Talk:FC Cincinnati

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Conman1717.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 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) 22:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

– Now that the USL season has finished, and now that the AfD has been closed without a consensus to delete this page, the USL team currently at FC Cincinnati will be replaced with a MLS franchise with the same name. Users will soon be looking for information on the MLS team instead of the USL team, if not now, especially considering the MLS Expansion Draft is in two weeks which will add several players to the team's roster. Per our historical consensus with MLS teams, nicely noted here, Talk:Montreal_Impact_(1992–2011), we should move the USL team page and make the MLS team page the primary page. SportingFlyer  talk  23:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FC Cincinnati (MLS) → FC Cincinnati
 * FC Cincinnati → FC Cincinnati (2016–18)
 * Question: Do we know many are going to the USL team article looking for MLS team info? I have seen a few anons "updating" it without reading it, but those edits are about three a week right now.
 * Comment: The target should not use a hyphen but an en-dash per MOS:DASH: FC Cincinnati (2016–18). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on the statistics, but the MLS team will be the primary target very soon if not now. The MLS page gets about half the views of the USL page at the moment per |FC_Cincinnati. Also I've always thought the endash thing pedantic, which is probably why I messed it up, but I've updated the move target above. SportingFlyer  talk  00:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Soon, but not yet. Also, I don't think that changing the link above changes the RM templates on the two articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - This seems uncontroversial to me - so I'd say Be bold --Trödel 15:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – No problem here, especially since I was the user who brought up the name change in the first place (i.e., on the talk page of the current undabbed article). BTW, I fixed the RM template on the current FC Cincinnati page to reflect the en dash. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The current situation is creating confusion, and will continue to do so. The articles must be moved. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

PAGE ]]) 23:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The move has been completed. Please clean up any incoming links at Special:WhatLinksHere/FC_Cincinnati that should now be pointing to FC Cincinnati (2016–18) instead. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Bailey Bastards rename
Posting here to avoid a revert war. According to the Bailey Bastards website, they are rebranding to the Briogáid. We know this is their real website because the Supporters Groups page on FC Cincinnati's website links to it. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used for facts that don't require interpretation (which the name of an organization definitely doesn't). Not to mention, FC Cincinnati's website is also a primary source. What is the issue with calling this supporters group by their new name? – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 20:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't check the Cincinnati page and they have them listed as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's clear from the Bailey Bastards website that the FC Cincinnati page is simply outdated. Just because the club hasn't updated their name doesn't mean that Wikipedia also must remain outdated. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 20:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging me. The article is clearly on my watchlist. I self-reverted and fixed the ref. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Columbus Crew: Rival?
I understand that there is potential for this to be a rivalry and that there's some degree of animosity already, but I think it's premature to call the two teams rivals. I agree that the inclusion of the matchup with the upcoming MLS Rivalry Week boosts the idea, but I don't know that it's quite enough to call it a rivalry. That was kind of the point of Articles for deletion/Hell Is Real. Just something to think about for the future, we'll know soon enough. Jay eyem (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that they are continuing the existing in-state rivalry that was established when the USL team of the same was around. That AfD, which I saw and intentionally avoided, made an assumption that it was TOOSOON. was correct in stating that the article should not be created until there is enough press, but to mention that the rivalry doesn't exist is ignoring the sources now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly most of the articles I've seen have been about how it's going to be a rivalry rather than that it already is a rivalry, that was the distinction I felt was important. You think about some of the things that make a rivalry (long time animosity, lots of close matchups, perhaps more serious things like social class or other sectarianism, etc.), that just doesn't exist here yet. That's why I feel it's premature to change. It's a small pedantic thing, but one I felt merited attention. Jay eyem (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They are rivals in the general sense of the word. All teams in the same league are rivals. That doesn't make it a notable rivalry that merits an article, but one could say they are "in-state rivals" to mean they are two teams in the same state that compete against each other for the same championship. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the text as it's currently worded works well. They are matched up for rivalry week and by the end of the season they should have generated enough sources to meet WP:GNG for a standalone article (the article which is deleted is WP:TOOSOON). SportingFlyer  talk  06:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope whoever decides it is ready for a standalone article remembers WP:REFUND. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Founding date
Should the founding date be listed as 2018 or 2015? The new entity maybe "different" according to what its legal papers say (has anyone here seen such?), but as far as how we treat it and the public treats it, it is the same club given that the name and controlling ownership are the same as the USL club, or not?

