Talk:FC Cincinnati (2016–2018)

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): Lazarubj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV check for Supporters and club culture[edit]

Section reads like a press release. -192.69.65.13 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FC Cincinnati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to "Fussball Club Cincinnati"[edit]

This is the source for the name change, but it's too soon to change the WP article. The source says in 2019. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merits an entry though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned. I'm just saying it's too early to change the infobox. Possibly should be Cincinnati Fußballverein, maybe they'll change their minds before it goes official. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be kept as Futbol Club and we should create the article for the MLS team to be consistent with the other MLS expansion teams, noted below. SportingFlyer talk 05:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting article?[edit]

Since FCC's last USL season is now over, when should we split the page by USL vs. MLS? The precedent for other MLS franchises that were "promoted" from a lower league has been to dedicate the undabbed page to the MLS side, with earlier incarnations being dabbed with the years in which they played at a lower level. Obviously, for FCC, it would work like this:

  • "FC Cincinnati" — MLS side
  • "FC Cincinnati (2016–18)" — USL side

Should it wait until the entire USL season is over? — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the idea of having two separate articles. It's the same team, just moving up to a new league. Sure, some paperwork somewhere says that this is a separate legal entity, but this article is about FC Cincinnati, not FC Cincinnati LLC. Same name, same ownership group, same coaching staff and front office, same stadium, some of the same players probably. Any other sports league in the world, we wouldn't create a new article when a team joins the league, so why do we do it for MLS? I think it's confusing to the reader to have two different articles for what they perceive as a singular team that merely changed leagues. --IagoQnsi (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same team. That team will cease to exists as a financial entity as MLS will hold all of the contracts and dole them out to the offices that used to house FC Cincinnati management. While the names are the same, they're a different financial entity. That's why we do it for MLS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And per Dale's question, I think we should wait until the MLS season is over. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: This is an article about the team, not about the financial entity that operates the team. The financial entity may be different, but no one thinks of these two entities as separate topics. A reader looking up "FC Cincinnati" would expect to see information about the entire club history, not just since the move up to MLS.
Pretty much every source you can find talks about this situation as an existing club joining MLS, not about one club shutting down and another club starting up. This is how secondary sources talk about it ("The formal confirmation of FC Cincinnati's jump to MLS had been anticipated...", "That Futbol Club Cincinnati will soon be a member of Major League Soccer might be a surprise..."), this is how official sources talk about it ("The expansion side, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS, plans to play..."), and this is how Wikipedia ought to talk about it.
We wouldn't make a new article for a new legal/financial entity in any other industry. For example, we don't have separate articles for Valve L.L.C. (1996–2003) and Valve Corporation (2003–present), because we recognize that when the same people are doing the same things under the same name, they're the same organization, regardless of what the paperwork says. --IagoQnsi (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was the case with Seattle Sounders (disambiguation), Vancouver Whitecaps (disambiguation), Portland Timbers (disambiguation), Montreal Impact (1992–2011) and several other teams that purchased an MLS franchise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I'm aware that this is the precedent; I just don't think it makes sense here. Part of the reason many of those teams are split is because they truly were separate teams that just happened to share a name; there are gaps in time and significant enough differences between the teams that a separate article was warranted in many of those cases. There is a bit of a grey area here, and I don't think one-sizes-fits-all rule like "we always make a new article for MLS" is appropriate. While this may be the precedent for MLS, it opposes the precedent followed by every other soccer league, so I think it's really worth discussing changing the precedent. --IagoQnsi (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did Cincinnati pay for an MLS franchise? If they did, their former legal status has changed and a new one has been created. That is exactly what happened with Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal and all of the other MLS franchisees. They ceases operations in a lower league and with no gaps in time when they joined MLS. With Vancouver, they kept the same owners, back office and coach.
The cases in other leagues (Spain, England, Germany, Italy, France) is that teams are promoted and relegated from leagues. Someone with enough cash can buy a lower-tier club, pay for better players and move up to the first division. That's not the case here. That's why those articles do not change over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: The legal entity and the team are two separate matters -- this article is about the team, not the legal entity. I mentioned previously the example of Valve L.L.C. and Valve Corporation sharing one article. To give another example, we didn't create new articles for the American League and National League when those legal entities were dissolved in 2000 and MLB became a single legal entity (see Major League Baseball#League organization). Another example is Google Inc., a corporation which ceased to exist in 2017 and was replaced with a new entity called Google LLC (see Google#Alphabet). Wikipedia considers both of these legal entities to be the same company: Google.
