Talk:Philadelphia Union

Chester City a suburb?
Regarding the recent revisions back and forth about whether Chester City is "a city outside Philadelphia" or a "suburb of Philadelphia." While Chester County and West Chester are suburbs of Philadelphia, City of Chester's proximity to Philadelphia does not make it a suburb. Unless clarified, I think "suburb of Philadelphia" is incorrect and should be removed. Mitico (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that it's close to Philadelphia is what makes it a suburb. Merriam-Webster: "suburb: 1 a: an outlying part of a city or town b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city" (emphasis added). Suburb is the most apt term. —D. Monack talk 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote the remainder of the definition from M&W: "the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town." I still don't think Chester qualifies, as it is not a residential outskirt, but its own entity.  Mere proximity is not enough: is Newark, NJ a suburb of New York City? Which is the suburb: Minneapolis or Saint Paul, Minnesota.  Either way, if you could point me to a non-MLS source that declares that Chester is a suburb of Philadelphia, I think that would resolve things.  Thanks, Mitico (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What does "its own entity" mean? It's not legally part of Philadelphia, but neither are most other suburbs. I would are argue that yes, Newark is a suburb of New York and it's also its own entity. I haven't yet found a source on Chester itself but references to Delaware County as one of Philadelphia's "suburban counties" are numerous. —D. Monack talk 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And to clarify: you're quoting a separate definition: "1c plural: the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town." That's for the plural, "suburbs", which isn't being used in this instance. The fact is, Chester fits definition 1b precisely. —D. Monack talk 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By "its own entity" I did not intend legal entity, but in economic & social respects, since Chester is historically unique from Philadelphia. There is nothing in the definition of suburb that inclines me to believe that it should include other urban areas, since they are not an outlying part of a city (per 1a) and lack the residential compenent which usually typifies a suburb. 1b is sufficiently broad to include any commutable distance within the term suburb (Balt -> DC; Phl -> NYC). Definitions from other sources say - Per Dictionary.com: 1.  "A usually residential area or community outlying a city."  Per wiktionary 1. "the area on the periphery of a city or large town that falls between being truly part of the city, but is not countryside either."


 * IMO, calling Chester a suburb might be a misrepresentation and, in the abscence of any support, is original research. It should read that Chester is "a city X miles south of Philadelphia" or something to that effect, consistent with:  And I'll leave it at that. Mitico (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Chester is in no way a suburb of Philadelphia. A Suburb is a "sub urb," simply put. It is a residential area outside of a city consisting of less population density, which commutes into the core city, and IS A RESULT OF THE CORE CITY. The problem here, is that, Chester is the OLDEST CITY in Pennsylvania. It was not a result of Philadelphia. Although, it is Philadelphia metro, and it is deserving of the soccer teams. Suburbs don't have twice the crime rates of the core city, with worse poverty, and they're sure not settled before the city they're "suburban" to.

Would you call Chester the suburban dream? Probably not. Call Chester's residents suburbanites? Nope. Open air drug dealing in the Suburbs? Rowhomes falling apart? It's a 300-year old industrial river city settled as part of New Sweden in the earlier half of the 1600s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe84323 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

AC Phildelphia?
Apparently User:JaMikePA has been switching all references to the team, its category, etc. to refer to "AC Philadelphia". This is inappropriate, in my opinion. The team has not been named, and the only source I know of for any speculation that it will be named "AC Philadelphia" is a rumor site that admits it's speculating and that has frequently been wrong in the past. Naming the team's category pages "AC Phildelphia" and listing it as "AC Philadelphia" in the Category:Major League Soccer teams category gives visitors the mistaken impression that the name is something more than one of four possible choices. There's also an obvious Verifiability problem.--Chapka (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need for the category "AC Philadelphia" at this point, so be bold and remove it if you must, but I don't see any other evidence of this on this page. If there are problems at other pages, please provide diffs or discuss on the talks for those pages. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Union
Now that a source has been provided, is it time to move the article to Philadelphia Union F.C.? Or should we wait for an official announcement from the club? John Sloan @ 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The official announcement should be made first. This could all be a ruse, so this is not the time to predict the future. Additionally, we don't know if FC will be included; the full official name could be any number of things, from Union of Philadelphia to SC Philadelphia Union to Union PHL... the choices are endless. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Need to wait for the official announcement before the article is moved. It is okay to include in the article that it has been reported that the team's name will be Union and their colors are red and gold, but for the reasons Killervogel5 noted, it is best to wait on the article move. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not being american, I will not know the outcome of the official announcement until I see it here! So i'll leave it in your capable hands :-) John Sloan @ 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Side note.. Blue and gold are the colors. That's what I get for trusting soccernet.;) Supposedly the kit was leaked as well, but I haven't found a picture of it yet. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I hope that it's Union Philadelphia and not Philadelphia Union... headlines reading P.U.? No thanks... Colors the same as the city flag, though, pretty sweet! :-D And I found scarves, which look awesome! KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a Sounder till I die, I sincerely hope they do go with Philadelphia Union. It'll make the mocking much easier. But to be honest, U.P. isn't that much more difficult to mock. Adds in the whole bodily functions arena. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And just for fun:

