Talk:San Jose Earthquakes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Football (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Jose Earthquakes task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

There has to be a better way of including the NASL stuff (or better yet, not including it and making a seperate article). It's just messy and confusing as it is.Spejic 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This page should be put alongside TB and MIA in the "defunct franchises" section. That's because their history will be considered seperate from the new Houston team. --Scaryice 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Houston article is now at Houston MLS, it should be moved once the team gets a name. --DR31 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be moved; San Jose got a Cleveland Browns type offer, and Houston is an "expansion team" in the eyes of MLS. Jjjsixsix 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article[edit]

I propose we split the article into two. The NASL franchise has no connection with the MLS franchise beyond the name, so it doesn't make sense to include them in the same article. Most NASL franchises have their own articles, so the San Jose/Golden Bay Earthquakes should too. Thoughts? Objections? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The San Jose Earthquakes (NASL team) should be put back here. It should match up with other soccer pages. The Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps and Portland Timbers pages all have information about both their NASL and USL-1 teams. This page should not be an exception to the rule. KitHutch 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The other examples you give were not MLS teams. Plus the articles would quickly become too long. Gateman1997 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Shirts[edit]

The picture of the home/away shirts, while much prettier than the hodgepodge approximations we have usually on team's websites, they are eggregiously outdated and are in serious need of update. Can someone with a little more technical skill work on this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sure what you mean. The jersey currently showing on this page is the brand new kits just announced in November for the coming 2008 season. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How many refs are needed?[edit]

How many references do we need on the "current roster" section? There are currently seven references before a single player is listed. We should need only one or two, I would think. Gentgeen (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are or is[edit]

Which is it? All the US based leagues are using the following "The San Jose Earthquakes are a soccer team". However MLS is using "San Jose is a team". I'd say the former is correct since Earthquakes is plural and refers to a collection of players not a single entity. Thoughts?Gateman1997 (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the latter is correct since a team is a single entity. Even in your example "a collection of players", the emphasis is the singular "a collection". That always stays the same regardless of whether the name of the team is Clash or Earthquakes, either one only being the proper noun to the real word of emphasis of the sentence: team. 71.142.253.68 (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
However does the word "Earthquakes" not imply that there are more than one? Which is infact the case. There are 22 Earthquakes infact. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There may be 22 Earthquakes players, but there is still only one team named the Earthquakes. 71.142.253.68 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well the team is made up of 22 individual Earthquakes which is what the "are" is referring to. There isn't just one Earthquake, there are 22 Earthquakes. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should be "is" since Earthquakes is the name of one team. So what was it when the team was named Clash? 71.143.5.222 (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia didn't exist, but it was "are" as well. Take this recent article on the Earthquakes, please read the first line. Same with this article or this one [1]. You'll notice they all use "are". All are written by different people for different papers. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll also note that in a press release [2] from yesterday the Quakes themselves use "have" rather than "has" similar to "are rather than "is". All of this suggest to me that the notion that the "Earthquakes" (ie: more than one players) is plural for more than one "Earthquake" (ie: one player) is infact the correct one. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because a few lazy authors mistakenly use incorrect grammar doesn't suddenly make them correct (by the way, some of those links don't work). The singularity or plurality of a team's name is independent from however many players are on a team because the name still refers only to one team, or did each Clash come together in 1996 to form the San Jose Clashes? 71.143.5.222 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No the plural of Clash was Clash. And it's not "lazy authors". They're all very credible and well respected journalists, particularly Ray Ratto. By the way fixed the links. I've yet to find one credible reference that uses "is" to refer to the team. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
And to get specific, the team refers to themselves in the plural as well as they do in the last paragraph here. [3] as does a national outlet Fox Soccer Channel [4]. I continue to find references that support my position. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The correct usage is "the team refers to itself". Even the word "refers" (rather than "refer") can only be attributed to a single person or entity. 71.143.5.222 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, which it isn't, every reporter in the United States is wrong. Which I HIGHLY doubt. Please find a good reference in support of your position?Gateman1997 (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
He refers, she refers, it refers, the team refers... they refer, the teams refer, etc. That's proper English language grammar. 71.143.5.222 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As a compromise I've changed the wording to eliminate the "are" issue and the bad grammar of the previous version with "is". I trust that will work for everyone? Gateman1997 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
While the previous version with "is" was in no way bad grammar, what's there now is a fair compromise. 71.143.5.222 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Outstanding. Glad we could work this out like civilized Wikipedians. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bloat on "notable players"[edit]

