Talk:Hudson River Derby

Only one source supports this title
Only one source supports the title. A second can't decide if it's the "Hudson River derby" or the "Hudson derby". Most of the sources are about the supporters' brawls, not about the derby. The brawling is covered in the article for Red Bulls and City. Still WP:TOOSOON? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hudson River derby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029222625/http://web.mlsnet.com/t107/stadium/ to http://web.mlsnet.com/t107/stadium/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson River Derby. 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/20141010084448/http://www.thirdrailnyc.com/2014/09/1000.html to http://www.thirdrailnyc.com/2014/09/1000.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleaner summaries
It's my opinion that the collapsable list provide a cleaner summary when they 1) distinguish wins and draws across the entire row with subtle colours rather than stark colours only in the scores, 2) display only the primary information in a single line and add extraneous details, such as when expanded. Can't imagine anything cleaner than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I posted the below to your talk page to explain. I also used to think that the collapsible boxes were cleaner and easier to read, until I searched around to see other pages. I looked around through different leagues all over the world, and the overwhelmingly majority did not use collapsible boxes, but used a template similar to the one I had. Either they posted home matches side by side, listed them with the score colored, or other variations. Having highlighted collapsible boxes/rows turns the page into a coloring book in my opinion. There's too many colors and too much to scroll through. Similar to the one for the Atlantic Cup (Major League Soccer) you can collapse the overall table to not have to scroll through a ridiculous amount of games/colors. Take a look at some of the examples I listed below and others across the world. Hopefully that will get you to see this is an easier/cleaner format. It's been in this format for a long time until someone randomly changed it a few weeks ago.

You have also made edits to this page in the past while the format I used was there. You didn't say there was anything wrong with it in the past. Why the sudden change of heart?