There are many examples of clubs switching leagues, or dying out and being resurrected, even at times by different ownership, that tend to share the same lineage and article on Wikipedia. Even if we retain the USL club article as it's own, but the date on this one should reflect the original 'founding' date. What are your thoughts on this? DA1 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, language in the existing article suggests they are the same club: Any reason why they are separated into two articles?
 * Teams in the NBA don't have separate articles for their BAA and NBL precursors. And the same goes for teams in various leagues around the world. Some leagues also have pro-rel, and their clubs aren't made a new article for anytime they switch leagues. DA1 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't the NBA, etc. (See the discussions above for full reasons). Follow the example from Vancouver Whitecaps FC (and several other MLS teams). A note should be used to explain the situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say this was the NBA, I used it as one example. You didn't actually answer any of my questions. I looked at the Vancouver Whitecaps per your suggestion; they were separate clubs owned by separate owners. Having those separate makes sense. But it seems pretty shoddy in this case. They seem to be the same club owned by the same controlling ownership. DA1 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, in fact, answer your question. This was discussed above (and on the retired club article page). I'm not going to make the points again.
 * My suggestion was to check the Whitecaps article to see how to discuss the founding year, which is the purpose of this discussion. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, Walter. I'm looking at the source in the article; things that stand out:
 * I'm completely okay with there being two articles preserving the two time-periods of the club. But it is a fact that this is the same club, that has "joined" MLS and not a new entity by any means. The article's language should be edited to reflect that. –DA1 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you're looking at until you look at what I suggest you look at. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be polite in your responses, especially when I just responded to you with a "Thanks". This is nothing to be agitated over. I've already looked at what's relevant for the current issue I'm concerned regarding.
 * Also, you edited my message to end with your signature. I'm moving your statement below so that my message stays in tact as originally presented. (Otherwise it's attributed in your name in place of mine) –DA1 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I modified it so it uses the note. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The infobox is for "infobox football club", not "football franchise" (of the MLS). The primary date should reflect the founding of the club itself. DA1 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. Do you see an infobox for franchises? Do you see this practices in other MLS franchisee articles? (I'll save you the trouble as the answer is no to both questions and as such, this article will follow what other articles have done.)
 * And stop adjusting the spacing as it causes problems with screen readers and so is a MOS:ACCESS issue and goes agains WP:LISTGAP and is directly addressed at WP:INTERSPERSE and that links back to WP:THREAD. No spaces when indenting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of listing broad references, it would benefit you a lot more in your discussions if you were straightforward in what you want people to look at; WP:INTERSPERSE would have sufficed. Point noted by me, I'll abstain from using spaces. DA1 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you reverted my edit to the lede (I did not edit the founding date in infobox). Do i have to pass everything via consensus even when there's nothing wrong with it and completely in line with sources? That's not expected practice. Currently the lede is incorrect in it's language; and I've quoted (in quote frame above) exactly why according to the citation it uses. DA1 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of listing broad references, it would benefit you a lot more in your discussions if you were straightforward in what you want people to look at; WP:INTERSPERSE would have sufficed. Point noted by me, I'll abstain from using spaces. DA1 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you reverted my edit to the lede (I did not edit the founding date in infobox). Do i have to pass everything via consensus even when there's nothing wrong with it and completely in line with sources? That's not expected practice. Currently the lede is incorrect in it's language; and I've quoted (in quote frame above) exactly why according to the citation it uses. DA1 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's about a decade of legal filings and consensus now that an MLS Expansion team is considered a new team, based on the way MLS legally incorporates its teams. The MLS team was founded on the date MLS granted the expansion team to the ownership group. We should hat this in the same way we've hatted Portland Timbers or Montreal Impact to maintain consistency. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was already there! I updated the text on the page to make it consistent with other MLS franchise articles. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It maybe a "new" team (franchise) invented for MLS, but they are the same soccer club (and per the article's infobox it is about the "football club"). The language and founding date in the articles you reference may need to be adjusted as well, if there is credible citation to back it up. This is what Montreal Impact's own website says : "[1992] In December 1992, the Saputo company announces a five-year commitment as owner of a new professional soccer team in Montreal. The Impact kicks off its inaugural season....[2011] With the club in transition for its debut in Major League Soccer in 2012..."
 * Has anyone considered: if you presume that the MLS club is new and should be listed with a new founding date—what exactly is that founding date? Because it seems you're assuming that the "day of public announcement" is the founding date, which it surely can't be. If we're going to look at this legally then acknowledge that the existing "founded" dates are complete guesses and most likely not correct. Who founds a company and then announces it the same day? DA1 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has been considered and rejected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing the heart of the matter; all your answers are effectively "This is how we've been doing it so far..." so no need to look into it any further or what may be the better alternative. DA1 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not facing the reality of the situation. Your answers are "FC Cincinnati is different from every other franchisee in MLS" when in fact it's not. What I mean by that is that MLS is still the same legal entity and every "club" is just a franchisee of the league. The league still holds all of the contracts for the players. The league now owns the "club"'s name. Yes, there is an expectation that if the franchise ever wishes to withdraw that there will be a legal mechanism to recover the name for use in another league, but as of now, the former "club" ceased to exist and the franchisee began to use the name at some point after that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not singling out FC Cincinnati from others, if the same applies to others it should be applied similarly across the board. This is a discussion that is looking at the core of how we present details. I'm proposing that the articles reflect the reality of the infobox (insofar as their founding date), and the leads' language should reflect it in kind. DA1 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the franchise owns the clubs or vice versa, that is acknowledged; now the article needs to detail that out in the lede, and layout the appropriate CLUB founding date in the club infobox. The lede itself should make adequate mention of the club's prior life in another league or division. You've laid out your stance, now how about we wait for others instead of going back-and-forth? You wanted consensus afterall. DA1 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on Lead
The article's existing lede stated as follows:

