Talk:MLS Cup 1996

Fair use rationale for Image:MLS Cup 1996.gif

Image:MLS Cup 1996.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That LA Galaxy lineup isn't very correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.91.194 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

To rename the article to "1996 MLS Cup". MLS Cup '96 sounds more like an advertisement than a proper article name. 'Tis why the title of the 1966 World Cup isn't named "England '66". Hitmonchan (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• MLS Cup '96 → MLS Cup 1996
• MLS Cup '97 → MLS Cup 1997
• MLS Cup '98 → MLS Cup 1998
• MLS Cup '99 → MLS Cup 1999

– Although the logos for these competitions only show the last digits, when written out in text, the full year is usually shown. Ex: Highlights: MLS Cup 1996, MLS Cup 1996 marks its 20th anniversary, MLS Cup 1999. This one doesn't quite apply because it is a title but Wikipedia's MOS:DATESNO generally discourages the abbreviation of years. Finally, this move would also match the format of all other MLS Cups MLS Cup 2000 – MLS Cup 2018. – BLAIXX 00:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Contemporary sources (Washington Post, LA Times, AP, NY Times) used the shortened "'96" branding, so it was definitely more than just the league's use. While consistency is nice, it is by no means required by WP:AT. SounderBruce 01:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Consistency is not required, but it is one of the five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA goals. I think that the proposed titles also marginally improve "recognizability" and "naturalness", and are equal on "precision" and "conciseness." –BLAIXX 21:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

But you're playing consistency against recognizability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Heck, I'd even support moving all the cups prior up to and including 2000 (all of the cups in the 90s) into a single article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Why on earth would we merge multiple cup finals together? With a bit of time and loving research (which I plan to do for a WP:GT), they can each be as comprehensive as MLS Cup 2002. SounderBruce 08:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. None of the reasons... consistency, recognisability by avoiding the abbreviation, avoiding the special character (these are always a risk with some browsers and platforms and we can never test them all)... are all that strong. But the opposing reasons are even weaker... both forms appear regularly in RS, "'97" is not more concise in any relevant sense. Overall it adds up to a convincing case for a move. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Resources

• Previews: LA Times playoffs, NY Times, LA Times/Jones (stats), St Louis (Weather), Boston
• Recaps: NY Times (League), LA Times (Dissolves, Stats, Plaschke), Washington Post (Glory, Goff)
• MLS: Splash Time, Weather, Eddie Pope
• Official program (via GalaxyHistory.com)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MLS Cup 1996/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "identical results in the first two rounds of the playoffs, losing the opening match of the Conference Semifinals and winning the remaining four matches of both rounds." I don't really like the idea of "identical results" unless the scores etc where all the same too. Plus I don't think "Semifinals" needs capitalisation here.
  • Changed to "identical win–loss records", which is a bit clunky but more accurate. "Conference Semifinals" is the official name of the round and would need to be capitalized in all instances, similar to "Conference Final" for other sports.
• "flooded the field. " I find that a bit misleading because I think the flooding occurred prior kick off, and it the playing surface was actually covered in any case.
  • The flooding happened before and during the match, but it became more apparent in the second half.
• " including a large contingent of D.C. supporters. " but not a large contingent of LA supporters? I'm missing the relevance...
  • Large caravans are unusual in American sports and were unheard of for American soccer up until this point.
• "D.C. United and the Los Angeles Galaxy earned a " I don't think it's necessary to repeat the team names here again.
  • Tossed and added a little spoiler there to smooth out the sentence.
• Where is temperature referenced?
  • Added it to the Match summary, though it seems the league wrote down the wrong digit (Newspapers and local weather records both say 54 F).
• "sold over 40,000 tickets" more than.
  • Done.
• " RFK Memorial Stadium in Washington, D.C. was also named in 1995 as a potential host for the match." this is notable but it's oddly placed, I would have had it before you talk about how many tickets sold for the actual venue.
  • Reordered a bit.
• "Washington, D.C. was" comma after D.C.
  • Done, though I had to look it up to see what is commonly used, as the D.C. article is very inconsistent.
    • Yup, it's good old MOS:GEOCOMMA again! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Eduardo Hurtado scored 21 ..." complete sentence so full stop.
  • Fixed.
• Maybe consider an image for the D.C. section, Marco Etcheverry?
  • Couldn't find a suitable image, as the only available one is of poor quality. I think Pope's image in the Match summary balances things out.
• No real need to relink team names (e.g. Dallas Burn) in the LA Galaxy section.
  • Fixed.
• "and shook the team's confidence" this is a little intangible and dubious from an encyclopedic writing perspective.
  • Replaced with tension that is cited in the second article.
• " falling short of other sports programming.[79]" bit vague, I can imagine it did fall behind other sport programming like Superbowl...
  • Added "of that day", though I suppose it wouldn't get close to the Super Bowl either.
• "estimated rating of" is this Nielsen rating? Link please.
  • Linked.
• "cancelled" I thought in USEng that was "canceled"?
  • Both are accepted, but the single is more common. Got a little mixed up because the same paragraph uses cancellation (which is double even in AmerEng).
• "Over 42,000 tickets" more than, and earlier you said 40,000, why the difference?
  • The 40K figure was from three days before, while the 42K reflects the total sales (including walk-ups on the day of the match).
    • Understood. I don't think we hold cup finals here where you can buy walk up tickets, but then again my club are so crap right now (and for the past decades), I've never had a chance to try! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• "by Jorge Campos.[87][85]" numerical order.
  • Fixed.
• "The Galaxy continued to generate the most scoring chances..." it sounded like they had set up to defend for the latter half of the first half, so I'm not sure "continued to generate..." is right.
  • "Continued to have" works a bit better, though I would be open to a different wording.
• "who hit the ball towards Etcheverry's hand in an offside position" towards his hand? Why?
  • Not sure where that sentence came from (as it's been a few months since I wrote it), so I'll toss it aside for now.
• You've linked corner kick a couple of times, but not yellow card, any reason?
  • Just a miss on my part. Linked first instance of yellow card, but I don't think I need to change the corners.
• Where are all the officials referenced, e.g. Morgante? "Report" says Steve Olson, Paul Tamberino and Brian Hall officiated (after the ref).
  • Whoops, those were leftovers from when the template was copied from MLS Cup 2009. I have corrected the names.
• "D.C. United returned as finalists.." returned as MLS Cup finalists (you've talked about another cup final in the meantime).
  • Fixed.

These are mainly trivial points really, but I'd like us to address them before I promote, so I'll put the article on hold for now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: All points addressed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 05:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with the changes, and as far as I'm concerned, this is way beyond the minimum expectations of a GA, so happy to promoted now, suggest you consider going to FAC in due course. Great work. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)