Talk:Los Angeles FC

Football: American & Canadian Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 22 January 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to LAFC. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 13 November 2015

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 FC → Los 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 5 7 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

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...

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]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150916010044/https://cdn.lafc.com/uploads/2015/09/LAFC-Club-Name-Announcement-and-Colors-Press-Release-9.15.pdf to https://cdn.lafc.com/uploads/2015/09/LAFC-Club-Name-Announcement-and-Colors-Press-Release-9.15.pdf

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

Y 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

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

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 FC → LAFC – 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:COMMONNAME —TrailBlzr (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose LA Galaxy may be the other team's COMMONNAME, but Los Angeles FC is more common that LAFC: 8,950,000 hits for "Los Angeles FC" and 180,000 news results compared with 5,230,000 hits for for LAFC and 209,000 news results. One example: "Los Angeles FC takes on the LA Galaxy following Diomande’s 2-goal game". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Any search query with the words "Los Angeles" will produce more results for reasons that should be obvious; it's called a false positive. These results mean nothing. –TrailBlzr (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why I didn't search for "Los Angeles". Please check the search terms before commenting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're not getting the point... "Los Angeles FC" includes "Los Angeles" which produces a false positive. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not correct. Because the term is quoted, it will only find matches of the entire string. If it matched on sub-strings then "LAFC" would also match on "LA", but that's not how forced searches work. However, I will reconsider my stance if you can find entries in the first search that include "Los Angeles" but not "Los Angeles FC". I just ran through the lists, and even they got them wrong. The first returns 111 results while the second returns 128 results, several of which are "Cardiff Met Lafc". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The closest I found was the phrase is in Los Angeles. F. C. Greene, of the. Not one of the other entries had "Los Angeles" without "Los Angeles FC". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sentences like "LA Galaxy defeated FC Cincinnati in Los Angeles" come up over and over again in your search; these are false positives. TrailBlzr (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Not in the searches I linked. Possibly in searches that you yourself are running. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I highly doubt that, since the phrase doesn't appear anywhere on the internet and furthermore the Galaxy have never played FC Cincinnati at home, nor played their home games in the City of Los Angeles (they currently play in Carson and previously played in Pasadena.) I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I don't know where you could have come up with that impression. Smartyllama (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just by giving both LA articles a brief look, it would seem that the analogy to LA Galazy is flawed. The image used in the inbox for one has the full name, while for the other it has the "short" name. I see no reason at all to use short "fan" names for sports teams. --Gonnym (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose - 'LAFC' is a nickname used by lazy journalists, it's not the proper or common name - hence we we also don't have articles on Man Utd or Spurs (football club) etc. Giant Snowman 10:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and we need to avoid acronym blended names. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No different than Man U, Man City, NYC FC, etc. A redirect is appropriate, but that's it. 18:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect has been in-place since 2019-03-22T09:33:43 when "TrailBlzr moved page LAFC to LAFC (disambiguation) over redirect". For the record, TheBigJagielka created the first version of this article on 2014-10-30T17:50:30 as Los Angelese Football Club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. oknazevad (talk) 23:54, 17 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

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 FC → LAFC – 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]

Oppose We use the official names for all other teams. For instance, Arsenal F.C. rather than simply Arsenal, Real Madrid CF rather than Real Madrid, Paris Saint-Germain F.C. rather than Paris Saint-Germain or PSG. I could continue, but based on the previous move requests, I think we have a consensus that this is the correct target for the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot this: legal entities are also not usually used for club names so appealing to what name they used for their corporate filing would set an unusual precedent. Many modern clubs have a legal, corporate entity and the clubs are not known by those names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Walter Görlitz. Acronyms and nicknames are not used here on Wikipedia as article titles. Ben5218 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 16:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Ludicrous nomination. Giant Snowman 16:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowclose per above. No chance this passes. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support:

In the MLS's list of clubs there are 10 clubs with FC in their name and LAFC isn't one of them.
Similar case to FIFA, the acronym is associated with the subject. I refer you to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_in_page_titles.
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.
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).
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]

- Your argument is that it should be Los Angeles Football Club, but you have supported a proposal to move it to LAFC, which you argue against in your first point. We do not use "official names" but WP:COMMONNAMEs for article location. I think you're quite confused by the whole process. We have been shown what the media refer to it as. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Britannica uses "Los Angeles Football Club" and while we generally use just "FC" we shouldn't generally abbreviate the rest of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is a strong concensus against this rename. I don't mind if you close this discussion. I will thoroughly study WP:AT before making a request for Los Angeles Football Club. Thank you for this lesson. Yurmix (talk) 02:28, 24 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

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 FC → Los Angeles Football Club – Three reasons:

