Talk:Columbus Crew

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

Roster[edit]

I don't see any reason to add players to the roster or to the incoming transfers section until the transfer has been confirmed by either the player or one of the clubs involved. Feel free to let me know if you disagree. MitchStein 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any objections to going back to the old roster template that was being used? The roster right now looks really messy and disorganized.MichaelBlankley (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Roster"? It's called a "squad". Guv2006 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Knox ?[edit]

As some may know I am a huge Columbus Crew fan, anyway I have herd of Legion 04 and the V-Army but Fort Knox fan club only has about 10 people, do we really need this or should we delete it? TheCrew29

I edited the supporters section to compensate for the changes being made for the 2007 season. MichaelBlankley 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with this sentance: "Historically, the team has had three major supporters' groups: Legion 04 and the V-Army." Shouldn't it be "two major supporters' groups". Adtroy 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Got it, now it's two.[reply]

Do we really need Union 103? the fan club only has about 10 people, should we delete?

We have more members than 10, thank you. And we are one of the two main groups, so I think it should definitely stay in the article. Please sign your posts, as well. MichaelBlankley (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

Can we get a history section started? Kingjeff 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A history section would be good, their the only team in mls here without that section. (68.199.35.102 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's in progress now. I'm not going to post it until it's finished for fear that someone will delete it. Hopefully It'll be up before Christmas. MichaelBlankley (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a very brief history section. Hopefully, someone with more time can expand on it and add citations. MitchStein (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a photo of the scoreboard on fire? It's one of the most notorious things that the stadium & Crew are known for. In my objective opinion, it's an integral representation of the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CCF:C7C0:D0E9:69CD:F2B3:C023 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's not only place it happens and as such no one feels to take a photo and make it available. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=678&q=mapfre+stadium+scoreboard+fire&oq=mapfre+stadium+scoreboard+fire&gs_l=img.3...1958.10940.0.11215.34.12.2.20.20.0.160.966.11j1.12.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.20.877...0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i24k1._W9zo25Agv0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CCF:C7C0:CDF8:8694:5DCE:1729 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COPYRIGHT probably has something to say about using any of those. Find a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section[edit]

I made a number of necessary edits to the article's second paragraph. First I updated the number of trophies the Crew have won from three to four. Then I improved the paragraph's syntax and made the paragraph less about the Los Angeles Galaxy and more about the Crew. --Zipsix (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Supporters[edit]

Who is Karry Shreeve? I cannot find any information about him anywhere.

Jshecket 16:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the name and came up with absolutely nothing. I think we should go ahead and delete it.

MichaelBlankley 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Former Players[edit]

Why is Frankie Hejduk listed as a former player?

MichaelBlankley 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody probably added him to the former player list when he was briefly out of contract this past offseason and then was never deleted from the list.

MitchStein 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Should we perhaps add Nick Theslof to this list? He is currently an assistant coach at Bayern Munich, which is pretty famous, and was signed by the Crew, though I do not think he appeared in a game outside of the preseason (I know he played for the Crew as I own his jersey)--kgilbert78134.243.211.185 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Picture[edit]

The official first kit of the Crew is black-black-black and the alternate is gold-gold-gold. The mixed kits are a relatively new thing, but the team still lists the solid kits as official. I've changed this. MichaelBlankley 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation of "Nordecke"[edit]

Is this article aimed at children so a proper phonetic notation cannot be used or are American people just too stupid to understand the IPA? 85.177.0.145 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classy. You're a massive snob. Nobody likes you. Seabear84 19:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabear84 (talk • contribs)

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) 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivals Section[edit]

Some of the information in that section seems pretty questionable to me. I added the 'citation needed' tags to a few of those statements. If they can't be verified by a credible source then I'll delete them. MitchStein (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after reviewing the edit history and finding that all of the questionable claims were made by anonymous users with Canadian IP addresses I just replaced the uncited information with a much more general description. If anybody wants to add more specific details then cite your sources, but I would question whether any further detail is even necessary. MitchStein (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Herrera #0?[edit]

