Template talk:New York Cosmos

New Template for New York Cosmos - September, 2013

Hello to everyone reading.

This conversation that I am initiating is in reference to the New York Cosmos Template. Recently I created a fresh update [see history] with a more faithful and detailed description of the team's entire history (1971-1985; 2010-present) spanning more than four decades. One user (Fifty7) who had previously done some work on the template disagreed with the presentation over preference to what already existed [see template in history prior to my input]. I am bringing this information to light so an intelligent level of analytical discussion can be obtained from a sizable group of our peers that can pursue a medium ground on what is favorable for the layout in general. I am reintroducing the enhanced template for the sake of analysis. Let it be known, that this is intended to create a quality exchange of reasoning and not a motive to marginalize any individual. That is not my interest, nor is it of importance to the topic. My desires are to make sure that historical accounts are preserved in a professional manner with only facts and without bias opinion. It would be ideal that anyone impartially interested in participating can study both works in comparison to the team's logo, colors through the years, and their history and give valid suggestions as to which should exist or how to improve upon the layout. Any amicable reader wanting to leave a constructive view may do so following my points.

After coming across the original format of the New York Cosmos template, I found myself studying the available information and choice of design. Being familiar with the history of the team, I automatically saw that much was left out that provides a more sound overview of their years in the sport of soccer, and their significance and contributions to it. The previous version, prior to my contributions, from its initial form which has seen several incarnations in over two years and a half, had a decent start that eventually needed proper finesse. Therefore I dedicated valuable time in greatly improving upon the existing contributions in an effort to illustrate a better representation. To commence, I will refer to the previous template [see history before my edits] in order to place into perspective what was seen and where editing was useful. Comparing the previous work in question to the team's historical accounts, certain details were lacking and some areas could benefit from adjustment. All being analyzed is visibly carried out in the new version I have provided [see most recent]. See both templates to follow changes.

Information (content)
The first point is in reference to the club. In the old version of the template, the group is separated into two categories, the present team (under "The Club") and the "Historical Team". There is no need whatsoever to make such a contrast as the club is one, with the same lineage, and can better be aligned within a single section distinguished by the years. The term historical is a point of view that may be redundant in the future as the current lineup may also create their own mystique and be prized in their own right. The categorizing alludes to a single team or a set of years. It is the club and franchise as a whole that is historical and not in distinction. Within the subcategories of the years, further descriptions are provided that can place emphasis on accomplishments per team or dynasties.

Second, the "Stadiums". This section did not clarify the years played at these venues. Instead of having to go one by one per link, it is highly convenient and easier for readers to have this information present. It also did not make proper understanding of which stadium is currently being used by the club. Hofstra stadium is placed in bold. Someone who is knowledgeable of the team may catch the symbolized reference, but that is not a proper explanation for those unfamiliar. Also, the name itself is no longer that, as it is now James M. Shuart Stadium. The team played and currently plays at the same site, which has had different names. This discrepancy is now clarified in the new version by placing the latter in parenthesis and bold along with the respective years for each stadium.

Furthermore, there was no mentioning of any arena used by the club. Between 1976 and 1985, the club participated in indoor competition during varying periods. For four years consecutively their home was Brendan Byrne Arena (currently the Izod Center). Their official last year as a club before retiring was 1985 when they played indoor, and not outdoor which they stopped in 1984. This is valuable information that correlates with the first years of the team between 1971-1985. Also, their new facility at the Mitchel Athletic Complex was not mentioned. At this venue the current lineup has played and will continue to compete in private friendlies against top division teams. Further, no recognition of the club's development system and their U-23 and youth academy teams was written. This has been formally introduced in the new version.

