Jump to content

Talk:Washington Commanders/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RfC about the use of plural/singular verbs for "Washington Football Team"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's a consensus to use singular verb forms, e.g. "The Washington Football Team is..." (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


Should the noun "Washington Football Team" be used with singular verbs or plural verbs? Examples of each have been given below:

  • Singular verb The Washington Football Team is a professional American football team based in the Washington metropolitan area.
  • Plural verb The Washington Football Team are a professional American football team based in the Washington metropolitan area.

Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 01:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Poll

  • Singular verb. According to one of our articles on the subject (American and British English grammatical differences#Subject-verb agreement) American English almost always uses singular verbs with collective nouns such as the word "team", except in names of sports teams, where the plural verb is used. That being said, the vast majority of American reliable sources seem to be referring to it with the singular verb. The New York Times has never used the phrase "Washington Football Team are..." and has exclusively used the phrase "Washington Football team is..." [1] [2]. Likewise, the term:
"washington football team is" site:apnews.com
returns many results when searched on Google while the corresponding search for the phrase "washington football team are" returns no results (I won't provide links as Google appears to keep personal data in the URL). I believe that this is a case of an exception to the general rule that the plural verb is used for sports teams and that we should be following this exception as well to reflect what reliable sources have said on this topic. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular verb - per Chess. The "except in the names of sports teams" caveat only applies to actual names, not to a descriptive placeholder like this. There is absolutely no intention for "Washington Football Team" to be the permanent name in the way that something like "Wigan Athletic Football Club" is, and even if it were, general American usage would still favor "is". --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Note the parallel case of The Band where a generic word for group is used as a specific name. That page starts out "The Band was a Canadian-American rock group"--Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Note also that other terms that basically mean "group" are treated as singular, even when they are capitalized: Democratic Party, Justice League, Boston Pops Orchestra, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, etc all use singular verb forms. The guideline that 1995hoo keeps mentioning ("American English almost always uses singular verbs with collective nouns such as the word "team", except in names of sports teams, where the plural verb is used.") is simply misphrased and should be rephrased to read something more like "American English almost always uses singular verbs with collective nouns such as the word "team". An exception allowing for structurally singular names for sports teams - such as the Utah Jazz - to use plural verbs exists, but is not universally observed." This clarifies that the sports team name exception is generally not used for the bare word "team" and the like and also that some sources do use singular verb forms for things like the Utah Jazz. --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You are misattributing that quotation to me. User Chess is the one who posted the sentence you are quoting. Nowhere on this page did I ever use that sentence. 1995hoo (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for that mistake.--Khajidha (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually don’t view this as a WP:ENGVAR issue because I’m not sure American English truly does have a hard-and-fast "rule" that would apply here. British English would arguably be clearer, but would also be inappropriate for this article for obvious reasons. That’s why I’ve tried to be careful to make it clear that my point is one of consistency with other North American sports team names with the exception of soccer teams (and, in turn, that’s why I acknowledge there is some divergence in usage, as I noted elsewhere with the Washington Post and New York Times versus the Associated Press). I haven’t included soccer because, as has been discussed elsewhere, many soccer fans seem to try to default to British English when discussing the sport, so I question the value of soccer precedent as to this discussion. 1995hoo (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