"I used the template on this page after searching through some of the best derbies in the world, to see which would be the cleanest/easiest to read. With collapsible boxes, readers have to individually click every single game, rather than seeing everything all at once in a simpler format. The format on this page is a mix of other pages I got ideas from. Some derbies that use a similar template: Superclásico, List of El Clásico matches, Merseyside derby." AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)contribs) 00:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at all the pages from these lists of rivalries: List of association football rivalries. AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)AmericanSoccer10
 * I can "fix" those too. Shall I point to derbies that use this format? Is this a pissing match or a discussion? The discussion is why is the table format better not why is it more popular. I explained the latter. You have explained the latter and since the former was your argument, you should try to support it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a pissing match? Not really sure why you are taking this so personally rather than opening your eyes to a different viewpoint without insults. The other derby pages aren't that way because they are more "popular" they are that way because clearly there was a consensus around the world that that way was a better format than the collapsible boxes. I already explained my reasoning, you just chose not to read it. You say there hasn't been a consensus made, yet if you look at the other derby pages, you can see that there was a consensus against using collapsible boxes.
 * You're saying I should support my argument, but what about you? My argument is that the global consensus is that this format is better, and wildely accepted, while your argument is that you like this way better. I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing match. I'm just trying to keep it in the same/similar format as the other pages of this nature. 50.254.91.49 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you editing when logged out? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was on a different computer and thought I was logged in.
 * Firstly, I tried to have a discussion, but you chose to ignore the reasoning and examples I provided, and instead labeled it a "pissing match." I reverted the edits the other user made, to reflect how the page had been for over a year. There was no reason given for the changes by the other user, and also no reason to change the page. I gave you examples, but for some reason insist that your opinion is more valid than the fact that majority of derby pages use a similar format. Yes, there are other pages that use the collapsible boxes, but for my friend and I, who first put the template on this page, we believed this was a better way to present the games due to it being the standard across other teams, leagues, nations, etc.
 * We would appreciate if you could kindly leave the page as it was before and stop changing it to the collapsible boxes. AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you've violated WP:3RR. Revert now please. If you fail to do so I will be forced to 1) open an investigation at WP:3RRN and WP:SPI for potentially using the anon account without declaring it. This is what WP:BRD is about. What we have here done is BrdRDdrdRDdrdRDd where you are the upper case letters.
 * I explained why I feel it looks better. You have not. Please do so. I'm not ignoring your reasoning, I responded to the first half of your comment (It's cleaner than the collapsible boxes, easier to read, and something I have seen on other derby pages) and I argued it's not cleaner as it's messier. It's not easier to read as it's wider and carries more information. The only thing you have defended so far is that you have seen it on other derby pages, but I have also seen the collapsible format on other derby pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So both of us have seen both ways on other derby pages. And as I said last night, using the collapsible boxes, makes the page too colorful, like a coloring book and it looks tacky. I explained how having the collapsible boxes forces the user to open each individual game, where in the format, I had, and the page had prior, you are able to see all the information at once without having to click to open boxes. With the previous format, and the formats on other pages, you can see who won the game without the entire screen being colored, you can see all the match facts (date, competition, stadium, goals, attendance, reference) without having to interact with the box. You still see the color of the winning team, but not an overbearing amount, which makes the page look cleaner. We both clearly have differences on how derby pages should be. There is no right and wrong way to format it, but the reason why my friend and I chose this one for our team's derby, is because it was the most widely accepted format (as well as the reasons I listed above). In your opinion, one is cleaner, and in my opinion a different way is cleaner. But the way we chose is used more often than the collapsible boxes. In pages I have listed, I only tend to see collapsible boxes when describing a current season/campaign.
 * Also, I was not editing anonymously. I was on a different computer where I had been logged in previously. More of an oversight than a violation. But as I asked before, could you kindly keep this derby in the format that my friend and I made? There are plenty of derbies across the world, with different formats. But for our favorite derby, it would be nice for us to keep the format we decided on. I hope you can see the viewpoint I am coming from and reconsider. AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Colouring books start with line drawings and use garish colours. Yours is the colouring book. Most editors do not want to interact to see the additional details which is why they're better.
 * You were editing anonymously. If you wanted to continue your edit war, you should have logged in rather than make it appear that another editor wanted your way. I guessed it was you, but another editor may not have.
 * This is not my favourite derby. I watch all of the MLS derby articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean a literal coloring book. I just meant that since there are lines of color that take up the majority of the screen, that it looks cleaner with smaller boxes that distinguish the same result. Also, I meant favorite derby, as in my friend and I who helped with the format. AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. OK. There is more colour per row, which, if the teams were equally matched, would add to a zebra striping effect. You know immediately by looking anywhere on the row what the result was. That's usually considered a good thing, not a bad one. With the colour only applied to the narrow result, you lose orientation across the row and since there are more columns, there's more data to distract. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the format I had allows you to tell just as well. The entire row may not be colored, but I think it's just enough to pop out to you. I was trying to avoid what I saw on the Portland Timbers–Seattle Sounders rivalry page, as all the colors clash and create an unpleasant view. It could also be an overload of too many colors for readers with sensitive eye sight. AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. You keep thinking it does when it clearly does not. The Timbers–Sounders page is an extension of the Cascadia Cup page where three teams compete. First, with three games between each team each season (since MLS) only the current season is listed. Second, it's clear which team won the competition because of the colour. So it's clear you don't see the benefit of the template and how poor your template looks and you're not going to convince me that it is a better choice. Time to take it a larger community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It might not to you, but for someone with sensitive eyes, like myself, it does look bad. What's clear to one person might not always be clear to another. It would be good for you to view something in a different light, before being brash. As my friend said, we both worked on this together and it would be nice to keep the old format.NYMetro96 (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By "old format" do you mean the collapsible template or the tables? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Back to the last edit I did on 23 August 2018. NYMetro96 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there a technical reason that you changed away from the tables to the template? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it would qualify as a technical reason, but the inclusion of yellow/red cards and match officials makes "footballbox collapsible" more informative in my opinion. The cards, in particular, can give readers an indication of how "chippy" a match might have been. Their collapsible nature can also make more dense use of the available space, while allowing users to drill up/down through match detail as they show/hide matches they find particularly interesting. My footie results editing began on English Premier League season pages, where footballbox collapsible seems to be the de facto standard; I have found no other method that has struck me as superior. Hope this helps. EclecticArkie (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If the cards were added to the table, would that address your primary concern? I agree that collapsible makes it more succinct and conveys only the key pieces of information from the outset, but doesn't exclude major details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent choice of term: succinct. I find the collapsible boxes more succinct than wikitable results in every respect. If the background colors are the issue, there are options, since we have over 16 million (2563) colors to play with. They could be toned down in the interest of legibility. Consider:

31Aug2018 version

Proposed muted version


 * Or, the background color issue could be sidestepped altogether. Taking the approach of the 2017-18 FA Cup page, backgrounds could be eliminated and the winning club could be signified by bolding their name:


 * Or, "span" tags could be used to color code the final scores:


 * Like I said, there are options. EclecticArkie (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think yellow cards are necessarily needed on the derby pages. They're included in some season pages, but I have also seen many pages without them. I think in terms of derbies; the most important statistic people want to see is the result/goal scorers. I haven't seen a derby page that includes cards issued during the match. What about if we added a column labeled to the table named "Box Score" which directs you to the MLSSoccer website's match center for the game? That way you can see all additional match stats/facts, such as cards, assists, possession, etc. Currently this is where the reference directs to, but we could add a column with the same label for "Box Score."

AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You think they want to see both the final score and the goal scorers. I think they only want to see the final score. For some derbies, I know that the real fans want to know the full line-ups including time played. So what both of us think should really be interpreted as what we want. However, with the template, there was discussion about what should be displayed when collapsed and excluding the goal-scorers was a conscious choice because it was determined that they're not really needed.
 * I tend agree that discipline should be included in either view. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at 2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season. It's not a derby, but the editor there attempted to address issues he felt were against guidelines at the time. They include MOS:ACCESS, WP:REPEATLINK and MOS:COLLAPSE. I would be more in favour of that sort of layout, but it's more work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Determined by whom? The standard across Wikipedia for derby pages excludes yellow cards. For regular season pages, it is standard to include the collapsible boxes with goals, cards, attendance, referee, etc. But for derby pages, the standard set across some of the largest derby pages in the world, only include the basic information of score, goal scorers, and sometimes attendance. This is why we chose this format, as it was in line with the other templates for derby pages. That's why I recommended adding the "Box Score" column, so readers can be linked to the actual match page to see more stats, highlights, reviews, etc. AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it was a group working on the template or the entire football project at that time coming to consensus. What is common is not always 1) what has been agreed on by the project and 2) what is best for those with accessibility needs. Both have to be taken into consideration, and not just what editors do most commonly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to the discussion? Since there was nothing wrong with the original template, and since there hasn't been an official template agreed on by the football project community yet, can we just keep the original from 23 August until a standard has been set?AmericanSoccer10 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't part of the discussion. I've heard it mentioned in discussions like this though. There isn't a derby style, but compelling reasons for using the template have been provided. I suggest you take it to WT:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we add Preseason matches to the statistics?
So far there's only one and it is a preseason match. The 401 Derby also had one and I'm aware the Reb Bulls has one with D.C. United with another one on the way. Out of curiosity, should we add them to the stats but outside of competitions (not counting as them in such case but counting them in all the matches)? 20chances (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most derbies do not list pre-season matches. I would ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 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. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hudson River Derby → Hudson River derby – Articles throughout Wikipedia are stylized in a way where "derby" and "rivalry" are lowercase (i.e. Manchester derby, M69 derby, Cavalry FC–Forge FC rivalry. Changing the name to have "derby" lowercase would match that formatting. Rylesbourne (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2022 (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.
 * Oppose. This one seems to be a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The various similar suggestions should be considered as a batch. I think you're going to have some trouble with Kentucky Derby. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - looks to be a proper name. GiantSnowman 20:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)