We seem to have a couple of guys listed as "notable former players" who played 20-something, 30-something games for the club, had no caps of any kind, no wider fame, and no special notability. Dave Salzwedel and Tom Liner, for instance. I'll leave it to SJ fans to figure out who they find notable, of course, but I would suggest a bit of a trim. Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I went and axed Levesque, Salzwedel, and Liner myself. If anyone feels strongly that they need to be included - local hero factor, I guess - I wouldn't protest a re-add for Salzwedel or Liner. Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 Season article[edit]

Your club doesn't yet have a 2009 Season article, we are hoping to get each of the MLS teams up and going like these; Sounders, Fire, Dynamo, Wizards, and TFC. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at anytime. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

conference champs[edit]

Talk:New York Red Bulls#conference champions

just adding a link to a centralized discussion on division champions conventions. Please post comments there.

Nlsanand (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in roster format[edit]

There was a discussion about the new roster format and we have had a trial at both the Timbers and Whitecaps articles and recently Cascadia Cup rival Sounders have converted. The idea is to move all club articles on Wikipedia to the new format as is discussed in the original discussion and more recently at the football project.

My suggestion is to complete the MLS team articles first, so if you could respond at this discussion, that would be ideal. In short, the new layout is slightly taller and less wide, but it correctly impliments WP:MOSFLAG and is better for visually impared users of Wikipedia and others who use readers. I plan to implement the change to this article by the weekend of January 20-22, however other editors could make the change sooner. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Change in roster format[edit]

There was a discussion about the new roster format and we have had a trial at both the Timbers and Whitecaps articles and recently Cascadia Cup rival Sounders have converted. The idea is to move all club articles on Wikipedia to the new format as is discussed in the original discussion and more recently at the football project.

My suggestion is to complete the MLS team articles first, so if you could respond at this discussion, that would be ideal. In short, the new layout is slightly taller and less wide, but it correctly impliments WP:MOSFLAG and is better for visually impared users of Wikipedia and others who use readers. I plan to implement the change to this article by the weekend of January 20-22, however other editors could make the change sooner. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The biggest rivalry in American soccer[edit]

This recent addition is fraught with ambiguities. First who considers it to be the largest? Answer that and the second part of the tag may not need to be added. Also how do you define the size of the rivalry. The Cascadaia Cup involves three teams and so is larger by scale of the number of teams (and players involved). The number of fans invlolved is likely fewer, but we need an objective measure. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