Next in the culture of the Cosmos, there is a lot of lore and association with a set of players and themes. When you think of the Cosmos who or what do you think of? The answer to this is what's required to summarize the category of "Culture". When I originally found the old template, someone had previously included a group of distinct players that can be considered synonymous with the topic or the cultural movement of the club. I in turn inserted a name to keep consistency. When I first submitted a version of the new template, the same user (Fifty7) that opposed the version critiqued the usage of names being part of this set. I had also made a new category where "Retired Numbers" of players can be included which was missing. The user was also against it. Then the user resubmitted an abridged incarnation of the old version with the retired numbers category placed, without names. I restudied the situation and determined that the area of culture should include concepts or anything that represents the influential movement of the team within society. The names of some of these particular players, like Pelé, Giorgio Chinaglia, and Franz Beckenbauer, are intertwined with the mystique of the club and merit recognition. Still, in fairness of collaboration, in the new version I have updated the culture category with the phrase of "This Is Cosmos Country", a famous moniker of the club, and made a new revised category for "Honorary Players". In the latter, I've combined the distinguished players and placed in parenthesis their retired numbers, making known who participated in the club that made it what it is today.

I also created two new categories for "Sponsored Tournaments" and "Inspired Club Names". In the first, the Cosmos host an annual event in NYC, throughout the five boroughs, where dozens of amateur to semi-professional teams from around the world representing their nationalities come together and compete for the Cosmos COPA. It is a growing competition that has seen over fifty nations participate, and is part of the club's international identity. In the second, the team over the years has also inspired other clubs to adopt the Cosmos' name, in the case of Jomo Cosmos FC and Cosmos UK FC. These details show the influence of the team abroad, on a worldly basis.

Moving to the umbrella section of "Honors", in the old template there is one section for "Major Honors". In the new version, I created a complementary section for "Additional Honors". The club itself is highly decorated, and is the most prized team in the history of Soccer in the US and Canada. The best way to define this is to place their résumé of titles. It does not conflict with the major honors as the two are distinct and work in unison. The new section makes note of the team being a finalist in the 1981 Championship, the only final they made and did not win. It showcases both their repertoire of Conference and Division titles. It also highlights their years playing indoor as they were also a finalist in the 1983-84 NASL Indoor Championship. The Trans-Atlantic Challenge Cup of the early eighties was also a very important international competition of the era where the New York Cosmos faced premier international clubs like Sao Paulo FC, Celtic FC, FC Barcelona, and ACF Fiorentina. Their wins show the level of quality performance from their players and squad in comparison to elite teams from around the globe.

In continuation to the "Seasons" section, the information was partially complete. The old version of the template only made note of the outdoor seasons. However, the club played both outdoor and indoor and is as much a part of their history as the other details included. I rewrote the section to "Outdoor Seasons" and made a new "Indoor Seasons" to distinguish the two fields of play and the years participated in each.

Lastly in this unit, there is a misconception of where the club is based. The old template originally had New York City. I submitted the new version with this same information. When the other user (Fifty7) resubmitted the abridged old template, a change was made to Hempstead, NY. This is inaccurate. Yes, the team currently plays at Jame M. Shuart Stadium in Hempstead, NY. However, for more than forty years, the club (the entire organization) has played in several venues within and around the New York City Area. They play and represent that region. The club and organization's main offices are located in SOHO, in lower Manhattan and they do the majority of their press releases within the city. Therefore, they are based in New York City.

In terms of content, the new template is done in three main parts fully answering three questions: Who are the Cosmos? What have they won or accomplished as a team? and - Which years did they play? Now the details carry weight to give a summarized depiction of the club where a reader can then explore further through links.