It seems weird, but the official Crew roster page states that Sergio Herrera has been given the number "0". I edited it the roster on Wiki to have him as #0, but I haven't been able to find other evidence of it as #0. But hey, if the official roster says #0, then it must be true. Can anyone else find other support for this? Thanks. Acmilan10italia (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MLSnet.com will often list a new incoming player as #0. No player is ever registered as such. Ignore any listings of #0. 82.19.17.200 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Columbus Crew SC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for Club Name in Infobox[edit]

I have recently brought up the need to differentiate between "Columbus Crew" and "Columbus Crew SC" in the infobox of Crew players. I believe that there is a need for consensus going forward regarding which term is to be used in the articles and infoboxes for players that have played for the club, from 2015 onward. I do not intend to dispute the term for players that only played for the club before 2014, as "Columbus Crew" would be the only appropriate term. I argue that those players that have played for the club from 2015 onward should have "Columbus Crew SC" in their infobox rather than "Columbus Crew."

First and foremost, I believe it is important to differentiate the name change for players that have played for the club during two separate stints, both before and after the name change was made. Two examples of this are Kei Kamara and Dilly Duka. It would be more technically correct to say that they played for "Columbus Crew SC" if they have played for the club after the name change, while still preserving the old name for when they were playing before the name change.

It has also been argued that lengthening the club name by adding the "SC" on the end would be a violation of Wikipedia:Piped link. I do not believe that this constitutes a violation of piping. The policy clearly states to "Avoid making links longer THAN NECESSARY (my emphasis)." I have already detailed why I believe the change is necessary above, but there are other reasons I believe it is necessary.

There is also the argument that the addition of "SC" is non-notable and merely reflects something that should be shortened, such as Manchester United FC being Shortened to Manchester United. There are, however, instances where the FC remains in most articles about the team, such as Toronto FC. Since I believe that the differentiation is necessary for differentiating the time period that the players played for the club, as well as reflecting the entire change made for the name, I do not believe this is a non-notable change.

Other clubs in Major League Soccer have changed their names, and this is reflected by the different names used in the infoboxes for players that played for the club across different times. See players that have played for San Jose Clash/Earthquakes, Sporting KC vs. Kansas City Wizards, Los Angeles Galaxy vs. LA Galaxy, Dallas Burn vs. FC Dallas, etc. Columbus Crew SC instituted a name change, and I don't see why this is necessarily different.

There is also a matter of how the club is referred to colloquially. Before the name change, it was common practice to refer to the club as "the Columbus Crew." However, since the name change it is just as common, if not more so, to refer to the club as "Crew SC." This is both true from a fan perspective and from a media perspective. This further emphasizes that the club is being referred to as "Columbus Crew SC," and I argue that it should be written in its entirety for players that played for the club from 2015 onward.

