Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles FC

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

Requested move 13 November 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, primarily due to common name and consistency concerns. Ambiguity concerns were largely dismissed. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Los Angeles FCLos Angeles Football Club – This is how the club is most commonly referred to, along with LAFC, and its official name. Colintkelly (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Los Angeles Football Club" should be a disambiguation page, there being the soccer club LA Galaxy that's famously been in the news with Beckham as the only recognizable soccer team in LA to most Americans, and the LA Rams and LA Raiders which most Americans would assume the article is about -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Support "Los Angeles Football Club" appears to be the common name to this point, with no need for a DAB page. Given that the Rams and Raiders haven't been in the LA area for over 20 years now, any confusion can be addressed by a hatnote. If Los Angeles FC proves to be the common name in the future, then it can be moved back. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Support I have no opinion re: "Los Angeles FC" vs. "Los Angeles Football Club", but I agree with BilCat that the potential for ambiguity between this page and that of the LA Galaxy seems relatively small. As for any confusion with any past or future NFL team located in the LA area that seems even more remote since most American football franchises are not typically referred to as "clubs". I would think a hatnote including the Galaxy, the Rams, the Raiders (and any future LA-based NFL team should the Chargers perhaps relocate) would be sufficient to redirect the occasional stray user who stumbled upon Los Angeles Football Club while looking for something else. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We use WP:COMMONNAME, not necessarily official names. At this point, "los angeles football club" has 400 hits [1] which "los angeles FC" has 5000[2] in Google News. As the club won't play until 2018, maybe branding will cause the common name to change by then, but not right now.—Bagumba (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on COMMONNAME and consistency - almost all football club articles use the FC/F.C. abbreviation. Number 57 16:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I have seen no sources to support either side, and I doubt that there are a lot now anyhow. We don't need to move on whims. Other MLS teams with FC in their name are not at "Football Club". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ownership

[edit]

The current edition has four owners, sourced from an expired page on the website in 2014. It's now this, but I'm confused as to why Ferrell and Shapiro have no "Owner" tag on their profile? '''tAD''' (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More about the name...

[edit]

The name of the organization is "Los Angeles Football Club" with the name spelled out. The only official abbreviation is "LAFC." "Los Angeles FC" is an unofficial abbreviation, and is not the name of the club. The title of the club's Wikipedia main page ought to be "Los Angeles Football Club." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the official name of Manchester United F.C. is...
And the official name of Arsenal F.C. is...
Shall I continue? The article usually does not use the full name, but the common name, and we simply list the full name in the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Common name is LAFC, not Los Angeles FC

[edit]

It has become clear that the common name is LAFC not Los Angeles FC. While a page move is not necessary, I have changed the infobox heading to reflect this.

Where the club is listed as LAFC or Los Angeles Football Club (and never as Los Angeles FC):

According to the template parameters at Template:Infobox football club, the |clubname= parameter is for the "The commonly-used name of the club", which at this point is LAFC, not Los Angeles FC. --TrailBlzr (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference, here is the team's style guide which refers to the team as LAFC and never as Los Angeles FC. TrailBlzr (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care how they'd like to stylize their name. There are many sources that show their common name is what we have as the article name: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22LOS+ANGELES+FC%22 Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: The first link is their own site, but it never shows in plain text, you have to look at the HTML in the page, which is generated by the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2019

[edit]
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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Los Angeles FCLAFC – Per WP:COMMONNAME. LAFC is by far the most commonly used name at this point. Los Angeles FC is used infrequently. MLS, FiveThirtyEight, ESPN, and The Los Angeles Times all use LAFC. An analogous discussion was held over at Talk:LA Galaxy a few years ago when the page was moved from Los Angeles Galaxy to LA Galaxy, per WP:COMMONNAMETrailBlzr (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 January 2022

[edit]
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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Los Angeles FCLAFC – It's the official name. Los Angeles FC isn't commonly used (Except perhaps by echoing the current Wikipedia page name). Reference: original MLS announcement, team's website, Google searches narrowed to site:lafc.com. Also see below for links to documents of their legal entity name (LAFC SPORTS). Yurmix (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Official legal entity name: LAFC Sports LLC / LAFC Sports Foundation. References: MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, LLC filing, LAFC SPORTS FOUNDATION entity details.
  • Other name options: Another option is Los Angeles Football Club which is also a valid name, although less commonly used. It is on the club's logo and usually being used as an alternative name. You will find it in use on the MLS website but less often on the club's own website and their other media channels (Twitter, etc). I like this option less due to its length.

Yurmix (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In the MLS's list of clubs there are 10 clubs with FC in their name and LAFC isn't one of them.
  2. Similar case to FIFA, the acronym is associated with the subject. I refer you to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_in_page_titles.
  3. More references to the Official Name: club's mail address, The 2015 offical MLS announcement as Los Angeles Football Club, not Los Angeles FC - unlike other MLS clubs, i.e. Toronto FC.
  4. One could argue for the long term (Los Angeles Football Club) but wouldn't it be too long, and contradictory to almost all offical material on the club's website? (lafc.com).
  5. The name mispell is eye scorching to anyone closely farmiliar with the club, probably why this discussion arose 3 time by different people. Yurmix (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 16 February 2022

[edit]
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: No consensus. In a result sure to make no one happy, there was no consensus about what the common name even is, let alone whether to follow it or not. Sources actually seem to prefer LAFC, a title that wasn't initially proposed. If people want to move the article there, my strong suggestion is a new requested move. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Los Angeles FCLos Angeles Football Club – Three reasons:

  1. It is the club name according the MLS Clubs official page.
  2. Ten other clubs (1/3 of the league) has FC in their name in MLS Clubs - not Los Angeles Football Club.
  3. WP:CRITERIA: It is the recognized name (as described in #1); More natural (as described in #2); Precise given there is a better known rival named LA Galaxy.

Yurmix (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is the WP:COMMONNAME. google-search for LAFC/Los Angeles Football club returns 6,540,000 matches while the opposite search returns just 8.
  2. WP:CRITERIA: It is the recognizable (aka common name), more precise (MLS Clubs list, [lafc.com/club club website]) and given confusion with LA Galaxy.

Yurmix (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.