Color and Layout
Transitioning to the next topic of interest, the most visible change to the template is fundamentally the layout and color pattern. This is an important aspect of the entire presentation as it is a reflection of the spirit of the team and how they are acknowledged by many around the world, especially their fans. Over the years the club has used five main colors with various shades of each: white, dark navy blue (or black), golden yellow, green, and turquoise (or light blue). Their choice of colors have their historical significance as the club originally looked to Brazil's national soccer team for inspiration. This is where the color usage of green and yellow arrives from. Like the NY Yankees (logo) or NY Giants (logo), the name New York Cosmos or Cosmos, written in white, is placed over a black or dark navy blue tone within the team's crest (or logo (a), (b), (c). The other three colors designed represent the multiple nationalities of New York City and over time the multiple players from around the world that have participated in the club. The name Cosmos is a play on the word cosmopolitan which was inspired by the Mets or metropolitan. During their start, for approximately four years, the team played with a similar uniform to Brazil's, using only green and gold trim, and reversed for away games. Ultimately, the color scheme would evolve to the classic recognizable pattern known today of the five colors [see: (a), (b), (c), (d)] that officially represents the team since 1975. Throughout the club's first era, between 1971-1985, the colors were worn for eleven years out of fifteen, especially in their height when most championships were won, and their name became an international brand. They are also the current colors of the present team, and are a staple of the club and organization. Today, the name of the entire club, New York Cosmos, and the company's trademark representation, is distinctly written within the logo in white over dark navy blue, with the colors green, yellow, and light blue forming part of the crest. This iconic logo, placed on all uniforms, seen in all press releases, in all form of company business, is the prime authentic symbol used globally to identify the club and organization as whole.

In examining these concepts and viewing the old template, many can immediately detect that the color scheme is not quite right. The main color used is a pale shade of green that is not consistent with the logo nor the current jersey. While the light gold trim, a possible reference to the commencement of the team, has not been used in thirty nine years. This inaccurately indicates that the team is only represented by two colors. Also, the title name New York Cosmos is written on green instead of dark navy blue. The overall arrangement, which appears generic, does not give a viewer a true reference or vision. This is where polishing was needed.

Appreciating the importance of the team's colors, I sat down to look for the best possible way to capture the essence of their logos and jerseys over the years. My goal was to make sure that the arrangement was harmonious to the team and for a viewer to easily recognize them off the bat. To begin, the header is finally corrected to have the name New York Cosmos in white over dark navy blue, as this is the true form actively in use. Next the categories are placed in green body with a shade more inline with the team's uniform, while the subcategories to the right are left in white background. The whole template is now using a white trim, creating a proper vision of both the white and green jerseys.

Next is the sequencing of the crest with the three colors of green, yellow, and light blue. After the the navy blue header, a golden yellow is placed, rather than green for three reasons. First, green is already highly visible within the categories, with white at the center of the subcategories, and light blue in continuation of yellow. The five colors of the team are immediately seen with the name on top for instant association. Second, from 1978-1985, the Cosmos' home uniform had a blue and yellow collar that was widely known within the sport of soccer, that is touched upon here. Third, the organization has created an additional logo that marries the original with the NYC acronym, where the colors used are blue, yellow, and white in order. Within the new template, following the light blue color, we see a lighter green that is similar to the original uniforms, and is also the first color in the logo's pattern. It is proceeded by golden yellow and light blue again. The lettering on top of the pattern (or umbrella sections in the template) are in navy blue, which was also used by the team on their white jerseys to label the player's numbers. The colors are a true reflection of the team's logo and legacy and what they represent as a multicultural international team. This motif is present in the new template and is a more faithful portrayal while paying homage to the span of the club's history.

Making sure that quality was paramount, the new arrangement is evenly separated, creating balance, and smooth progression. All words are clear, visible, legible, and optimal for reading. Words are in standard size, with few in smaller fonts where appropriate. The colors complement each other and are used to transition between parts. The total combination makes for a more complete template.

Finding precedence for such a layout is also important to justify the evolution of the old to the new. To keep relevance and within topic, all we need to do is defer to other active professional soccer teams in North America, particularly within the first and second division leagues that the United States and Canada particpate in. For instance, all Major League Soccer clubs written about in Wikipedia have templates with color schemes that identify the teams. Let's look at a few examples. In terms of content, we can look to the Vancouver Whitecaps (template) who have a comparable history in soccer dating back approximately forty years. The information is rich in content and well organized. Looking at other teams, all we have to do is compare both the logo and templates of each to make accurate assessments. Let's look at the Los Angeles Galaxy (see logo, template), D.C. United (see logo, template), Chicago Fire (see logo, template), Portland Timbers (see logo, template), Real Salt Lake (see logo, template), and the Seattle Sounders (see logo, template) just to name a few. Anyone that studies these can see clear evidence of how the templates are a mirror of the logos and are synonymous with the team's identity.