I don't think this is a non-negligible change. I think this helps reflect the change made by the club itself and that it would be more proper to use the newer name than the out-of-date name. Not only is it much less common in official channels, "Columbus Crew" is also less common colloquially. If other clubs have their name-changes reflected, and Toronto FC can be an exception, why shouldn't Columbus have this exception as well? Jay eyem (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if you could bring a reference regarding the name change (I didn't manage to find one on the article page itself), and also for the colloquial referring for editors less familiar with the MLS (such as myself). --SuperJew (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, the MLSsoccer.com (official website of the league) article isn't loading. I'll try to find something official once I have time. I'm kind of curious to know what would be a good source to determine what is colloquial. I was thinking media guidelines on specific language to use (kind of like the Associated Press) but I'm having difficulty finding such a thing. Jay eyem (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience the norm in these cases is to show a handful of major media sources using the term implied to be more commonly used and also Google searches (with number of results mentioned) can give credence in a discussion (I'd suggest using Google's date choosing tool in this case). --SuperJew (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I have this article on the rebrand itself --> [1]. Part of the problem with using the google search method is that any search for "Columbus Crew" will necessarily include searches for "Columbus Crew SC," which wouldn't necessarily prove that one is more colloquial than the other. I've been looking around league sources and I think the latter appears to be used more often, but they are definitely both used. So I'm stuck on where to go from here. I do think there should be consistency across all of the infoboxes, and I maintain that it should include the SC, but I'll relay that decision for an admin to make. Jay eyem (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also courtesy pinging @GiantSnowman: for their thoughts. --SuperJew (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@21.colinthompson: I'm pinging you for a semi-related reason to this. Not sure if you've read my unnecessarily lengthy post, but you don't need to. I noticed that you made some changes in the infobox for a lot of players that were with Columbus until the end of the 2014 season (e.g. Fifi Baiden) with the name "Columbus Crew SC" rather than "Columbus Crew." Even though the club's name was changed early October 2014, the team wasn't referred to as "Columbus Crew SC" with any consistency until the 2015 season. Wanted to hear your thoughts on that. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My logic behind doing it for those players was such: the name of the club was officially changed on October 8, 2014. It was not until November 18, 2014 that the club declined the options of those players who did not return for 2015. If I had been active on Wikipedia at the time, my first major action after the name change would have been to change the name from "Columbus Crew" to "Columbus Crew SC". At the time, there would have been no way of knowing which players would have been retained, and which players would have departed the club, so I would have changed the club name and then kept it going forward. There were also some players (examples Eric Gehrig in December, Ben Sweat in February) who departed the club even further along in the offseason but before the beginning of the 2015 regular season, and who likely would have had the name changed before they departed. For consistency reasons, I changed the name to "Columbus Crew SC" for all players who were members of the club when the name change occurred, and also did it for some players who arrived 2015 and later where it was listed incorrectly as "Columbus Crew". However, I do see the logic behind leaving the name as "Columbus Crew" for all of the players who left the club after the 2014 but before the 2015 season, since they never officially played a game for a team named "Columbus Crew SC". I have no issue with those being changed back, again I had done it in the first place for the sake of consistency. Thanks for the ping. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: THis discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Columbus Crew SC. 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) 02:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise's imminent relocation[edit]

I wanted to leave a discussion concerning Columbus Crew relocating to Austin, TX. With the city of Columbus and Precourt Sport Ventures being in a standstill, it seems that the move will be most likely. I don't think I will be active in Wiki for long. I want to leave this here to encourage for a plan that will be used should the team actually moves. I would like for there to be an article of the Columbus Crew and its history including an infobox of the team as if the club is still active but isn't. Similar to Chivas USA and the NFL teams that has a history where the team had moved to a different city such as the San Diego Chargers and the St Louis Rams and the Baltimore Colts to name a few.

Colombus Crew is a club that had competed since day one in MLS. It has history and traditions along with a Legacy. For that, I think it would be appropriate for that to be shown here as well with having a separate article of the team be here if they move to Austin. I really hope that can happen. Thank you all. HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumes they're relocating. It's not a done deal. It's simply rumour mongering and that has not place in a serious discussion of the team. It has degraded (with "fixes" from other editors, not you) to name calling and general childishness. Until it's known they are relocating, don't even mention it in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Haslam Buying Crew[edit]

People are going to want to change the owner to Jimmy Haslam, however, reports currently show that they are still in negotiations. I think we should put a semi-protected barrier on the article. Bkellar (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally made the request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected. We do not project articles prematurely. Please resubmit the report when there has been substantial vandalism. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: No problem. There have been edits to that effect already but I guess it hasn't been "substantial". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings for Precourt Era[edit]

I really see no problem with having a subheading for the proposed relocation for the team, given that there is an especially high volume of coverage for that compared to other aspects of his ownership. However, there does need to be a subheading for the rest of the content, or at least part of it. Doesn't make tons of sense to just have the one subheading. Jay eyem (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it supported in MOS:HEADING and MOS:LAYOUT? When I look at it, it creates a sub-section that's short and so breaks LAYOUT. I'll let you explain why it's needed from a MoS though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as those are both guidelines, and not policy, I don't see a reason to maintain them so stringently (and for the record, I don't see a real argument here). We certainly don't do that with maintaining squads for American teams. I also see nothing explicitly prohibiting these subheadings. Maybe, as someone who is arguing from guidelines, you'd like to point out what exactly the problem is? Just referencing a guideline without a quotation is meaningless. Jay eyem (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. Another editor has decided that it's the coach's era. I totally get that you hate Precourt. Why not just eliminate him from the article? Do whatever you want to it; it's your mess now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I do hate Precourt, but seeing as the potential relocation of the team has enough coverage to have its own article, I don’t really see the problem here. I don’t WP:OWN the article, and I’d appreciate you keeping a WP:CIVIL tone when discussing content disputes. Jay eyem (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to happen all the time in pro sports articles that there is confusion between the team and the organization. If we're talking about the team, it's the coach's era; if we're talking about the organization, then it's the owner's or CEO's (in this case "operator-investor") era. We now have the coach's era as a subheading of the owner's era, but we also have an era defined by a single player. It seems to me these emphases are WP:POV and we need a more objective way of defining periods of time. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that and I have no objection to a change that makes more sense. I do think the latter subheading is fine as is, but I wasn't sure what to name the first subheading. I don't think the heading "The Precourt Era" needs changing, just because that's arguably as important as Berhalter's tenure. Again, I'm not sure how to improve it as it is now. Jay eyem (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move in order[edit]

