Talk:California Clásico

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

Rivalry Name[edit]

Rivalry Name:

1) There are 10 times more hits for "California Clasico" than "Interstate 5 Rivalry." Clearly more people refer to it in that way (search "California Clasico" vs "Interstate 5 Rivalry")

2) The media has definately referred to it mostly as the "California Clasico" in publications as well (ESPN, etc)

3) The I-5 Rivalry is not an "official name." There is no offical name, they don't have a specific page for it or anything, and don't consistantly call the matchup by any name. And they don't even capitalize the R in rivalry, as you would if that were the case. It's just how the author of that paragraph on MLS' sites wrote it up.

4) There are also plenty of MLS pages that refer to it as "California Clasico." (search site:MLSNet.com "California Clasico vs site:MLSNet.com "Interstate 5 rivalry")

5) Interstate 5 does not even go through San Jose or the Bay Area!


There are two sources for the "I-5 rivalry":

1) A "Canyon News" article....who?

2) A MLSNet paragraph that is reproduced on multiple pages.


Clearly the traditional and more accepted name is "California Clasico"

I'd agree. When it was called the Interstate-5 rivalry, it came off as more of a nickname than the real name. I'd say it is safe to change. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two new names have been suggested for the California Clasico in the last day or so, the "California Classic" and "El clásico californiano". I've removed both, the former because there is no references for it actually existing nor does a web search turn up any evidence that links that name to this rivalry. Even English language reliable sources refer to it as "the California Clasico." As for the latter, "El clásico californiano" is simply Spanish language name for "The California Clasico" and as such has no real place on the English Wikipedia. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right but wrong at the same time, I have done a web search and on the MLS in Spanish, they refer to it as "El clásico californiano" and although this is an English article the "Clásico" is not, look at various wikipedia articles stating this subject, "Clasico" is translated to "Classic" in ENGLISH and as such there should be a translation stating that. English wikipedia articles that do this El Clásico, El Súper Clásico (Mexico) so why shouldn't this article? GBay925 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References would be helpful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References stating which clause? GBay925 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LAgalaxy TwoStar.png[edit]

The image Image:LAgalaxy TwoStar.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shootouts between 1996 and 1999[edit]

Anybody know what games (if any) ended in shootouts? The matches table (and record table) woudn't be completely accurate if it lists a draw as a win by a +1 lead when such goal was never scored by any player and FIFA's rules state any match that was won in a shootout is still a draw. I know back then the MLS rules said a shootout win was a win but it would be better that we post results that ended in a draw as such. This is why I cannot complete the table below because I don't want to count a "shootout win goal" as a goal scored in regulation time. --MicroX (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LA wins Draws San Jose wins LA goals San Jose goals
MLS Regular season 19 8 16
MLS Playoffs 4 1 2 12 8
MLS Cup 0 0 1 1 2
Total 23 9 19

Thanks to the winners-by-year table, I was able to deduce how many games were shootouts.

  • 1996: Los Angeles won 10 points in 4 games. So that means one game was won by LA in a shootout.
  • 1997: San Jose won 6:4 in 4 games. That means LA won a shootout.
  • 1998: LA won 5:3 in 4 games. LA won one game in regulation and two in shootouts.
  • 1999: I located one shootout win by SJ online. That season LA won 7:1, so LA also must've won one shootout as well and the only game that was won by a +1 margin was a 1–0 in the Rose Bowl according to mlssoccer.com. So that game really ended 0–0. --MicroX (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found all the information I needed right here. --MicroX (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Longest-running rivalry in American soccer"[edit]

"It is considered by many to be the longest-running rivalry in American soccer." This statement is incorrect and should not be on the article. GBay925 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced. Do you have a reference that indicates it's not correct? --07:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is not referenced, the previous references stated that it was one of the most intense rivalries in the MLS, to support that it is the "longest" is absured, when in fact the Portland-Seattle rivalry existed longer then this rivalry. Please sign your post next time, thank you. GBay925 (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced further in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which line and section, there is no thesis to support your statment. GBay925 (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. It was in another article. I've moved those references to the lede here.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although those links mention the rivalry, they DO NOT indicate that this rivalry is the "longest running" in American soccer. I think that statment should be changed to something more like "It is considered by many to be the most intense rivalries in American soccer" here are two links which support the statment.

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2012/6/30/3128361/california-clasico-may-be-most-important-rivalry-in-mls

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/714215-50-greatest-rivalries-in-world-football#/articles/714215-50-greatest-rivalries-in-world-football/page/13

GBay925 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

city or region parameter[edit]

At the {{Infobox sports rivalry}} template, the city or region parameter states that this should be the "City or region where derby is contested". Some derbies are local such as ones held within London or Manchester. Others are regional. Occasionally it's at a national level. In this case, the rivalry is based in SoCal not only the United States.

As for using the flag template, that is not advisable per WP:INFOBOXFLAG.

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

So if you have some fact to support its inclusion, feel free to provide it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Players who played for both teams[edit]

Is the section necessary? I have not seen that sort of section on other tournament or rivalry pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Clásico, El Súper Clásico (Mexico), Seattle Sounders–Portland Timbers rivalry, Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, Manchester derby, Merseyside derby, North London derby, Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry, Atlantic Cup (Major League Soccer), Superclásico, Le Classique, Choc des Olympiques, Derby della Madonnina, De Klassieker, Eternal derby (Serbia), El Derbi madrileño, Derbi barceloní, Kıtalar Arası Derbi, Beşiktaş–Fenerbahçe rivalry all have similar sections. I can list more pages if you'd like. GalacticoTerremoto (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it hasn't happened to the other articles I watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. GalacticoTerremoto (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem. It just feels trivial. Do appreciate the improvements you've been making though, including this one. If other articles feel this is important to report on, it is important to someone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Walter :) GalacticoTerremoto (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California Clásico. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to table color scheme[edit]

Can we change the color of either the San Jose win to a darker shade of blue or the draw to white please? I find the current color scheme to be fairly difficult to differentiate at a glance. Currently the color for draws and San Jose's wins look far to similar to one another as to be almost pointless to it's purpose of allowing anyone browsing this page to be able to easily differentiate the results. If there are no objections I would make the Color of the San Jose wins to either Spanish, Neon or Polynesian blue and leave everything else the same. I can do this myself in fairly short order. I have a sample of what I would do displayed here on my tertiary sandbox of what it would look like with Neon Blue markers. I'll give it a few days and if there are no objections I can make the changes at the end of the week. If after that someone takes issue with it, feel free to change it back and leave a note explaining why please for future reference. I am also open to discussion about this on my talk page. unak1978 06:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draws are not usually white, they are usually yellow. This (#1635B0) is the colour used for the San Jose's roster template while this (#B0EBFF) is the colour used on the table here. That's an easy enough change, but you'll notice how I had to change the font colour to make the text readable. This (#00245D) is the primary colour used in LA's roster template (another dark blue) and while this (#EEB111) is an accent colour in the roster template, but should not be used here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_Clásico&oldid=1200537159"