We already see usage of singular verbs with capitalized "Team" in cases like the NFL All-Pro Team or the Pro Football Writers Association All-NFL Team. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Plural verb for reasons I've thoroughly stated elsewhere on this talk page. The words "Football Team" are being used as the team name, not as a mere generic description, and it should be treated the same way as other "singular form" team names like Miami Heat, Tampa Bay Lightning, or Colorado Avalanche. 1995hoo (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular for sure. I was about to make the change, thinking a well-meaning Commonwealth English editor was responsible for this, when I noticed the comment pointing here. Given the team names that 1995hoo cites, it should be fine to use plural if the team settles on such a name, but it's clear that other sources are treating this placeholder name differently, and we should too. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Plural verb per 1995hoo's reasoning. It seems like people supporting the use of "is" are treating "Football Team" as a generic noun and not proper and basis their argument on that. If we do end up going with "is", then shouldn't we be consistent with every other plural-sounding proper noun, such as several musical bands and other sport teams like the Stanford Cardinal? If not, then why are we specifically focusing on this article and no others? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
1) "are treating "Football Team" as a generic noun and not proper" Ummm, because it IS a generic term. 2) Those other instances are proper names, not just generic terms. The only example I can think of that is truly similar to this is the one I mentioned above, the Band. Which, as I mentioned, uses singular verbs. --Khajidha (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you just let people vote? Isn't that the point of this, to let people express their own opinions? You had your say. 1995hoo (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@1995hoo: Officially, RfCs aren't actually votes and we have a whole policy on how they're not at WP:!VOTE. This straw poll is only meant as an auxiliary measure to the actual discussion section below. In actuality nobody really cares about the discussion section anymore (it's frequently omitted) and I'm not sure why I even included it when starting this RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Oklahoma City Thunder and Stanford Cardinal are not any different than Football Team. Yes, it's a generic phrase but it's not a generic noun. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is literally just the words "football team" with capital letters. Do you really mean to tell me that you would write "The Washington football team is..." but "The Washington Football Team are..."? --Khajidha (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because it would not be considered a proper noun in that format. Why are we picking and choosing what is and isn't here? This entire RfC is dubious if that is how people are viewing it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That position seems beyond ludicrous. -Khajidha (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular-I'm so glad someone did this rfc. I don't think what we think matters, but rather what WFT uses and they use singular. Here is but one example. 1)WFT Press Release 2)more examples of team using singular. Also see Chess's arguments above. Also, contrary to the argument that there should be consistency across WP, I don't know the shortcut, but one of WP's things is that just because something is a particular way on another page does not dictate how another page should be. I personally disagree with this, but it's WP guidance. SailedtheSeas (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Plural verb the team officially calls itself the "Washington Football Team," with Football Team capitalized, asserting that "Football Team" is the proper team name, not just a generic term. Therefore, it should follow the precedent set by other American sports teams that have a singular term as its team name and use the plural verb (ex. The Oklahoma City Thunder are...) Frank AnchorTalk 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Frank Anchor, you cite "the team officially calls itself" but the team officially uses the singular(see my examples above, but show me where they've used plural). So since the team has decided it should be considered singular, then singular should be used should it not?SailedtheSeas (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought in these polls we didn't respond to other people, but since others have done so, I guess it's OK. It seems to me you're placing too much reliance on the grammar used in press releases. In ordinary circumstances, there's nothing "official" (what the heck does "official" really mean in a discussion of grammar, anyway?) about the team's PR department's use of grammar. Most likely nobody in the team's front office has thought about the issue at all. Consider how rushed the whole circumstances of changing from "Redskins" to "Football Team" were. I'd suggest, as a comparison, when DC United's press releases used to contain a note to the media asking that the team not be referred to as "the United" but rather as either "DC United" or simply "United." In that case, I think the team's affirmatively addressing the issue did have significance as to what they deemed correct, whereas in this case, it's just a plain old grammar issue. Surely if they issued a press release that misused the subjunctive, we should not feel bound by that in describing the press release, should we? (BTW, I see further up the page in a prior discussion an anonymous user wanted to know why I mentioned NBA teams. I also mentioned NHL teams, and the reason simply is that there is no other NFL franchise using a name that could raise the "singular versus plural" debate. Every other NFL franchise's team name ends with "s." The Redskins' future name most likely will as well when they decide on one.) 1995hoo (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