The stripes on the jersey are off, but I'd imagine the kits will look something like this based on the crest. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh, I hope no stripes; as a large man, I wouldn't want to wear the jersey. I'm hoping for a sky-blue and white shorts home kit, with an all-navy away kit or navy with a single gold hoop, and just for fun, an alternate third jersey in nothing but ridiculous, distracting gold... with navy shorts, of course! I love the scarves though... "Invgite aut perite!" KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone should add the Home Kit now that it's been revealed. I was hoping for stripes and this is close enough. It's gorgeous: http://www.philadelphiaunionstore.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=TT%2DADP57254

-GhostXIII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.201.135 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondary Logo in Gallery
Since there seems to be a bit of an edit war going on, please discuss it here so others can be involved in the discussion. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The logo in question doesn't violate WP:IG as Killervogel suggests. Its description clearly says non-fair use image.JaMikePA (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:IG, "Fair use images may never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article". The logo template on the image's page says that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images... of logos... may qualify as fair use. ... Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.". The image should be used in a manner consistent with the fair use guidelines as presented. It's not a "non-fair-use" image, it's a "non-free-use image", meaning that using it needs to be in line with the fair use guidelines. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JaMikePA, I don't believe the issue is that the image is being used in the article, but that it violates WP:IG because it is in a gallery. If the image were outside the gallery wrapper, it would be okay to use the article. Is there a reason why the image has to be in the gallery wrapper? There is only one image and it seems that having it in a thumbnail would work just as well. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this is what I was trying to accomplish. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so why I am I being picked on when other sports teams pages have logo galleries, too. They have had them for years.JaMikePA (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You aren't being picked on. The others need to be changed too. I just tried to fix this one because it's on my watchlist. Example: Philadelphia Phillies doesn't use logos improperly; that's on my list too. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not being picked on. Every article has different editors and it's rather difficult to keep up on policies of when things are acceptable or not, so enforcement is very spotty. This is especially true with the image use policies. But back to the issue at hand. Is there a particular reason why the logo has to be in a gallery wrapper? Galleries are generally used for collections of images and this is only one image. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No reason other than how it much cleaner the article looks versus a thumb.JaMikePA (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Images are supposed to be used to improve understanding of the subject of the article, not make it look better. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
I have come to this talk page after a request at WP:Third opinion to discuss images in image galleries. It's clear that I cannot contribute a proper third opinion as there are already 3 editors discussing here. Furthermore, it's not clear if the query is with the use of galleries or the use of a non-free image. In future, please follow the directions on WP:Third opinion to make this clear, and ensure the dispute is discussed only on the article talk page and not distributed over various user talk pages. It is important the dispute is kept on this page for future reference.