Changes in legal status happen all the time and don't necessarily matter much to the outside world. What really matters is what reliable sources are saying about whether these two entities are the same or not. In the case of FC Cincinnati, I think the popular consensus is clearly in favor of considering these two legal entities to be the same team. --IagoQnsi (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, stop pinging me. This article is on my watchlist and I will see it.
Second, no, legal status is not a separate matter. When they enter MLS, they will be a different entity, and this article is about that. I won't address your tangential issues, because we do not discuss each franchise within the MLS article, which is the parent company in this case, we discuss each local entity. If you want a change to that at those articles, then you'll have to make your case there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the examples I presented are tangential. You said we were creating a new article because "their former legal status has changed and a new one has been created". I presented examples of other occasions where the exact same thing happened and we didn't create a new article. How is this situation different than the ones I presented? --IagoQnsi (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they may be exactly the same. I mean with MLB, there are AAA teams always buying their way into the league. Exactly the same thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The San Diego Padres say hello. And the Baltimore Orioles (though in that case the AAA owners bought a failed AL franchise – the St Louis Browns – to buy their way in; they didn't really keep the Browns players, but the AAA Orioles players). Oh, and the Vancouver Canucks joining the NHL. It isn't unprecedented in other major leagues. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NHL has a different franchise system. It's my understanding that MLS has a unique legal system. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure I follow. If they're exactly the same then why are we treating them differently? I'm confused about what you're trying to say. --IagoQnsi (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You don't get either irony or sarcasm down your way. How about we shut up for a while and let others weigh-in. As it stands we are diametrically opposed and I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me so we're just going to fill this space and frighten away others. @Dale Arnett: who started the thread for comment. We should also give notice at the MLS article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be condescending. I guess you're saying this is different because the FC Cincinnati owners paid an expansion fee, and we should create a new article whenever the owners pay to move leagues? What about Tampa Bay Rowdies, Ottawa Fury FC, Indy Eleven, and North Carolina FC? These teams all paid the USL expansion fee to switch from NASL to USL, and yet we didn't split those teams into separate articles. FC Tucson and Tormenta FC have paid an expansion fee to move up to USL League One next year, and no one seems to be arguing that we should make new articles for them. Creating new articles based on whether or not a team paid an expansion fee is clearly not a rule that's being followed, and in my opinion, it isn't one that makes any sense.
My position is that we should decide whether or not two entities are/aren't the same thing based on what reliable sources are saying about those entities, as WP:RS is one of Wikipedia's core content guidelines. Can you point to any Wikipedia policies/guidelines that support your position? --IagoQnsi (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa Fury (2005–13) became Ottawa Fury FC but is not an MLS team. Indy Eleven is not an MLS team. MLS has a very different legal structure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what exactly is the position you're arguing for?? First you said that we have to make a new article because FC Cincinnati is forming a new legal entity, so I gave examples of other companies that changed legal status. Then you talked about how FC Cincinnati was paying to move up and that was why we're making a new article. So I gave examples of other teams that paid to move up. Now you're back to talking about it being a new legal entity. I'm just trying to understand what your position is -- what are the conditions that must be met for a new article to be created? --IagoQnsi (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just countering your statement that "These teams all paid the USL expansion fee to switch from NASL to USL, and yet we didn't split those teams into separate articles" as we split them, but again, USL doesn't operate like MLS. Different leagues, Different ways they operate. No difference in argument. If I claimed that they are paying to move up, I'm sorry. That's not actually the case. The European leagues allow you to buy a team for whatever you want and operate it (more-or-less) however you want. Your team can start in a lower division and move up based on quality of play, which is often reflected by the quality of player you pay. The situation with teams or clubs entering MLS is that they pay an expansion fee and once accepted, are a chair in the board offices. You can't move down unless you fold. There's nowhere to move up to because it's first division. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that still doesn't answer my question. What exactly are the criteria you're using to establish that a team that changes leagues is a new team rather than a continuation of an old team? –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read and understood anything I've written? The criteria is that the contract that every franchisee signs with MLS allows MLS to stipulate everything about the team. The former front office becomes a different legal entity. The people may be the same. The name may be the same. The league, however, owns it all. The former legal entity no longer exists and MLS owns all naming rights, property, everything. Every player in the league is employed, not by the franchise, but by the league. See https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html as proof ("MLS has the “sole responsibility for negotiating and entering into agreements with, and for compensating, Players.”"). So if this franchise is a continuation, show me who owned their players on Independence Day, and who owns them on New Years Day. If the some company owns them, I'll back down.