So much for what should be so little of issue. First, the PR Dept is the voice of the team, so I don't believe you give them enough credit or due. Also, since from what I've searched newspapers are also using the singluar, so they are either taking their que from the PR dept or made their own decision to use singular. Also too much weight is being given that it's done a particular way on other teams - One of WP's things is that one page does not dictate how another page should follow which I incidentally disagree with, but it's WP's guidance, so it doesn't matter if EVERY other sports team is treated differently than how WFT is. Along that same line, the referenced grammar page clearly says "usually treated as plurals" which means that singular is 100% appropriate. But since so many examples have been given, please look at Alabama Crimson Tide which uses the singular, so using singular is not extraordinary for a sports team. I'm sure I could find other examples, which is why I think we should just honor what the team uses and leave it at that. SailedtheSeas (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I simply think there is a fundamental difference between what the team wants to be called ("Washington Football Team" versus "Washington Redskins" or "Washington Lobbyists" or whatever), which is a substantive matter and should be respected for these purposes, versus their use of a verb, which is not a substantive matter in terms of their press release. The analogy that readily comes to mind for me has to do with music, specifically album and song titles. Wikipedia follows the traditional and standard rule that you capitalize the first and last words of a title, as well as all other words other than articles, conjunctions, and prepositions of four or fewer letters. Thus, for example, Bruce Springsteen's 1978 album is properly referred to as Darkness on the Edge of Town, and the original LP sleeve capitalizes it that way, but since then the record companies have taken to capitalizing every word: "Darkness On The Edge Of Town." On greatest-hits compilations, they capitalize the song of that name in the latter style. (If you use iTunes, you may have noticed the Gracenote database does this too.) A few years ago, some Wikipedia editor was trying to move various Springsteen-related articles—the one that comes to mind is the single "Dancing in the Dark"—to articles in which every word of the title was capitalized, and his argument was that the capitalized version is the "official" title (whatever the heck the throwaway word "official" means). That was a silly argument. The record companies' current capitalization styles are not binding, and should not be binding, on anybody else. I cite all this because I view the football franchise's use of the singular or plural in the press release as similar—it's simply what someone in the team's PR department may have thought sounded better or more natural, but it's not something they expect to be binding or influential on anyone else (and certainly not "officially official"). It's interesting to note that different media sources have different standards on team names of this sort, too, such as the Minnesota Wild or the Colorado Avalanche: The Washington Post and the New York Times both maintain that a team name is to be treated as plural only if it ends in an "s" sound (thus, Capitals, Nationals, Red Sox) but is to be treated as singular if it doesn't (thus, Wild, Avalanche, Thunder, Magic). The Associated Press maintains that all team names are treated as plural regardless of how they end. It doesn't matter whether, as an anonymous editor further up the thread suggests, the teams themselves use singular or plural. Major American media outlets typically either follow the AP guidance or have their own stylebook augmenting it, and they treat those stylebooks as the Gospel, slavishly adhering to them even when they are demonstrably wrong (e.g., the Washington Post used to call the British Labour Party the "Labor Party" even though it's a proper noun), but they almost universally respect a sports franchise's decision as to its actual name (e.g., the media do not continue to refer to the Washington Bullets, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, or the Edmonton Eskimos). That all goes to why I think there is a fundamental difference between the team's use of "Washington Football Team" as the team's name and their use of singular or plural verb forms. 1995hoo (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular in the lead sentence. When referring to the organisation as a single entity, as is the case here, the singular verb form should be used; the plural should be used when using the team's name to refer to its players or staff collectively, e.g. "the Washington Football Team have lost to the Minnesota Vikings this afternoon". The vast majority of cases will follow the latter format, but the opening sentence of the article is simply talking about the single entity known as "the Washington Football Team", of which there is only one. – PeeJay 07:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Below I respond to the point about referring to players or staff. PhilipR (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular "Team" is grammatically singular in American English (which presumably is the English we are using). Surely we aim to be grammatically correct, no? I don't know what there is to debate. Funnyhat (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular generally. Use a singular verb for singular noun. If the name is being used to refer to the collective group, or a collective action then it’s just one thing. (“The Washington Football Team is going to play the Giants”.) If the name is one of a list then the list is plural and verb should be plural. (“Bill Gates and the WFT are making a donation...”) Finally, if the name is a collective for individuals or a plural use later in the phrase, then use plural. (The WFT are 3 quarterbacks, 2 halfbacks, and a partridge in a pear tree. The WFT are a diverse set of individuals. Members of the WFT are Alex Smith, Dwayne Haskins, Kyle Allen, ...) I would discount the usages other US teams largely because they use a plural naming (GiantS, DolphinS, etcetera) and are actual team names. I would similarly discount British place-name teams (Manchester United, Ashton United) because British usage is not appropriate for a US team. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular verb. The plural form is immediately awkward to the ear, and is used exactly once in the article as a result. Insisting on its use in such an unnatural manner is just tedious. Any collective singular/plural conflicts can be handled on a case by case basis. For instance saying, "The Dallas Cowboys are 0 in 1 where the The Washington Football Team are undefeated", in the body of the article is fine even if the lead sentence uses the standard singular. There is no inherent need for perfect consistency. –Zfish118⋉talk 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular is the standard American English usage and sounds correct to this speaker of American English (I'm from the DC area). The plural usage is so clearly marked as British that when I saw it in the first sentence, I came to this page specifically to see if someone had started a discussion. agtx 16:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular verb. This is an American team and the most common U.S. English usage would be to say, "The Washington Football Team is ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Response to PeeJay: I'm glad we're in agreement about the usage being polled here. In US English, I would have to disagree about "the Washington Football Team have lost to the Minnesota Vikings this afternoon," and similar cases. It's in this latter case where North American English contrasts markedly from UK and probably other variants. In spoken form, if the verb has drifted far from the subject, or into another clause, then it's not unusual to use the plural treatment. "Yesterday we went to see the Orlando Magic. They're a lot of fun to watch!" - PhilipR (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Response to @Agtx: I concur that singular is the proper American English form, but it also appears to be the proper British form as well. Looking at comparable British articles, they use the singular. For instance: "The Manchester United Football Club is...", compared to "The Washington Football Team are..." –Zfish118⋉talk 18:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges here, BTW. The Manchester United Football club (a single entity) is modified singularly on both sides of the Atlantic; Manchester United (by itself) would be modified as plural in England and singular in the US (substitute "team"—a collective noun—for MU and that should clarify things). GenQuest "scribble" 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I still maintain many of the comments are overlooking the fundamental point that the words "Football Team" should not be read in isolation ("Ooh, 'team' is a singular word, so it has to be singular") but instead should be taken for what they are, namely the actual name (hopefully temporary) of the team, similar in that respect to the previous name "Redskins." In that respect, I continue to maintain that the best comparison is with other "singular-form" team names in North American pro leagues other than MLS. There aren't any in the NFL (other than Washington) or MLB, but there are in the NHL (Tampa Bay Lightning, Minnesota Wild, Colorado Avalanche, Seattle Kraken) and the NBA (Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Oklahoma City Thunder, Utah Jazz), and those teams are typically, though not universally, referred to in the plural. I note, incidentally, that even the Former Redskins can be inconsistent in their usage—some of their web pages use the singular, while others use the plural. (See their "History" page's intro (emphasis added): "One of the NFL's oldest and most-storied franchises, the Washington Football Team were founded in 1932 as the Boston Braves. The team changed its name in 1933, and in 1937, the team relocated to Washington, D.C. and immediately won the first of its five World Championships. In addition to NFL Championship Game victories in 1937 and 1942, the Washington Football Team have won three Super Bowls, culminating their 1982, 1987 and 1991 seasons with Super Bowl titles." Source: https://www.washingtonfootball.com/team/history/ ) Comparing to the Manchester United example, the phrase "Washington Football Team" is equivalent to the name "Manchester United" at present. The Washington franchise doesn't have another team name or a nickname. 1995hoo (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not a name. It's a descriptive phrase used as a placeholder because there is no current name, thus we should treat it the same as any other use of "football team" - as a singular term.--Khajidha (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It is indeed what they are considering to be their name. It’s a stupid name, to be sure, but they are using it that way, as the NFL confirmed: https://www.nfl.com/news/washington-football-team-nfl-name-change 1995hoo (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2021 (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.