I am proposing RfC, following a dissenting revert stating "Not the agreed-upon lede. Seek WP:CONSENSUS to change it."; My proposal is akin to:

My reasoning is: the club is a pre-existing club that has "join[ed] MLS". It previously competed in the USL and was founded in 2015. It is not a new club "of the same name" succeeding the previous one. This is based on the [S]ource cited in the lede itself, which states:

Requesting consensus and input on the aforementioned. DA1 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pre-existing clubs have never "joined" MLS due to the way the MLS franchise structure works, it's why there are two separate articles. This team has a new name (Futbol Club Cincinnati -> Football Club Cincinnati) and is a newly created entity. The clue is here from the MLSSoccer.com expansion article: The expansion side, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS... Here, "continue" refers to the brand, not the entity. This goes back to the days when a city which received a MLS franchise didn't necessarily use the branding of their existing minor league team. Portland announced it straightaway, while "Sounders" won a write-in vote and "Whitecaps" was announced after the fact. This has been covered exhaustively and is consistent with other MLS expansion franchises with the same name. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. But my proposed lead says nothing about "joining" but that is just what the source says. My lead merely asks to list where the club previously played as it is a continuation or successor of the prior.
 * The source states it is the same club; the MLS franchise is new, but the club is the same. The citation does not indicate that it's a new soccer 'club'. The name is not the issue here; if the citation stated they were the same club as "XYZ". I would hold the same opinion that XYZ's past should be listed in the same form. DA1 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I fail to see how this is any different than any of the other MLS teams who have updated their minor league brand. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are sources that stated that Vancouver Whitecaps FC are the same club that won the former North American Soccer League trophy (known as the Soccer Bowl) in 1979. The MLS team will be celebrating 40 years since that victory all season. The reason that the sources state they're the same club is that that they want access to the club's current activity and know that if they do not follow MLS's script for the club, they will not get those opportunities.
 * So I don't care what sources write about the continuity of the two teams (three in each case of Vancouver, Seattle and Portland) they legally ceased to exist when the team joined MLS and a new entity is playing. MLS is the team and they have a local brand in two dozen markets around the continent. That this brand carries a familiar name is of little consequence to Wikipedia aside from the creation of a new article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose change this was already discussed at length in the AfD, can we please let this die already? Separate legal entities, one franchise expands and another contracts. Despite the obvious branding similarities, this is not the same entity. There is already consensus on this for other lower tier teams that moved up. We don't say the Whitecaps were founded in 1974, do we? Jay eyem (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose They're clearly separate franchises due to the way MLS works. We've discussed this already. Enough is enough. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Rivalry section
I still have some mixed feelings about including Columbus as a rival until more notable coverage develops, but what is the consensus about the old Louisville FC rivalry? An IP has added this to the article, providing this link. I have no strong objection to its inclusion, but wanted to see what other editors think. Jay eyem (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"German heritage"
"It maintains the same orange and blue color scheme but now pays tribute to the city of Cincinnati, especially its German heritage."

I am German and kinda confused about that.

The color combination orange and blue does not pay tribute to Germany. It is connoted with the Netherlands where it is also a popular combination like KNVB, ING or Rabobank, well... besides the fact Orange itself is THE Dutch color. Even that griffin holding a sword reminds to Dutch coat of arms.

So I do not get the joke, claiming paying tribute to a country by using color and symbol reminding ironically to our football archrival.