However, I can comment as follows:
 * There is no point having a single image in a gallery, that does not seem like the point of a gallery by anyone's definition.
 * The secondary logo is probably not suitable for use in wikipedia. It is agreed at WP:Logos that a logo qualifies as non-free content, but look specifically at WP:Logos and WP:NFCC. This secondary logo adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the Philadelphia Union as the main logo is already in the article. The motto is easily repeatble in the text. Furthermore, in a 2 minute look around http://www.philadelphiaunion.com I cannot find a single occurence of this secondary logo, suggesting it is not very notable. This would put it in breach of WP:NFCC criteria 8:
 * "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The image is also far too large, approx 700x600 is too much. I would recommend that User:JaMikePA considers removing it before someone else comes across it and nominates it for deletion. Sorry to sound so negative but it is important that images are used appropriately and, more importantly, legally. You have all done some great work on this page and I'm sure it will grow as the team does. I shall keep this page on my watchlist for a while, but if you need anything else please contact me on my talkpage. Good luck! Bigger digger (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Team name section
Is there a reason why the vote on the team name was removed from the article? Seems like an important part of the team naming history. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice it was gone... where did it go? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a 2k reduction in article size in this series of edits: --Bobblehead (rants) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an important part of either the "History" or "Grassroots" sections. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Grassroots section is gone. Seems to have been turned into the supporters section. The history section is extremely sparse right now and I would think the SoB's involvement in getting MLS to give Philly an expansion team is more suited there than in the supporter section. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the focus should be on Union, the actual name, and not on the potential ones. The others don't even mean anything.JaMikePA (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The focus should certainly be on the actual name, but I think it's remiss not to mention the fan-vote for the name and at least give a line of lip service to the other choices. Additional explanations not necessarily needed. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia JaMikePA, which means the article covers the history of the team, including options for the team, not just the current name. It's fine if we don't include the meaning behind the alternative names, but to ignore that the names were even an option is a disservice to the team's history. Check out the Sounder's article. That article dedicates two paragraphs to the team name, one of which is to the poll for selecting the name and the alternatives. Heck, the fact that the team let the fans select the name is a good thing. Why hide that? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Sounders FC has a story behind those alternate names. Philly Union does not. I can see adding something about the contest to illustrate the ownership group's dedication to its fans w/o including the other names.JaMikePA (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sounders have a story behind the Sounders. They didn't have any stories behind the Alliance, Republic, or FC. They originated the same way that the four options for this team's name did. Focus groups and market research. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, what I meant was that the Sounders FC ownership's shenanigans behind the contest. However, what is on Union's page works better than what was there before.JaMikePA (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Season ticket info
For now, the season ticket info should probably be included in the article. Some of it will probably be moved to the 2010 season article, but info like the number of pre-sales might stay permanently. I've done some very cursory searches, but so far all I've found are some message board posts saying there were 6,000+ pre-sales and a cap of 15,000. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we really worried about "the"?
The current question: Is it OK to say "the Philadelphia Union" or does it have to stay "Philadelphia Union" all the time? Third-party sources use the "the", while the team itself has not to this point (though it is a brand-new entity). As support for "the", I offer two articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer and one from the Philadelphia Daily News. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a grammar issue, and it's about context. Standard American grammar treats collective nouns as singular, regardless of whether the the noun itself is plural or singular. So, even though it looks incorrect, for sports teams, when referring to the team in a formal way, you would say "Los Angeles Lakers is..." or "Kansas City Wizards is..." or, in this case, "Philadelphia Union is...", with no preceding "the". However, in conversational prose, the grammatical rules are relaxed, and it's more than acceptable to use a preceding "the". So, I would say that the first line of the article should be "Philadelphia Union is...", but thereafter it's fine to say "the Union". --JonBroxton (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, this question wasn't about the first line, but about the rest of the article. I am fine with the lead the way it is. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks incorrect. Without the "The", it is a Briticism.  American newspapers refer to THE Columbus Crew.  British ones refer to Columbus Crew.  For an American entity such as the Union, return the THE. Delmlsfan (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, having it WITH the "the" is the Briticism. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Latest revision - removing the "The" looks awful. No American talks that way.  Can you supply another non-sports related example?  No one says "Herd ran across the field". Delmlsfan (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Philly Union does NOT use "the" officially and has made it known it that it's not correct according to the team. You can keep your opinions, but this is what stands according to the team.
 * "Has made it known"? Can you provide a source for that? A reliable source that says "We don't use that"? Not just their website which may or may not use it at several assorted points? These reliable sources all use the phrase "The Union". KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How about providing a team source that uses "the." Till then, you have no point.JaMikePA (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, my point is that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources... Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context... Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstance" (all of the prior is from WP:RS, which is obviously a core principle of Wikipedia). WP:SELFPUB doesn't provide an exception for this that would lead me to believe that "the Union" is unacceptable. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares. The team has determined this to be incorrect. Just b/c third-party sources use "the" doesn't mean it's correct.


 * Wikipedia cares. Reliable sources trump primary sources, and if you cannot provide a source, as I have done, directly saying that the team believes it to be incorrect, then it is not, per WP:RS. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Every grammar book I believe I have ever read says that any article should begin with "The" when referring to a sports franchise no mattere where you are. NoseNuggets (talk) 11:31 AM US EDT Apr 1 2010.