Proposed merge of First Ladies of Football into Washington Football Team

Low-traffic discussion, I have redirected similar articles uncontroversially so will do the same here.

The following discussion 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.


Likely not independently notable but seems to be worth merging at least some info. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge but remove the members section. The rest can just be cleaned up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2021 (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.

Based in Ashburn, Virginia

The Washington Redskins are headquartered in Ashburn, VA. I'm going to change to box at the bottom (similar to what the New York Jets have).

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

TanPopcorn (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: @TanPopcorn: Did you have an edit request to submit? If so, please re-open this request (set answered=no) and in the same edit describe what you would like to happen. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KennyThayer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jkappss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New team name.

It has reportedly been leaked that the new team name will be the Washington Commanders. But we shall see for any future updates. Mastergerwe97 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I expect it will be the same as in 2020. Somebody will initially open a requested move proposal, there will be a brief debate about not "if" but when exactly it should actually occur, and soon after the team finishes making the official announcement an admin or page mover will carry out the RM on grounds of WP:SNOW. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Now it is official. TheYeetedMeme (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

New Name Washington Commanders

Can we get the page renamed to Washington Commanders as the name is official via their IG page. Swagging (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added the {{db-move}} tag to the Washington Commanders page and provided a source from the team's new website at www.commanders.com. The move should happen soon. – PeeJay 13:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Washington Football Team → Washington Commanders – As of 2 February, the Washington Football Team team announced on social media platforms about their rename Baron Maddock (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It's already being move as I know. Swagging (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 👍 - Baron Maddock (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

PS - BBC reporting the change as well here in the UK. 148.64.28.90 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2022 (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.

ps

can someone please update [[3]] to avoid a double redirect 148.64.28.90 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Heading

Shouldn’t we make the infobox headings burgundy and gold instead of generic gray? BigRed606 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The color should be exactly how the headings for the infobox was before the new name. Since the organization is keeping the same colors.BigRed606 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The colour is informed by a template lookup. The template that controls the colour hasn't been updated to recognise the Commanders name yet. Once that happens, the original colours will be restored. Thanks for flagging it though. – PeeJay 15:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"formerly known as the Washington Redskins"