In an attempt to modify the template with another color under his terms, the opposing user (Fifty7) reintroduced the old template by simply adding blue as a body, with yellow lettering. It was done without true contemplation on the usage, and merely to keep ties with other templates of US soccer teams that have more than one color. Meanwhile, another user (Oknazevad), who also made previous contributions for two years, made a very brash comment on the new template, giving opinion on color and saying that it looked "garish". Notwithstanding this individual's artistic expertise, this is a bias and personal opinion that is irrelevant to the layout, as the user is actually depreciating the colors of the Cosmos' team, without realizing it. The fact is, the template is an account of who the team is and how they are represented. Opinion on which teams' colors are better looking than others is not of historical significance. For example, we can refer to both the Tampa Bay Rowdies (see logo, template) or the Fort Lauderdale Strikers (see logo, template). Their colors on the templates may seem brighter to some and possibly carry different opinions. However, those are still the official colors of the teams and there shouldn't be objections - that's for a separate forum. And like the Cosmos' colors, we should respect it and document the history with clarity.

I am not interested in petty debates. I write as a professional. I appreciate all previous endeavors and enjoy collaborating with others. The old template had a good start and over the course of two years it saw many changes. Still, it did not visually or substantially depict the entirety of the club. Now, with the new template that I have presented, there is depth. The two users (Fifty7, and Oknazevad) who jumped to criticize the change simply disagreed because they were not used to seeing the template any differently for two and a half years. And that's ok, not everyone can rapidly embrace change. But I would like for them to take a step back, and reevaluate all that I have explained, and try to put aside preconceived visions, and give themselves an opportunity to appreciate the new template. This is meant to improve on all the work that as a team we can make.

I welcome others with fresh eyes, who value facts and accuracy, to truly study the old template and the new version I have presented along with the logos, colors and history of the New York Cosmos over the years. It would be great to have a sizable and constructive contribution by many. This way, a formal and positive agreement can be approached on what is preferred. To arrive to a sound judgement, all you have to do is ask yourselves: Which template actually looks like and has the feel of the team? Which makes you think New York Cosmos? Which introduces their story? The older version was largely missing this quality, even with its recent modifications. The new version I have presented is a right choice. I leave you all to decide for yourselves. NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that's a wall of text. Two things immediately come to mind. First, the color choices are a WP:ACCESS issue, especially the blue-on-blue portions. Also, while appearing in the logo,not all those colors appear on the uniforms consistently.

The second, and more important, is that the proposed template does the utterly objectionable thing of treating the new, minor league team as the same team as the historical one. That is incorrect! Acquiring the rights to the name does not make the current team a continuation of the old one, which folded outright and has not had any operations for decades. Period. It is not the same team, its a new team using the old name. Anything other than that is a load of POV marketing hooey. oknazevad (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)`

• You clearly are using nostalgic opinion. Every year in every club of every franchise in every sport there is a new team. Players circulate, even ownership changes from time to time, as well as venues. The club folded in 1985, while ownership continued under different individuals. The entity of the Cosmos was transferred to new ownership which carries over the legacy and has thus created a new lineup to field. Ergo, new team, same lineage, one club. It also has the proper foundation that connects with all aspects of its heritage, from players to all forms of identity. You quickly respond without pause to reflect on what was written, and now you antagonize the current team by belittling their worth. You lose a lot of ground and show adamance. This is a place for collaboration, and not a blog to hold hostage at your will. Let others comment and compare without bias. And yes, all the main colors appear on the current uniform as it is part of their logo. Cheers. NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't understand the nature of a sports franchise. Sure players come and go and there's change every year. But there's also a continued operation that perpetuates the franchise. That does not exist here and never did. This isn't the first time this has been discussed; there a distinct reason why Wikipedia has two separate articles for the old franchise and the new.

