes into existence, plays a season or two then collapses. Rather than create dozens of short articles on each incarnation of a team, these teams and leagues have been gathered under one name. For people working in the area of American soccer, this is non-controversial. So why has this issue come up now? By the way, check out the Cleveland Browns article. Mohrflies (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the statement 'Rather than create dozens of short articles...,' however, if research revealed considerably more information I would be in favor of separating some of the above mentioned articles. I have combined articles myself like 1880s American Cup in anticipation of minimal info. Research later produced sufficient info to warrant separate articles. I think the same could be done here only time can tell. Libro0 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Split?

Now that the AFD is over, can we talk about splitting this? They're all three distinct teams, so I think splitting makes sense. What do others think?--chaser (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Against Spilting: This article should not be spilt. What do others think? Mandsford, GiantSnowman and myself who all voted against deleting also expressed a wish to keep article as it is. Mohrflies also outlines above why it should be kept as is. If there were reams of info to write about topic that would be a different story. As all teams are now defunct it is extremely unlikely that article will be greatly expanded. Chaser, if you believe that these three teams are distinct, then clearly you hav’nt read the article properly. There is a common history running thru the article. Two of the teams were both owned by the New York Giants baseball franchise. The latter two are linked by both playing in the ASL and being involved in a complex name change. Djln--90.200.56.2 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Not only should NYG be split but so should Fall River, New Bedford, Brooklyn Wanderers, etc. Many of the US soccer history articles need major reorganization. An inactive user (Dancreel) decided to combine teams with the same name but this I feel was shortsighted. It is unquestionably more practical to have an article for one franchise that includes its entire history, name changes included. Teams with similar names can be linked to in a 'See also' section. Common franchise is far more valid than common name. My point is that 'combo articles' should be made only for the most valid reasons. There are a number of splits and/or recombinations that are a great deal more warranted than what we have here. Libro0 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly other editors share Dancreels view. It just makes no sense to spilt articles. It makes perfect sense to keep teams with same name in same article. If you go the franchise route, how do we decide on an article name. You would be opening a bigger can of worms with that idea. Editors would then be arguing over article names then. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

When compared to the more established sports like baseball, football and basketball the soccer history articles could stand to be better organized. The standard for sports teams is clearly the franchise method using the latest name. See Atlanta Braves, Arizona Cardinals, and Los Angeles Lakers. If we want these articles to have the stature and respect of the others then we should fall in line and organize them as such. Granted these all have enough info for a separate history page. I realize the opposition to splitting was for lack of info. It has been stated that "It just makes no sense to spilt articles." If we combine by name then we are still splitting articles because we have "dozens of short articles" which have been split apart from their franchise. Does anyone find it strange that the combo articles for NYG, NBW, and Fall River each include a section on what is in fact the same team: NYG II = NBW III = FR I. Let's not confuse readers with info shrapnel. The 'same name' pages are akin to a collage. The similar names are something that can be included in trivia or "Did you know there were X number of teams named 'soccer team' F.C.?" A 'franchise' page offers a lineage and therefore a coherent history. It also looks nicer when we have Notable players, Honors, and Year-by-year for one team instead the unrelated collection of data offered by the 'name' pages. Either way there is a lot of info that still needs to be verified on many US soccer history pages not just the combo pages. I will take no action at this time since the consensus is against the split. However research is ongoing so hopefully a suitable amount of info will reveal itself in order to improve the articles. Libro0 (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree totally that many US soccer articles, especially those on individual teams, need improving but spilting established larger articles into stubs is not improving them in my opinion. It just creates more mess. I believe each name/franchise/team should be reviewed on a case by case basis. A guideline to cover all possibilities is unworkable and probably unreachable. In some cases, as with NYG and NBW, were a name has been used regularly, I think its more sensible to have an article about the name. The three Whalers were effectively successor clubs of each other anyway. In other cases such as DFW Tornadoes there is argument for following the franchise route. Djln --Djln (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)