@Richiekim: I'm aware Redskins is mentioned in the next paragraph. However, I believe it should be listed in the opening sentence due to the importance of the name (used it for nearly a century) for the franchise. Your argument against this is that it is "redundant", which it wouldn't be since it would be the first time mentioned in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It is a previous name, why shouldn't it be in the paragraph establishing identity--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth mentioning the team's former names in the opening sentence. – PeeJay 22:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A former name in use for 80+ years and a cause of controversy for most of it? This isn't like the Oilers becoming the Titans to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Was it a cause of controversy for most of it, or just the last few years? Either way, I feel like mentioning the old name so early in the article would be a slight case of recency bias. In 5, 10, 20 years, the new name will have been fully adopted and the fact that they were known by a different name will be just another fact about the team, no more important than any other. Mention it in the lead by all means, but I think mentioning it in the first sentence is overkill. – PeeJay 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
If that were true, you’d elaborate, PeeJay, but you didn’t. It sounds like objection for objection’s sake.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you might need to read WP:AGF. Thanks. – PeeJay 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Assuming that I'm not assuming good faith means you're not assuming good faith, and putting your feelings above everyone else's. By not even addressing the criticism and going right to accusing bad faith, you're ignoring criticism and trying to shut it down without addressing it--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not assuming that you're not assuming good faith, I'm determining from your words that you actually are not assuming good faith. You made a baseless accusation about me objecting "for objection's sake", when you could have just asked me for my reasoning. As it happens, I've put my reasoning above, but instead of reading it, you've decided to make a personal attack against me. Tread lightly, CreecregofLife. – PeeJay 21:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Observations are not accusations. You're accusing me of baseless accusations and personal attacks, and making ominous warnings.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
In that case, your observations were faulty. I've posted my reasoning. Now go away. – PeeJay 22:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Even though your 'reasoning' is based on pure speculation 20 years from now. Not only that, but you violated WP:CIVIL repeatedly. So, I warn you to 'tread lightly'. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Please point to where I violated WP:CIVIL. Another editor accused me of not acting in good faith, so I pointed them to the relevant policy and warned them not to make such assumptions in the future (hence, tread lightly). If you want to take that as ominous, that's on you. Address my argument, not me. – PeeJay 15:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
How you behave during your argument is part of your argument. They've already pointed to a place you violated CIVIL and you're playing like it's so unbelievable. You keep insisting I made accusations I did not make. Your argument was addressed, and how you presented it was too. That's not a fault on them.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the team's former name belongs in the intro, perhaps even the first paragraph, but not in the first sentence. This follows precedent established by articles for other professional sports teams that changed their names after public outcry; e.g., Washington Wizards, Tampa Bay Rays, and perhaps most pertinently, the Cleveland Guardians, renamed last year from "Indians". PRRfan (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Those precedents are very useful exemplars. I recognize that the Redskins/Commanders situation has attracted a lot of media attention (full disclosure: I live in the DC area, so I don't know to what extent the Indians/Guardians may have gotten comparable attention in other parts of the country but I perceive it as being less). I don't, however, see anything making their situation unique compared to the other teams cited above aside from the Bullets/Wizards and Devil Rays/Rays both being voluntary changes initiated by the owners with far less outside pressure than was brought to bear on the Redskins and Indians. But the circumstances of a name change don't seem to be a compelling reason to say that this name change somehow merits different treatment from that name change. What we don't need, either way, is users lecturing each other or purporting to give orders on how the article is to be revised. The argument above sometimes comes across as having a bit of a WP:OWNER feel to it even though I'm sure that was not the intent. 1995hoo (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
A follow-up comment: I notice that since I posted my comment earlier today, someone else edited the article to add a notice at the top saying "'Washington Redskins' redirects here." That seems like an excellent way to resolve the issue. 1995hoo (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Commanders" or "Players"

As per the article - let's discuss whether the table should read "Washington players in the Pro Football Hall of Fame" or "Washington Commanders in the Pro Football Hall of Fame"

I'm personally of the view that to say "players" is a better term, as it also covers the redskins team members and will be futureproof for Commanders as well. I'm surprised that it's been challenged, frankly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Guys like Joe Gibbs wouldn't be accurately described as Washington players. Another option: "Pro Football Hall of Famers" or "Pro Football Hall of Fame members". Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Larry Hockett in principle. "Washington personnel" would work as well. My main objection is to using the word "Commanders" at the present time because it’s inaccurate. It’s beyond reasonable dispute that none of the individuals in question were indicated because of their affiliation with the "Commanders," and anyone who says they are would be engaging in revisionist history. It would be like saying the Baltimore Orioles lost the 1944 World Series. The franchise did, but they were the St. Louis Browns then. Renaming is not somehow retroactive (similarly, the "Commanders" didn’t win Super Bowl XVII—the Redskins did). Sometime in the future, when someone is inducted into the Hall of Fame primarily based on his activity with the Commanders, it might be appropriate to revisit this question, but at the present time, I think it’s premature. 1995hoo (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, no one describes Vladimir Guerrero as a Washington National--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look to see what the Tennessee Titans' page does, since they’re the other NFL team to change its name in recent history. Theirs lists the full set of names: "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Oilers/Titans Hall of Famers." (Spacing around slashes as in original.) I’d have no objection to doing that here in principle, though I think it’d be more than a bit awkward if someone insisted on having the full set of names: "Boston Braves/Redskins / Washington Redskins/Football Team/Commanders Hall of Famers" is a bit overdone in a summary table! I think the name change is amply covered throughout the article and no reader, other than a nit picker of unprecedented pedantry, would wring his hands if the table said simply "Washington." It's utterly clear from the context that it means the NFL franchise. 1995hoo (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that seems okay. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is it that the team colors were not changed?