Secondly, I would recommend looking at the templates for not just other US soccer teams, but other US sports teams in general. Your template proposal is huge compared to them, even MLB teams that have been around for more than a century (even the Yankees). The proposed design is just too big.

More importantly, I would advise you to not lecture anyone on collaborative behavior, and read the page at WP:BRD. You boldly made your changes, but at this point no less than two other editors have reverted them. Re-adding them without waiting for the discussion to conclude is poor behavior. Fifty7 hasn't weighed in here yet; I'd like to see his opinion, as he has been very active with this template and also reverted. Until then, the template should remain as it was, until the discussion is settled.oknazevad (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly, as just demonstrated, the only two who are making negative bold remarks, inappropriately in the history section, are the very ones responding. These individuals are not even using reasoning, but merely some fictitious defense. I am not going to correct your last statements, which is misleading all around, as it is a recipe for something I am not interested in engaging by educating anyone. It's beneath me and that is not the goal for what I wrote, and I won't partake in your attempt to tarnish the open forum of discussion. Simply step to the side, and let others speak without you two trying to hold hostage an area that belongs to everyone. NYCWikiKid (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing ficticious about WP:BRD. Its pretty straight forward. And it's disingenuous to claim discollaborative behavior when you insist on forcing through changes that aren't supported by anyone else. oknazevad (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• In courtesy, I suggest that you take heed of your own actions with reference to bold reverts as you two are the only ones working against it. I have not forced anything as you are alluding to. I have taken the necessary steps to create a panel of discussion. I have put forward an improvement of information with valid points and proper layout using adequate visuals and arrangements, which you two keep deliberately negating on multiple occasions [as seen in the history section). And I have been very open to collaboration, which you two have not. Meanwhile, you use BRD and Manual of style as some kind of manipulative scare tactic to push others around and not allow them to place information because it does not favor your own one-sided vision. Apparently, by your behavior you perceive to be the only ones out of millions of people who read Wikipedia and have sole information about the topic of the New York Cosmos. In truth, you have not taken any other person's voice into account but yourselves to make such profound allegations, with no substantial knowledge from our peers, that contributing to a page is not "supported by anyone else". Even more evidence that you are the only ones actually trying to prevent everyone else from writing because we must all pass through your approval, as it seems to be that you are the "owners" of the template. Again, let others who want to contribute intelligently do so without your badgering, which is deconstructive. This is a forum for free thinkers, and the template is for people seeking further knowledge on the team. Let's look for a common ground and hear from a sizable group of fresh voices. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not chiming in sooner, I've been busy with work. There are two main points that have to be addressed, in my opinion:

The first main point is the proposed new template by NYCWikiKid. While I appreciate his enthusiasm for the subject, the way he has gone about implementing his new edits is unproductive and the edits themselves are problematic. No consensus was reached -- in fact no attempt was even made to gain consensus -- for an article that clearly already has custodians, which is a criteria for avoiding unilateral edits whenever possible. As for the edits... first is the color scheme. The colors he chose and their arrangement are clearly a WP:ACCESS issue, as they are disorganized and can be difficult for some readers to see through. However, he does raise a good point regarding the color scheme of the template, in that it is not indicative of the Cosmos' full use of color (navy and yellow is historically a part of the club), AND it led me to discover an error I made in the formatting of the original template (which I discussed below in my latest edit to the Template talk:New York Cosmos#Template color? section). As such, I changed the "groups" backgrounds to the club's shade of navy blue, and de-bordered them in order to bring it in line with other North American soccer club navigation boxes. I want to stress the term navigation box as it brings me to the second critique of NYCWikiKid's edits. These templates are meant to be tools of quick navigation for a reader learning about the club. When Oknazevad used the term "bloated" to describe just how much information NYCWikiKid squeezed in, I felt it was an understatement. The point of this is to be as compact as possible; that's what the wikilinks are for. Furthermore, some of the things entered are nowhere near notable enough to be mentioned anywhere other than the actual encyclopedia article itself, not the navigation box. Club names inspired? Minor honors as low as division championships? Amateur tournaments sponsored? Friendly tournaments participated in? This is going too far by any stretch of reason. However, it did raise the point that "All honors" weren't linked to, like in the DC, Seattle, Portland, or Vancouver templates. That will be rectified, so again, thanks NYCWikiKid for helping me see that. The edits I've made are intended to keep the Cosmos navbox in line with the conventions of MLS/North American soccer club navboxes, including the town location of the club's stadium underneath the club's name, color scheme formatting, linking to the 'list of seasons' that includes the indoor seasons, and other things (retired numbers, etc.).