Perhaps @KitHutch: or @Cmjc80: would like to comment further. And again, let others discuss this. You and I have taken too much space. It will make it daunting for new editors to join the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if that's the definition you're going by, then how does that differ from the MLB situation? In 1999, MLB shut down the offices of the National League and American League and dissolved their legal entities. The leagues lost all their rights, and the MLB was now allowed to stipulate everything that they did. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike earlier examples, FC Cincinnati does not have a long history in the lower division. At best it could be summarized in a subsection or two without overwhelming the MLS content. There's no good reason to split the article in my view, and doing so would create more unnecessary work. SounderBruce 01:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dale Arnett: The USL season won’t be over for another two weeks SportsFan007 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]
  • Support Split the MLS FC Cincinnati is a completely new team as a result of the MLS legal structure. This is not a "promotion" in the same sense that Fulham were promoted the EPL, and this was settled a long time ago with the other teams which have moved up, unless there's evidence that can be provided to the contrary. It's a bit hazy/confusing since I know they talk about the Timbers-Whitecaps "all time" record as including three different leagues, but they treat the all-time statistics leaders separately. SportingFlyer talk 02:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: There's a new legal entity being formed, but it's the same team. Have you read the thread between myself and Walter Görlitz? The main points I've made are:
  • We don't make new articles for other companies that undergo similar legal restructuring. Valve LLC and Valve Corporation are covered in the same article; Google Inc. and Google LLC are both covered in Google; and we didn't make new articles for National League and American League when MLB dissolved those legal entities in 2000.
  • Most sources, including both primary sources (e.g. [1]) and secondary sources (e.g. [2], [3]), talk about this situation as "FC Cincinnati joining MLS", not "FC Cincinnati shutting down and a new MLS club starting up". WP:RS is a core content guideline on Wikipedia — can you point to any policy that supports your argument?
–IagoQnsi (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MLS is pretty well documented in how this works. Orlando City didn't shut down their USL team, but instead moved them to Louisville since they still had the franchise rights. I believe the Sounders moved to Kitsap? The reason is because it's not the same team - MLS has created a brand new "expansion franchise" and the Cincinnati ownership group has purchased it. Whoever owns the current team likely still owns the USL franchise rights. The clue is in the article here: [4]: which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS the Whitecaps took a few months before announcing they were the Whitecaps, but I think after the Timbers and Sounders (who had a name the team competition) pre-existing teams are more willing to announce their brand when an expansion announcement is made. SportingFlyer talk 07:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really responded to the first point I made. Google Inc was dissolved in 2017, and a new entirely-separate entity called Google LLC was formed. Why do we cover both of those entities in the same article, when your logic would suggest they are entirely different companies?