It doesn't make sense that when they changed the name of the team they didn't also change the team colors. Surely there was controversy over this failure to change the colors - why isn't it mentioned in the article? Was there any announcement that they would change the colors at a later time? __170.253.142.74 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you have sources that say there was controversy over not changing colors? CreecregofLife (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I echo the comment from "CreecregofLife." I live in the DC area and I grew up as a rabid Redskins fan in the 1980s, although I don't watch much football nowadays. I heard no controversy at all about the colors, and if anything some people were unhappy about the prominent addition of black. Every media report I saw all along said the team made it clear they would retain burgundy and gold in order to maintain some level of continuity. I'm sure marketing factored in as well. Burgundy and gold have long been an iconic part of the franchise's branding; you'll note the article's infobox references that as a nickname (Jim Handly on Channel 4 News in DC routinely uses it). In the absence of firm sources establishing a controversy over this, I think the IP user's comments are just plain old speculation that have no place in the article. Note the IP user's wording—"It doesn't make sense"; "Surely there was controversy"; "Was there any announcement." Those comments smack of someone who wants other people to disprove his unsourced opinion. But for Wikipedia to discuss a purported "controversy," there need to be reliable sources establishing that a controversy exists in the first place. (As an example of that, obviously it was easy to demonstrate that there was controversy about the name "Redskins" and easy to find sources showing it. It's probably also easy to find sources establishing a controversy over the name "Edmonton Eskimos" in the CFL and "Cleveland Indians" in MLB.) Absent such sources, which it is the IP user's burden to produce, all we have is unsourced innuendo. 1995hoo (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Not even an unsourced opinion. More like a manufactured narrative that they’re looking to have help to build. They have no idea what’s going on, and must have assumed “Well the complainers probably weren’t satisfied, right? They must have kept complaining about something! Oh! Got it! THE COLORS! Instead of doing research I’ll just cast it out on a Wikipedia talk page!” CreecregofLife (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


Okay, first off, I’d like to remind User:CreecregofLife and 1995hoo about WP:AGF . They seemed to assume bad faith on my part, and somehow failed to see that I was raising a valid question. And kudos to jpgordon who did take it seriously and asked a serious question. I guess 1 out of 3 is the current batting average on Wikipedia these days and the best one can hope for.

CreecregofLife asked if I was aware of any sources about a controversy. Well, clearly I wasn’t – why else would I ask a question? That’s why people ask questions on the Talk page, to ask questions and to make suggestions to improve the article. 1995hoo also tried to claim I was only interested in manufacturing a controversy. Clearly that wasn’t the case since I was asking if there was one, and if not, why wasn’t there one.

Since you all seem to have trouble understanding the point of the original question, let me boil it down to the bare points:

1. People complained about the old nickname and the team finally changed it.
2. They changed the name, but they kept the old team colors, which symbolizes the old name of Redskins, since the color represents red skin.
3. If one is offended by the team name, one should also be offended by the team colors. QED.

It therefore makes sense to expect a controversy over the retention of the colors. Was there one? __170.253.142.74 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Seeming to assume bad faith is not assuming bad faith.To say I was not assuming good faith when all I did was ask if you had a source, and then build on someone else trying to piece together why such a question would be asked in such a manner Nobody expects a controversy to move onto a next phase to keep it going. It has been five-ish days since I asked whether you had sources. It’s not our job to do your research. Yet you came back still asking if there was any. A talk page isn’t a place to ask questions about a subject, it’s a place to discuss improving an article. Saying something might exist without a source does nothing to improve an article CreecregofLife (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Everyone here is assuming good faith, but our knowledge of your question is exactly the same as yours. Without reliable sources, anything we put forward in answer to your question is pure speculation. You'd be better off seeking answers to this on a fan site. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Red can also represent many other things. Or nothing. I don't recall anyone ever protesting over the team colors, before, during, or after the name change. I doubt that most people ever even thought about the colors like that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Caption about Super Bowl XVII in the Joe Gibbs era section

"John Riggins (left) and Mark Murphy (right) made key offensive and defensive plays in Super Bowl XVII, respectively, to help the Redskins win their first Super Bowl." I had to check the articles about both players AND the picture description before I understood what the caption was about. A reader with no prior knowledge would probably think that Riggins was the prominent Redskins player and Murphy was the Dolphins player and be confused about why we would be discussing an opposing player's actions. In reality, Riggins is the all but completely obscured player in the background. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed it. Surely we can find a better image? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ownership change!