The second main point is the club lineage debate. My point of view is that, similar to the NFL's Cleveland Browns, the modern-day San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Fort Lauderdale Strikers, Tampa Bay Rowdies, and to a lesser extent Montreal Impact, all set a precedent regarding club lineage and how they are treated on Wikipedia. Given that they all own the intellectual property rights to their names -- and as such, the "histories" -- the best way to treat them on Wikipedia has been "Same club, different franchises." If you look at the navigational boxes for those clubs, by and large that is the mantra that holds true, and it is what I held to when writing up the List of American and Canadian soccer champions article. So long as the distinction is made clear to the reader about these franchises essentially being phoenix clubs, then it is an honest presentation of the information. This rings just as true for the Cosmos as it does the Sounders, et al. The "distinction" compromise is something Oknazevad and I actually came to when working on the Cosmos managers template, for an example. And even if you don't subscribe to that, the fact remains that the Cosmos trademark never folded; it was owned by G. Peppe Pinton over all these years and thus from a property standpoint it has a better case than any of the 'heritage clubs' I've mentioned even do.

The edit I'm going to revert to incorporates all of these considerations (common sense, reader access, navigation box conventions for US soccer clubs, errors of my own highlighted by NYCWikiKid, and previous compromise amongst editors). Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks for reading. -- Fifty7 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Those other articles are clear about the difference between the teams. Here also, there are two different team articles: one for the original NASL team and one for the new NASL team. If you want to create a unified history article the way that there is for the Vancouver Whitecaps, feel free to, but don't merge the histories between the two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fifty7 (talk). I am only speaking to you, in this particular response, and no one else. I will begin by saying, that I don't have any ill will towards you. In fact, we don't know each other. I have no bad concepts of who you are, nor do I need to waste time doing so. It's simply not the type of person I am. I do believe that you have good intentions, as I have read through the talk pages of the Cosmos and have seen some of your comments. I hope you can interpret the same on my pursuits based on my contributions. In no way shape or form were my intentions to cause you pain or override your insight. I just placed things according to facts, and that's it. I speak with sincerity, and I say that I hope we can start anew towards working together and collaborating on a better informative page of the club as a whole.

Next, I'd like to add that though you have been working on the template for over two years, maybe you were too attached to the old format. It is hard for anyone to see things from the outside when they are always in. That is why my ideas seemed so profound to you. We can now agree that the color scheme was not complete. You have now introduced your second model. It is not bad, but there are certain things to it that are not in the right place from a visual standpoint. I will put up another version, and then you can study it, so we can come to an agreement. It is going to be a compromise with some of the queries you bring up. Lastly, the term custodian, as a friendly suggestion, is something that should never be used for a Wikipedia page as it would diminish fact and only make opinion. If one person or even two are considered "the guardians" of a page, then it would indicate that only they have the final say over it. And this is not the right way of going about things that have nothing to do with one person but world information. I appreciate that you feel compelled to safeguard content, but the page(s) should be open to everyone. And instead of anyone of us clicking undo, let's see where we can enhance on each others work. I hope this sounds fair.