Should that not be mentioned in the article? Fränsmer (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the lion is what pays tribute, but I'm not from the city so I don't know. You could either remove it WP:BOLDly, or tag it for clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So I think this comes partially from a misunderstanding. From the original article: "One thing that’s staying the same on the new crest is the team’s patented orange and blue color scheme. As a whole, it’s a tribute to the city’s German heritage particularly with regard to the font used for the team name. Another element that’s remaining on the crest is the lion which will have three wings added to it, symbolizing the club’s three years in USL." So the colors are not what are supposed to be the dedication to "German heritage". I don't personally see how the font is a tribute to "German heritage", but it sounds like spin from the team. I would support its removal, even though it is sourced. I do not think the inclusion of the Germany-Netherlands rivalry is necessary though. Jay eyem (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't include coverage of it either, unless there's secondary sources which have distinctly noted the link. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They've done it again with this. First the font, now the shirt pattern? I did a quick search and didn't find anything meriting inclusion. I think there's a consensus to remove this instance. Jay eyem (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge with USL article
I'd like to propose that FC Cincinnati (2016–2018) and FC Cincinnati be merged into one single article.

Four years ago when this article for the MLS team was created, I nominated it for deletion on the basis that FC Cincinnati (the MLS team) is just a continuation of FC Cincinnati (the USL team), and that it is unhelpful to have two separate articles for them. That discussion was somewhat split, and ultimately closed with no consensus.

One of the arguments in favor of having two articles was that, after a few years in MLS, the USL history would no longer feel like it belonged to the same club. A few years of MLS play have now taken place, and that has proven untrue. FC Cincinnati still claims 2015 as their year of founding (see press release, MLS store, team store) and considers the USL years part of the club's history (see USL History page on their website, linked from the media info page). Most media outlets continue to talk about FC Cincinnati as being a USL club that then joined MLS and has one continuous history, rather than the MLS club being new and separate (see WCPO, WLWT, ESPN, Sounder at Heart).

Otherwise, I stand by the key points I wrote at the top of my 2018 nomination.

A major argument in favor of two separate articles was that teams like Seattle Sounders, CF Montréal, and Portland Timbers all have separate articles for their pre-MLS iterations. There are a few reasons why I think FC Cincinnati is different from those teams:


 * FCC's USL era was very short, and was always building up to a move to MLS (they were in talks with MLS even in 2016). Those other teams had longer pre-MLS eras that can't easily be combined into one article for simple article size reasons (WP:TOOLONG).
 * In terms of media coverage and popularity, moving up to MLS was not as big a change for FCC as it was for those other teams. FCC's attendance went up just 6% in their first season of MLS, as opposed to 76% (Portland), 98% (Montréal), or 814% (Seattle). FCC already had substantial coverage in local media and some coverage in national media (e.g. Cincinnati Enquirer; this can be further verified by limiting Google searches to 2015–2018).

It's a subjective matter, but I think that FCC had a lot of continuity between its USL and MLS eras, and thus, it makes sense for them to be combined into one article. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 01:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge – Per the reasons noted above. An additional note is that the USL and MLS iterations of the club shared the same ownership continuity, so they may be regarded as the same organization. RandyFitz (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge the articles! As a season ticket holder during USL at Nippert Stadium and a current season ticket holder at TQL Stadium, MLS, this is one team. It's tje same ownership and the same fams. We are united and are loyal to our beginnings. FC Cincinnati, 2015-present, one artical. 2603:6011:C403:B200:8176:77DE:E178:46DF (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge the article, the clubs quite literally claims the history and has images of the USL squad on its training ground and proudly displays the USL regular season trophy there. If the Club claims the history it makes no sense not to include it and there is no pushback to merging the articles except from pure stubbornness by people who know nothing about the club. It&#39;s Me200000 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge - The USL iteration of FCC was a de facto soft open. As noted above, the degree of continuity during the USL/MLS transition (more or less everything but the logo stayed the same) was striking. Danish Ranger (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why so much emphasis on attendance?
At least ten times the article mentions single-game attendance records, including for things like "highest attendance in the fourth round of one specific tournament." Why on earth is that notable? I don't see this in other entries for similar teams. Jeffreynye (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty common thing for American teams to put emphasis on attendance, especially lower division clubs. Which is a bit odd, because this used to be separated out between the lower division side and its MLS counterpart, might need to re-open that discussion at some point. In the meantime, feel free to pare it down, it definitely takes up too much of the prose in the article. Jay eyem (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
— Assignment last updated by WynnUCBA (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)