It is the club name according the MLS Clubs official page.
Ten other clubs (1/3 of the league) has FC in their name in MLS Clubs - not Los Angeles Football Club.
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]

Support per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It seems clear that the club wants to rebrand as such, as it is not known as such in any sports media: http://insider.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/18966/lafc https://www.tsn.ca/soccer/mls/standings (and https://www.tsn.ca/soccer/mls/event/colorado-rapids-los-angeles-los-angeles-fc-20220226?event_id=184903 etc) https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/united-states/los-angeles-fc/41871/ https://apnews.com/article/soccer-sports-colorado-los-angeles-international-soccer-a757cfe5ac806ac2606ae60f963a7739 https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/los-angeles-fc-lafc-team-roster https://bleacherreport.com/los-angeles-fc Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the LA Rams are Los Angeles' football club. LAFC is one of their soccer clubs. It's all marketing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the club is rebrainding, It has always been LAFC / Los Angeles Football Club since the [club's beginning]. Regarding the evidence you present, ESPN (The leading US sports website) does show LAFC. It is on par with my knowledge on the team (as a club member since 2017). Please help me fix this mistake and battle Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Information_loop. Yurmix (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Their common name is Los Angeles FC. O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Los Angeles FC is not the common name. As per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. The most commonly used name is LAFC, which is the acronym for Los Angeles Football Club, which is the second most used common name for the club. I almost never see "Los Angeles FC" in article (it's a bit common in standings tables, which might be Information loop issue). Yurmix (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~

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.
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]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It does appear to be the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it? Where are links to support the claim. The club and league use it. Who else uses it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the Los Angeles Times? Not one article here in Google Search of LA Times articles on the club uses Los Angeles FC. Yurmix (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 15:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it is 'Los Angeles FC' at commonly used sites such as Soccerway, NFT, World Football etc. The fact that MLS is consistent in which version they use does not matter. This is the COMMONNAME. Giant Snowman 15:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It will align with Spanish Wikipedia page[3], and the Club's as well as MLS official releases [4][5] Abe Ops 09:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence for common name in spite of many claims. The new official name is of course immediately common in primary sources, and some think this should make a difference, but I do not. It is completely contrary to the long established principles of WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see any evidence "Los Angeles Football Club" is the common name. A Google News search doesn't bring up any source which uses it. On the other hand a search for "Los Angeles FC" brings up quite a few ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). LAFC seems even more a common name, but I'm unsure of policy regarding using acronyms as the article title. --SuperJew (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of the Google News results, by far, are for LAFC. That is by far the most use pronounce. However when I suggested it back in January, the push back was based on Los Angeles Football Club being the common name. So which way is it? Also, no body uses Los Angeles FC in article bodies, this is pure metadata (Where do news take their metadata? Wikipedia!). If you check searches for "Los Angeles FC" without LAFC, it is strikingly low at 8 results. Also, the most relevant news orgs for the region are probably LA Times and ESPN. They don't use the "FC" suffix. Also does MLS league website - 10 other teams show "FC" suffix but not LAFC. Yurmix (talk)
  - I only see one for the long form in January, so no change since then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you can help me understand of Los Angeles FC is the common name, while no one is using that? Clearly, almost all the editors responding in this debate (and the last) know something that I don't, but I'd really (sincerely) appreciate to know what that is.
    - I'm asking since based on my high consumption of news articles and video coverage of the club in the past 5 years, I have never came across anyone uses the term "Los Angeles FC", except for occasionally metadata and article headers. In article body and in live coverage it is 80% of the time "LAFC" and the other 20% it is "Los Angeles Football Club". (I have brought numerous links to prove this so I'll skip that part here). Yurmix (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - For the same reason that Manchester United F.C. is the common name, but it is usually called Man U or just Manchester United, and some call it Manchester United Football Club. For the same reason that Manchester City F.C. is the common name, but it is most frequently called only City, Man City, MCFC, etc. It has to do with how association football club articles are named on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BBC does use the full version to be fair... Giant Snowman 09:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move from Los Angeles FC. Oppose move to Los Angeles Football Club. Support move to LAFC. All per COMMONNAME based on usage by reliable sources like the LA Times. Almost no, if any, reliable sources use “Los Angeles FC”. That’s just WPians making up names; it’s not even natural disambiguation. But Los Angeles Football Club is hardly better in terms of usage in reliable sources, but at least there is some usage. However, LAFC is the COMMONNAME, hands down, period. It clearly dominates references to this topic in reliable sources. It’s the COMMONNAME by definition. If this club was not the primary topic for LAFC then we could be talking about natural disambiguation, but LAFC is the primary topic for its COMMONNAME given that LAFC is a PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. —В²C ☎ 15:56, 22 March 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.