On a few notes. The template I placed is not long at all. It is a reflection of the team's history. They are without any dispute, the most decorated team in US Soccer history, and their accomplishments should not be confined because other teams do not carry the same body. Just because other templates are less in information, we should not limit that of the Cosmos. So in twenty years time, the information is not going to grow further for any of these teams? What about in fifty years time? Are we writing only for today, or are we leaving facts about everything for today and tomorrow? I do understand your approach, but you might be, without knowing it, diminishing who the team is for the sake of what others have not done. The user, Oknazevad, mentioned an interesting team, the New York Yankees. He mentioned that the information in their template is not extensive. That is not true. Look through it. I want you to see the Yankee's article page and look at the infobox at the right and see the details. Then scroll to the bottom of the page and see the navboxes. You'll notice the information of the team is widely cataloged. Next, there is a separation of the seasons into their own navbox, which is large in its own right. Open the two together at the Yankee article page and you'll see how detailed it is. What was written for the Cosmos was smaller in comparison.

Remember, this template is not about a specific team or era of the New York Cosmos. For that, a separate template can be made about a specific era or years or about the professional men's team. This template is about the club as the title is stated as such. The club has several components that makes it a whole. The information you may believe is unnecessary is actually different facets of the club that are important. So again, I'll put something up. Make some appropriate critiques where you think, and together we'll work on it to make it better.

And one final thought, I am totally with you on the point that the club is one entity. It is legally standing and confirmed. Anyone interested, can simply do their homework. There is no need to place personal belief or opinion. It is what it is, and it's fact, and recognized by the media world wide. Take care. NYCWikiKid (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal standing? Confirmed? No. The former club legally ceased operations in 1985. Only the "name and image rights" exist from that original team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that one of the founding teams behind the NASL, the Vancouver Whitecaps, also bought the rights to the name, history and franchise, but they are treated as three separate articles on Wikipedia. That's also why the Cosmos articles are separate. To imply unity is not accurate based on that precedent, the Sounders and Timbers as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clearer, I am with Walter Görlitz and Oknazevad on the 'different entities' approach. Though they may be the same club, with the contemporary entity having a rightful claim to the lineage and history, they are different franchises themselves. To suggest differently is to fool the reader into reading an interpretation of the information rather than the objective information itself. The way the Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, and Seattle Sounders articles follow this should be followed (date of the current franchise's founding used as club founding date with a simple, brief note explaining the original franchise's existence, etc). -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to choose to be with whomever they like. That is not my concern. However, to be clear, as an entity the New York Cosmos are one "franchise", one brand, one club. Now, what is different is that their men's professional outdoor team has been part of two leagues, the original NASL and the new. These teams of the Cosmos organization forming part of the two leagues were given franchise rights of the leagues themselves. That is a separate argument that people fail to comprehend and mix. Moreover the club or company known as the New York Cosmos is divided up and represented by several components, including the men's professional outdoor team(s), the former men's professional indoor team, the U-23 team, Cosmos youth league, and much more. I have never stated that the two franchising rights of the separate NASL has been the same, but the franchise of the company is. There are too many that are stuck on the term "team" and are fixated on the period of the club that was part of the original NASL. However, this is about the club that has all levels of representation within their company. One club, one organization, one history. NYCWikiKid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the current New York Cosmos are not one franchise as the company from which they would franchise is a completely different legal entity. The only similarity is the name.

To be clear, the current New York Cosmos may be one brand, but that was purchased and there is no proof that the club existed as a mens team from 1985 through 2012. None. provide the record of play for the senior mens team.

To be clear, the current New York Cosmos is only one club, but not the same one that ceased to exit in 1985.

You are clear on the difference between the current and the old teams playing for a league calling itself the NASL, but they are two very different legal entities. I watched as the new one took shape and fought legal battles as it formed and later to free itself from the USL.

In short, they are not the same team, franchise and are only related by a purchased team colours and name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Template color?