One, Rivalry does NOT consist of the size of a city or population. The Cascadaia Cup does involve three teams but that to me does not seem like a bigger rivalry then the California Clasico. Two, LA and SJ have had a longer run in the MLS with historical matches between them, judging by your approach you are not familiar with the MLS nor come from California. Three, how do you define a "size of the rivalry"? I wasnt aware that a huge number of supporters need to be present at every match, El Clasico, Super Clasico, Manchester United vs Liverpool, Rangers vs Celtic, Inter vs Milan dont need physical proof of the size of the rivalry, unless your from California then you wouldnt understand. RealEarthquake (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. None of them make the point though. They indicate that it's a rivalry, and that it was an early, big rivalry, and that the fans get worked-up for the matches to the extent that the attendance is larg(which may be due to travelling fans). But the statement isn't supported. It's very likely very big, but we need reliable sources to support it. I am glad that you removed the "by many", which feels like WP:WEASEL:a weasel word. I recognize that it's used in the lede here and the Galaxy article too.
The Cascadia Cup pre-dates the arrival of any club in the MLS and the rivalry began in the days of the NASL (1970s). And I'm not sure why the duration of the rivalry matters though. The phrase isn't longest-running, but rather the biggest. Size not duration is the question at hand.
Why is my provenance an issue with understanding the nature of this or any other rivalry? Wikipedia is read by readers outside of SoCal so we need to make the statements in it accessible to all of them. The way we do that is with reliable sources and facts, not commentary ripped out of local sports pages or from team marketing departments.
The question as to how you define the size of a rivalry is at the centre of this discussion. The statement is that it's one of the biggest and that needs to be defined and supported. My purpose of using the Cascadia Cup as a counterpoint is to indicate that "big" could be the number of clubs involved and any number of things.
It would be easy to assume that Chivas and the Galaxy have a large rivalry as they're in the same city and fans from both sides would fill the stadium on those matches. And do rivalries you mention have any statements to the same effect as here "biggest rivalry" in Europe, England, Scotland, Italy? And Man City and Man U have a deeper hate for each other than Man U and Liverpool do.
Also, it would be best if you didn't comment on editors, especially when you don't know anything about the editor.
Finally, I'm not attacking you or your edits because I recognize that the information was present in the lede for a long time, but it should be supported so please don't take my requests personally. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Substituting "the biggest" with the "the most historical" doesn't help. While it's partially supported, you've now lost the support for the statement in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the articles in the links and you tell me if it still isnt the biggest. RealEarthquake (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the articles and you tell me where it says they're the biggest. Anything else is WP:OR]. Reverting. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You one blind canook! Earthquakes925 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
First, calling me blind is a direct violation of WP:NPA. Second, I don't know if you're intentionally mis-spelling it, but it's Canuck. Third, none of the sources call it the biggest and unless you can find a source to back the claim, it's WP:OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
First, Second, Third, Fourth you still a canook! :D ayyy. Earthquakes925 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fun Team Photo[edit]

In case anyone feels like adding it, here is a fun team photo from Lenhart Wig Night.

Earthquakes headquarters in Santa Clara

—Noah (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Current squad - color choice?[edit]

Anyone want to discuss this? As with all clubs, the color chosen on the squad templates is the primary and secondary kit colors, but for some reason it keeps getting reversed for San Jose. I know a lot of fans like the blue for San Jose, but it's not accurate, is it? What do people think? UncleTupelo1 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw it. It looks better, but had I remembered your logic (which is applied equally to all team articles) I would have reverted it. I agree with your application of home colours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of supporters section[edit]

The Vancouver Southsiders have the sort of references required for this section. One MLS team article has a link to the club's website that lists the official supporters groups. Both of those would be fine. The Crazy George site is enough to be verifiable, but not reliable. A third-party writing that he does would be fine. I know that the media in Vancouver has mentioned his attendance at BC Lions games. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, links to the first two types of links are provided in this article. You've now deleted them twice while trying to revert the page. Please read the section before you revert as you're reverting good references. As for Crazy George, until someone else finds a better reference to the guy I've removed the section about him. But to answer your question, no the 1974 Quakes and the MLS Quakes are not the same team, but George has been at games for both doing his cheerleader bit. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry. I was focusing on reference this reference, which supports Crazy George's involvement with the original team. I have no doubt that he is still there. His current involvement would need to be referenced. I didn't see http://www.mercurynews.com/earthquakes/ci_23072919/san-jose-earthquakes-reprimand-1906-ultras-supporters-group or http://www.sjearthquakes.com/content/earthquakes-supporters-clubs and so I'm sorry that removed those. The current state is good, but I removed Faultline. Perhaps a re-write to include the suspension of 1906 Ultras with the article as support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rivalry must have balance[edit]

Anon has once again decided to edit war over material that explains the rivalry in detail. Anon added similar sections to the Seattle Sounders-Portland Timbers page which was great. Not sure why anon thinks it doesn't belong here, on the rivalry article or on the LA page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)