Orlando City USL didn't move to Louisville, or at least that's not how most people would phrase it. Typically, you'd said that they sold the rights to a USL franchise to a team in Louisville. We don't have Louisville City FC and USL Orlando City sharing a single article, because people don't think of them as the same team (even though they're the same USL franchise). FC Cincinnati is sort of the same situation, just inverted – instead of two teams being represented by one legal entity, it's one team being represented by two different legal entities. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your Google analogy doesn't work at all as that was a corporate restructure. FC Cincinnati is no different than Orlando, Portland, Seattle, Montréal, all of which have two separate articles for their USL/NASL and MLS teams - the MLS team is a completely new team that uses the same brand as a minor league team. They could have announced on the day of the announcement the team name was the Cincinnati Riverhawks, for example. This article from 2009 for instance doesn't read that the Timbers are moving to MLS, but rather than Portland has an expansion MLS franchise: [5] These articles are the most technical: [6] [7] If you think this is different than previous consensus, please demonstrate something better than the official MLS article. As noted, the Baltimore Orioles a good example of this, where the major league team reused the minor league team's name. It also looks like they're going with Fußball and are completely refreshing their brand. SportingFlyer talk 09:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Even if they are/were changing names, they still might be considered the same team. What matters is if reliable sources talked about them as one team that's changing its league and name, or two separate teams. The Timbers link you included would support an argument to keep the Timbers USL and MLS teams separate, but that doesn't have anything to do with FC Cincinnati. As for the FC Cincinnati links, the Soccer America article seems to support my argument if anything (they talk about FC Cincinnati building the stadium, even though the MLS club with that name hadn't even been announced at the time of publication). The SBI Soccer article supports your case, but I think it's very weak -- it's an obscure, questionably-reliable source posting a very short article. What's more, they're very open about the fact that they got their information from this Cincinnati Enquirer article and this Sports Illustrated article, and both of those articles support my case, so I'm not sure what led them to use such different wording. If you want an example of a club that kept its article after a rebirth, see Parma Calcio 1913, which has been dissolved and recreated four times in its history. --IagoQnsi (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best source is still the official announcement: [8] The expansion side, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS... makes it clear this is an expansion team, not the continuation of a new team - their logo isn't even on MLSSoccer.com yet, since they'll likely rebrand. Futbol Club Cincinnati is also the name of the legal entity which runs the minor league team, adding to the confusion, and it looks like the new team will be rebranded: [9]. Italian clubs go bankrupt and restart all the time - that analogy doesn't hold for U.S. sports. We should probably go ahead and create the MLS team article. SportingFlyer talk 05:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have an ongoing discussion with 6 people opposing the new article and 2 people supporting it – I'd advise against creating the new article right now. What is the relevance of Parma being Italian? They created new legal entities many times, and yet remained the same team. I also don't think it'll cause much confusion that the full name is changing from Futbol to Fussball -- to most readers, it's just "FC Cincinnati". --IagoQnsi (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Soccer clubs elsewhere change their legal entity and are covered in a single article. English clubs regularly change the name of the company that owns them and new owners sometimes make complex legal structures. Sometimes a club goes bankrupt and the company is dissolved and a new club is created under a new legal entity but is treated as a continuing club (keeping the historical trophies) because fans demand it. The franchise is just a different ownership structure. I doubt the fans of FC Cincinnati will consider that they are switching allegiance. Most people will be coming to the article to find out about the sports team rather than the current legal status of the ownership. Most of the article covers the sports team and the title of the article should reflect the content.   Jts1882 | talk  07:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timbers, Whitecaps, Orlando City fans didn't switch allegiance - Sounders fans didn't switch allegiances so much they even voted for the name of their team to be the Sounders. The difference is, this isn't say a Spanish team like SD Eibar which has to convert to the membership structure required by Spanish football - FC Cincinnati is an entirely new team, built from scratch, using the same branding as a previous team. SportingFlyer talk 09:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No split - For now - We shouldn't really have a precedent here. It's dependent on how the media/teams control this change. If the team plays and recognises it's past, then it's the same team (Unless another team is created and also lays claim to this (This happens more often than we like to think). I don't see how this is any different from any other team changing league; or ownership, which happens all the time. We certainly shouldn't be making a decision until we know how this will be treated by the clubs involved. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Fanendo Adi was recognised by the Timbers as being their all-time leading scorer, passing a player who played in the NASL - but we still split these teams. SportingFlyer talk 22:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: IMO you've just presented a great argument for merging the Portland Timbers articles. –IagoQnsi (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: What's the argument, that they're appropriating the history? The USL team was a completely separate entity from the MLS team. No contracts carried over. SportingFlyer talk 05:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I don't think it matters what does or doesn't carry over -- all that matters is whether the public/reliable sources considers the two teams to be the same. This is getting off topic though -- my point was simply that, just because some other MLS article does it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. --IagoQnsi (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: I strongly disagree with you on your idea of the test in this context and don't think we'll reach an agreement, so will un-watch this one. The teams are separate entities, they'll have different names, Futbol Club Cincinnati will still own a USL license once the MLS team is created. Contracts don't carry over for players or sponsors. Also, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver did a lot to distance themselves from the idea they were a "minor league team" when they were granted expansion teams. The gap is huge and is deserving of a new article. I also noticed you participated at previous merge discussions with the same argument for Orlando and Minnesota and failed to get consensus there. SportingFlyer talk 05:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I feel like we're in a loop. Yes, I understand all of the different ways in which the new team will have a separate legal entity. Contracts don't carry, sponsorships don't carry, many things don't carry. What I'm saying is: so what? Wikipedia isn't based on legal documents; Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources seem to consider the USL team and the MLS team to be the same team. Yes, a new legal entity has been created and from a legal perspective, this new entity is very distinct and there are numerous differences. But Wikipedia isn't a repository on legal information; it's an encyclopedia. What is the policy basis for favoring legal status over reliable sources? –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is based on legal documents. Check the other MLS franchise articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that we need to review those other articles and consider merging them as well. Can you point to a Wikipedia policy or a broader precedent that supports this manner of doing things? Outside of those 4 MLS articles, we don't seem to favor legal documents over reliable sources anywhere else on this website. –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: Since you didn't heed my advice to allow others to discuss unimpeded, I'll chime in too. This is not a vote, it's a discussion. We will go based on what reliable sources say not editors who don't know the law (or RSes). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Yes, I agree; in fact, my entire position has been that we should go based on reliable sources. The reliable sources that I've found are, by and large, talking about these two entities as a singular team. --IagoQnsi (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! So, how many contracts will Cincinnati hold? None? That's supported by the most important reliable source. So then, it's a done deal. FC Cincinnati that played in USL will cease to exist and a franchise of MLS will commence play using that same name. Therefore, a new article when they do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources that says no player contracts will carry over. But those sources do not say that lack of contract carryover means that the MLS team is a new distinct team. You're reaching a conclusion that is not actually in the sources, which is improper editorial synthesis. --IagoQnsi (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: We go by franchises in U.S. major league Sports. This is a new franchise. See also Philadelphia_Athletics_(1860–76), Winnipeg_Jets_(1972–96), Ottawa_Senators_(original), Tampa_Bay_Rowdies (check the talk page) or Talk:Charlotte_Hornets#Lineage_of_Charlotte_and_New_Orleans_franchises (where the league "merged" history). SportingFlyer talk 06:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Let's go through these one by one:
All of these teams have large gaps in continuity (not to mention completely new ownership, new players, etc), so I am not too surprised that they are considered separate franchises that just happen to share a name. I haven't dug through the references, but I assume that very few sources consider the new entities to be the same team as the old ones (and what the sources say is what really matters). These are different from FC Cincinnati, which has completely continuity between the two entities and is widely considered by reliable sources to be one team moving up.