Looks like the team is re-branding. Move to Columbus SC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we should? Honestly I'm kinda confused on this whole thing. The team website still has the old logo and team name as the url for the time being. Do we keep "The Crew" as a team nickname? Should we wait and see if the next game has the new name/logo? Same goes for the 2021 season page I suppose. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a "not quite yet" situation. BLAIXX 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I pose the question. The press release is about re-branding, and does not appear to be an official name change, but the anons coming here seem to suggest it is the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be an official rebrand and rename; they just seem to be rather slow at updating their website. Right now as I type this, columbuscrewsc.com redirect to columbuscrew.com, which loads... an old version of mlssoccer.com for some reason. I'm sure it'll load their site with the new branding eventually... --IagoQnsi (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The team's next match is this Wednesday at 7 PM EST. By then we will definitely know what's going on. If the broadcast has the new logo and name (on graphics, the uniform, match ticker, etc.) that'll be the nail in the coffin. But this slow rollout is kinda confusing so maybe it's best we take our time and watch? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Columbus SC website and the official MLS site have updated the name and logo now, so feels like it's an immediate change. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the end I think this is the right move but this tweet from a Columbus beat writer is interesting. Think it matters what logo is actually on the kit? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the move was correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's your hesitation? The club has now updated their website, social media, etc to all reflect the new name. It seems pretty finalized to me. --IagoQnsi (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the move was fair (albeit done without consensus). The way they have done this rebranding in the middle of the season you might think that they would have waited for the end of the season, but it seems like they have largely completed the rebrand already (other than the kit, which is really strange). Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move again, apply for protection for like two weeks?[edit]

The name going forward is "Columbus Crew" with no SC at the end.

Sources:

Anyone disagree with the move or protection request? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think waiting on the move would be wise, but definitely agree with a page protection. Especially now that it has been changed twice in such a short span of time, it might be worth waiting until the dust settles to make any bold changes. Jay eyem (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the move now, it's pretty clear from RS they have dropped the SC. SportingFlyer T·C 14:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I just applied for a "move protection" for like 2 weeks. That way the new logo and everything can come in. It things level out more, plus we can organize the history section better I guess. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jackson Scofield (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support an ASAP move. I have yet to see a policy or guideline which would support holding off on such a move, especially since "Columbus Crew" alone is by far the WP:COMMONNAME; now that it's official, let's get to it. Tom Danson (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move ASAP. --IagoQnsi (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I suggest you open a formal requested move discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is their common name, and the franchisees are trying to placate their fanbase, but they just added "Crew" back as can be seen in https://www.columbuscrew.com/post/2021/05/17/joint-statement-columbus-crew-and-its-supporters-group-nordecke . It is not clear whether SC will actually be officially dropped despite the tweets and other press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my understanding, per WP:PSTS, the Dispatch is seen as a source above the press release-so when the Dispatch says "no more SC," we go with their word. Tom Danson (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • From my understanding, we blew it last time and so there is no reason to rush into it this time. The new source is only one, and we should really rely on multiple. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree that we jumped the gun last time and think a proper WP:RM would be helpful. Think the current title is suitable for the moment until there is a more formal consensus and greater consistency from reliable sources. Jay eyem (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read about it in other sources as well (USA Today I think? need to find it), and the club's announced it now. No point in waiting, really. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. RandyFitz (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy support. The club has announced it on their website. The website url has dropped the sc www.columbuscrew.com and this article on the official website states the name is now "Columbus Crew" RedPatch (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is move protected for 1 week. I'm sorry if some of you feel this is dumb or being "too cautious" but the last move with name change was handled really sloppily and I wanted to try and avoid that. Anyone is free to apply for a move if they wish, and I admit this name change is being handled way better than the last one by the team. That being said, this while we're preparing the page for an eventual move should we put the logo that lasted a whole week in Columbus Crew SC#Colors and badge? Also, should the first sentence be "The Columbus Crew, formerly known as Columbus Crew SC and Columbus SC, are an American professional soccer club based in Columbus, Ohio"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColeTrain4EVER (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes to them all...crazy how easily WP:COMMONNAME gets ignored these days. Tom Danson (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RedPatch Where in that press release does it state that SC is no longer part of the team name? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this press release unveiling the logo. "SC" is nowhere to be found among the branding nor names, and with the Columbus Dispatch articles (which outrank the press release per WP:PSTS), we can safely presume that they have jettisoned the "SC." Tom Danson (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dropping the SC has also been well reported. [2] Also in the Athletic. Thought it was in USA Today too but that was just a reprint of the Dispatch article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2021[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: MOVE the only opposition has requested a snow close. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Crew SC → Columbus Crew – Yesterday, the Crew announced that they were reverting back to their traditional name, with the Columbus Dispatch, SoccerAmerica and The Atlhletic reporting that they had also abandoned the "SC" part, and the team's updated logo showing no signs of an "SC". Combine all these things with the fact that "Columbus Crew" is by far the team's WP:COMMONNAME even when the SC was around, and I think the move is a pretty clear case (one user had it move-protected because he wanted a proper discussion with proper consensus). Tom Danson (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pretty clear that this is the name. As I mentioned above. Should we just cut and paste all those votes from yesterday here? RedPatch (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging voters from unofficial vote yesterday to re-vote here @Jackson Scofield, IagoQnsi, Walter Görlitz, RandyFitz, and SportingFlyer:
  • Support Clear as day. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems pretty clear that the page can be moved again. Glad we are doing the process right this time. I don't think Columbus Crew SC is suitable any longer, and Columbus SC is clearly the wrong choice. Being the common name, I think a move is appropriate. Jay eyem (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems the marketing group is on the move, but I would like to take this move with more caution than the last. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that we're having this move discussion already shows that we're taking more caution than last time. I think that, after all this drama, they're going to be the "Columbus Crew" forever, so once we move it to that, we won't need to do so again. Tom Danson (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. GiantSnowman 18:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The move drama really isn't on our end, but because the name has changed quickly, twice, in rapid succession. Columbus Crew is now clearly the "correct" name, and we don't need to wait any longer to get this done. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per all above. It took a while, but the Crew have been saved. O.N.R. (talk)
  • Support per nom. The language the club has used throughout this whole process has been confusing to say the least, but it's clear from this most recent announcement (and all the coverage surrounding it) that the name of the club is Columbus Crew. 20:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Siroxorsid (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Appears a clear direction without the SC both from the official release and multiple cited media sources. RandyFitz (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The team's owners are not supposed to be carelessly playing with the name of this team. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Team is being way better with this re-brand and it feels way more uniform. As the user who called for the move protection I'd support this. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The "SC" has definitely been dropped, as reported in reliable secondary sources. There's the fact that it was never the WP:COMMONNAME anyway, and leaving off things that are part of the official name but not the common name is often done with sports teams anyway, as seen with New York Giants (whose full formal name is "New York Football Giants). oknazevad (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and all reasons above, I would support a WP:SNOWCLOSE at this point as well. JE98 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The team is once again the Columbus Crew. The "SC" is gone. KitHutch (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. New name was well used by sources after their May 22 game. BLAIXX 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a clear consensus has been reached...per WP:AVALANCHE, I think the move can be made anytime. Tom Danson (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2021 (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.
@CambridgeBayWeather: I noticed that the article page was moved to Columbus Crew, but the Talk page is still at Talk:Columbus Crew SC. Shouldn't they both match? RedPatch (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I forgot about the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbus_Crew&oldid=1206754522"