Is there any justification for using "#28b259" rather than standard "green"? That green looks too light for both what they've worn in the past and for the trim on their new jersey, both of which are darker. Similarly, the green used in the crest is much darker than the template. The team is using this lighter shade as an accent color on the website, but I don't know if that warrants making it the primary color of this template. Does anyone have access to their specfic color sheets to support "#28b259"? SixFourThree (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

An anon changed to the present colours, though I don't know anything about them. I just had them set to "darkgreen" and "yellow" myself (and "white", obviously). Do whatever you see fit, this really doesn't bother me. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the green and yellow hexadecimal values from the crest used on the club's website (which is the same as the crest used in the 70's). It's also the colors used on merchandise and whatnot, I thought it a nice touch of detail. I'd prefer to keep it. -- 24.191.225.71 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I say, I really don't mind either way. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange - you're right about the web version, but the official graphic they released is significantly darker. The merchandise is somewhere in the middle. Maybe we should keep it as is until a reputable source[1] can verify the team's official palette. SixFourThree (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

and just as an aside, the original crest[2] used a darker green - 058343 as opposed to the current's 1fb25a. FWIW. SixFourThree (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

I think just using "green" and so forth is better, anything else could surely be defined as original research... – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put it back to "darkgreen", "white" and "yellow", which I believe is what I had before. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I swap the green and white? All those white backgrounds makes it harder to read.SixFourThree (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

No problem, I'll do it myself now. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's nice. Now who's going to add the template to all the various players' pages?  ;) SixFourThree (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

Ah, iwe! Give me a few minutes shamwari.... ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There we go. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a new edit to the color scheme, as NYCWikiKid pointed out the color scheme did not adequately address all the club's colors. While his edit was a bit extreme and I dialed it back, he did highlight an important error on my part: MLS/North American club navboxes have the title backgrounds the primary color, bordered with either the secondary or tertiary color, with the group backgrounds being the secondary or tertiary color with no border. My original scheme had just the primary color for both title and group, each with bordering. This has been corrected by introducing the Cosmos' navy blue of the historical club's kits and contemporary club's logo background. Hexadecimal values from the club website again used to determine the correct shade of the color, as correct shading rather than generic colors is convention for other MLS/North American club navboxes. -- Fifty7 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New/Historical, and Seasons

For what it's worth, the process of combining "The Club" group with a link to the historical club, and "Seasons" all together, was modeled after the Timbers' navbox. Granted, it's not perfect (As you noted it's more genuine to separate the info, and I wish I could convince the Timbers editors to align with the 'Major Honors' definition), but it's much neater than having multiple spans in my opinion. -- Fifty7 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps separate lists within the same span? Like this (I've cropped most of the box out to get to the point I'm referring to)? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems good, only change I would make are to the word 'seasons' showing up so much and include the amount. -- Fifty7 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• That looks good to me, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly winning a second division title is a minor award

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Cosmos&oldid=581707861&diff=prev Care to explain how that works? If this were a European league, they would be promoted to the first division. Other teams who have won second division titles have it listed as a major honour. I'm not sure why it has suddenly become minor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I say as a compromise just change it to say "Honors" and list the various championships from the historical team and the current one. That's what the Montreal Impact template does. --Darkhunger (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It seems bizarre that a league championship wouldn't rate inclusion here. If there is no objection, I'm going to add a third category under "Major Honors" called D2 League Championship for whatever the club can earn in the new NASL. Offside Trap (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Offside_Trap

I do object temporarily, as it would be out of line with all other North American clubs' templates, as well as the major honors page itself. I'm working on how to reconfigure the latter page to properly address this issue though. The definition of "major honor" ought to reflect the fact that there is no promotion and relegation, and therefore these teams are winning the highest honors available to them. I just don't want the template to say one thing and the list of honors page it links to to say another. -- Clematis1378 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't even consistency across the various NASL team templates. Minnesota and Puerto Rico just use "Honors", while Atlanta and Carolina use "Major Honors". We could just change the general category to "Honors"; it would work fine with the linked page. Offside Trap (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Offside_Trap