Please remove the Snyders as the listed owners of the Washington (Redskins) Commanders! Been waiting to send y’all this For a loooooooooooooooooong time!!!! 108.218.141.105 (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be premature. They're still the owners. The silly fad among many Wikipedia editors of rushing to make premature edits based on news reports that say things like "sources say," or "a tentative agreement," or "an agreement in principle," is very tiresome and can lead to all sorts of problems. You might recall that prior to Snyder buying the Redskins, the Cooke Estate had a tentative deal to sell to Howard Milstein, but that never happened. If Wikipedia had existed then and people had rushed to list Milstein as owner, the cleanup would have been a hassle. Just wait. Any number of things could happen before the sale is finalized. Among others, all the news reports mention that there are still other groups interested and that there is apparently not yet anything preventing them from bidding more than Harris and not yet anything preventing Snyder from then choosing one of them instead. 1995hoo (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
BTW, I should add that as a longtime resident of Northern Virginia who grew up a rabid Redskin fan but who has gradually lost interest in football over the years (I primarily watch the Capitals now), I'll be happy to see Snyder go when it finally happens. I'm not faulting you for being excited about it. I'm just cautioning that you shouldn't rush to make changes based solely on media reports saying that something is supposed to happen in the future. I mean, if you had gone by media reports in 2016 then Wikipedia would have listed Hillary Clinton as the President of the United States beginning in 2017 because the media viewed her election as a certainty. 1995hoo (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks like there has been agreement for the sale of the team based on a statement of the Commanders website as well as an article about the sale on the NFL website which can be found here: https://www.nfl.com/news/josh-harris-group-enters-into-purchase-agreement-with-synders-to-buy-commanders-. ComputerFreak34 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Right. But the league hasn’t approved the sale yet. All the pro sports leagues in the US require league approval when a team is sold. 1995hoo (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
You could at least stated that there is a purchase agreement for the team pending approval from the league. ComputerFreak34 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The template at the top of the page seems to do that well enough. It feels kind of like a WP:NOTNEWS issue otherwise, at least in my mind anyway, because it’ll be replaced with the fact of the completed sale (hopefully soon!). 1995hoo (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ownership approval

Hello, fellow Commanders editors! I know there has been a lot in the news lately regarding the sale of this franchise that a lot of us (whether past or present) hold close to our hearts, but assuming the sale does go through this Thursday, July 20, what should the protocol be for changing the ownership details in this and other articles? Should it be off of tweets from NFL insiders like Schefter or Rappaport? News articles? Or should it come straight from the league or the organization? Would love to hear your thoughts. Jimania16 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Per other big NFL news, the league is likely to put out a press release first that Shefter and co. would just retweet. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Dan Synder no longer owns the team! 2600:4040:2576:6A00:E223:BD4E:648:77EE (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Dan "Synder" never owned the team. Last I saw on the news, the NFL owners had not voted on the sale yet and it’s not scheduled to be finalized until tomorrow even if the vote today is affirmative as expected. Maybe the article ought to be fully protected for the next 48 hours. 1995hoo (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
It has now closed, just for the record. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: per 1995hoo, please provide a reliable source when appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Player record longest field goal needs to be changed

The player record for the longest field goal needs to be altered. The new record has been set by Joey Slye at 61 yards in the game between the Washington Commanders and the Philadelphia Eagles on October 29, 2023.

Source: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/commanders-kicker-pulls-off-nfl-rarity-by-drilling-61-yard-field-goal-sets-franchise-record-for-distance/ 213.124.175.176 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Commanders/Archive_3&oldid=1257349269"