The one link I didn't talk about: it looks like despite being a completely new legal entity, the Charlotte Hornets are considered one continuous team -- this seems to actually support my case for FC Cincinnati, no? --IagoQnsi (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also San_Diego_Padres_(PCL), Vancouver_Canucks_(WHL), and even Texas_Rangers_(baseball)#Washington_Senators_(1961–1971). I believe the NBA announced the continuity for the Hornets. You also say "moving up" as well, but this is not a promotion in the traditional footballing sense. SportingFlyer talk 06:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Ah, now these are some more tricky cases that require researching what sources are saying. It looks like reliable sources pretty consistently consider the two different San Diego Padres entities to be separate teams; in fact, I can't any sources that suggest that consider the teams to be the same. If people start considering the USL team to be entirely different a few years down the line, then it'd be worth revisiting this discussion and possibly splitting the articles, but at the moment, most sources refer to them as the same team. --IagoQnsi (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No split In my opinion, a new page should be created only if the team gets relocated and/or rebranded. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]
  • No split Even if it's technically a new legal entity, the reality is that it's the same club. Parma Calcio 1913 have been through at least four legal entities, but we only have one article covering the entire history of what is effectively the same club. No need to make things more difficult for readers by having two articles here (and the same goes for the other MLS examples of where we have numerous articles on the same clubs). Number 57 22:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No split for now, per WP:SPLIT. It is too soon to split this article when FC Cincinnati has not even played a single MLS game. Wait until the article becomes longer and the team has a significant MLS history. It will become more apparent whether there is a distinctly separate entity as expressed by WP:RS and, if so, which entity is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacknstock: I do agree with this manner of doing things. However, we need to decide, at least for the short term, if this article is going to cover both teams or just the USL team (because right now, anyone who changes the intro sentence to say "MLS team" instead of "USL team" is getting reverted). FC Cincinnati has not played a single MLS game yet, but the MLS franchise has gotten more than sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, so we need to decide where MLS-related content goes. –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough sources already to cover the new MLS team, but we can wait until the logo is announced to create the new page if others prefer. SportingFlyer talk 06:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering other examples, such as Nashville MLS team and Inter Miami CF, maybe you're right, especially as these other two won't even play until 2020. There are even articles for some very dubious possible sports franchises of the future. I'd personally wait until there is more development, but if you're keen to start another article, I'm sure it would pass guidelines (any doubter can try AfD if they want). The question is only what to call it if others want to keep the USL team at this namespace for a while longer. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacknstock: So then are you taking the position that we should have two separate articles? That's what all this hubbub is really about -- whether we should have separate USL and MLS articles, or just one article that covers the team's history in both leagues. --IagoQnsi (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do it myself, and I think it's unnecessary, but my objection is mild – more a recommendation. I'm certainly not saying you should have two separate articles, but you probably could if you insist. The new article would need to be substantial to justify it according to WP:CFORK. WP:SS provides good guidelines. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacknstock: A separate article for WP:CFORK reasons is something I would be okay with (i.e. like a "History of FC Cincinnati (2016–18)" page). The argument that's being made in this discussion, however, is that FC Cincinnati USL and FC Cincinnati MLS are two entirely distinct teams. The argument isn't about whether we have too much content to fit in one article; it's about whether these are the same team or not. I don't support having two separate articles written as though they're about different teams. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fork regardless of that argument because the MLS team is already addressed in the article. It's a fait accompli. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need much more than the current five sentences about the MLS franchise to justify the new article. Why not build the article in an MLS section here, then split when that section is more developed (comparable to Nashville MLS team and Inter Miami CF)? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a draft tonight. SportingFlyer talk 06:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started FC Cincinnati (MLS). I thought I had created a draft, so feel free to move it to draft space. I propose we move this page as well to reflect the USL team. SportingFlyer talk 00:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IagoQnsi is correct y'all are just some bro/rel haters we were fairly PROMOTED it's the same damn team. go FCC lol GarytheLionFCC (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting slant. We're all relying on precedents for other MLS teams, and the law used for all franchisees. Suddenly we're called "haters." And you wonder why there's a inseparable chasm in America? It's not the same team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USL/MLS transition[edit]

Considering the MLS and USL team now have a different name (keeping the general branding consistent for marketing purposes), crest, and roster, the USL season has finished, and there's an ongoing dispute with what to do with the MLS team article, what's the best way to manage the distinction in the interim? There have been a number of edits recently moving the article from USL to MLS and the expansion draft is in less than a month. To be consistent with the other USL articles, I moved the USL roster template to a new name to preserve the final roster and created a MLS roster template per Orlando_City_SC_(2010–14), Portland_Timbers_(2001–10), Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC_(1986–2010)#Final_roster, etc. SportingFlyer talk 09:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wondering about the navbox. Do the key people and rivalries carry over to the MLS team article (assuming there's a split/fork)? Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this were another league, the rivalries might carry over, but it's unlikely that rivalries with lower-division teams or clubs would continue (except, possibly in the continental cup). Other MLS articles place the franchisees in the owners field. If it's the same ownership group, then that would likely carry forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the supposed rivalries is with an MLS team, Columbus. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Now the AfD has closed for the MLS team's article, I've started a move discussion which impacts this article at Talk:FC_Cincinnati_(MLS). SportingFlyer talk 23:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:FC Cincinnati (MLS) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Cincinnati_(2016–2018)&oldid=1201945629"