 * Though this is an old discussion, I agree with you; unfortunately, people can't agree. Let's not have an edit war over this. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of a non-soccer American sports team that is referred to without a "the"? Delmlsfan (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said back in 2009 - it's a grammar issue, and it's about context. Standard American grammar treats collective nouns as singular, regardless of whether the the noun itself is plural or singular. So, even though it looks incorrect, for sports teams, when referring to the team in a formal way, you would say "Los Angeles Lakers is..." or "Kansas City Wizards is..." or, in this case, "Philadelphia Union is...", with no preceding "the". However, in conversational prose, the grammatical rules are relaxed, and it's more than acceptable to use a preceding "the". So, I would say that the first line of the article should be "Philadelphia Union is...", but thereafter it's fine to say "the Union". Having the "the" in the first paragraph is a Britishism, because British English treats collective nouns as plural, not singular. Having a "the" at the front changes the syntax of the sentence, which would require the "is" after the name to become an "are", which is contrary to American English grammar rules. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as JaMikePA has incorrectly changed them again, let me provide some examples of what I mean by the "the" changing the syntax of the sentence: "the New England Patriots ARE...", "the Oakland Raiders ARE...", "the Miami Dolphins ARE...". This is grammatically WRONG; these American Football articles ironically use British English because by using the "the" they have to treat the collective noun as a plural, whereas American English treats collective nouns as singular. to adhere to the formal rules of AmEng grammar you HAVE to omit the preceding "the" and use an "is" instead of an "are". I don't know how to make it any clearer. I'm going to change them all back to the correct grammatical manner in 24 hours to avoid an 3RR. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Players Rumors
I think the rumor of Vincenzo Bernardo coming to the Union should be included in the players sections, according to soccernet.com he is in talks with the Union --NightShadow7 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's delete the whole section. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and rumors are by definition unreliable. Can you imagine the size of wikipedia if every soccer team in the world had a "rumors" section? Wikipedia is a reference website, not a clearinghouse for rumors. And even including mls-rumors dropped the entire credibility of the page by 50%. Delmlsfan (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the section per WP:CRYSTAL. Until any signing is reported and official according to a reliable source, it should not be included. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article is better off deleted.--Coleiphone (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Future players?
The Union are run a selected camp.training session with select soccer players (boys and girls) who may one day be on the team. This partnership was mentioned on NBC10 news on 9/29/09. --Cooly123 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Kit
Since no reliable sources exist displaying what the away kit will look like, it shouldn't be included until it's revealed by a team or media source. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta-da. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20091114_Union_unveils_jersey_rich_with_symbolism.html. "Union CEO and managing partner Nick Sakiewicz told the Daily News last night that the reverse will be the standard for the away kit - primarily gold with blue panel and either white or blue for the piping" --JonBroxton (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But there are no pictures. Without a picture, we don't know; it could all be a smokescreen. And JaMikePA wouldn't accept the team store as a reliable source, which we probably shouldn't do either. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Smokescreen? Don't be silly. Sakiewicz has said what it will be, and a graphical representation of what he said has appeared on the team store website. We can tweak the color to the proper shade when we have a photo, and then everything will be fine. I don't know what the big problem is. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, the big problem is something called verifiability. It's not verifiable at all just because he "said it". Verifiability is not silly; it's a core principle of this encyclopedia. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So an official statement by the CEO of the company, and a subsequent graphical representation of his statement on the company's official website is not considered "verifiable"? Wow. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary sources should only be used sparingly. I'm not the only one to challenge the reliability of the team store as a source; JaMikePA just isn't participating in this discussion at the moment. Regardless, if we are going to show a hypothetical away kit in the infobox, the golds should match. That means that the brown-looking color on the front of the home jersey, which they consider gold, should be used for the away kit. I tried that, and it was reverted. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. Like I said before, we can tweak the color to the proper shade of gold when we have a photo, and then everything will be fine. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will change the colors back toward the tan with an edit summary pointing here. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kit colours
I'm looking here at home and away and it seems they use the same colours as in the club crest. But the logo is not the same colours as the kits. Both here and on the website. As in the images of the kits on the website have been lit differently. So should we follow the colours for example from this image (seems to use the logo colours) instead of from the shop? chandler 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The home page logo colors and the colors provided in photos of the shirts are different, yes. The colors that I used were from the photo of the home jersey, which is the only accurate photo of one of these shirts that we have right now. Colors will vary from photograph to photograph, but it seems the best thing to do, as said above, is stick with what we've got until more definitive information is available. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Danny Califf
Is Califf really on Philly's roster? I know there was a flurry of activity about Philly acquiring his MLS rights back in early December, but he still isn't showing up on their roster on the MLS site or on Philly's website. Also, Philly traded away their allocation spot to DCU in order to get Fred and DCUs 1st round draft pick, since Califf is a returning USMNT player Philly generally would have had to burn their allocation in order to get him. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard anything about it, but if he's not on the rosters you provided, that's a no. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Ignore me. Philly just officially announced Califf's signing. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you hate it when that happens? You work hard at getting all your sourcing correct, and then the team screws with you! :D --JonBroxton (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I totally HATE that... KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
I find it interesting that the trivia sections depicts the first goal the team ever scored.. A month from now in the future. Odd.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.159.56 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Too detailed?
The page is getting too detailed and too cluttered with minutiae of the team's first season. We should be using the pages of established non-MLS teams as our guide. Five years from now, will readers be interested in our first year draft choices? Delmlsfan (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Results of friendlies are now included? Let's start using the notability guidelines.  The paragraph on these two friendlies should be deleted.  How about using this criterion: are these friendlies mentioned on the Celtic and ManU pages?  If not, neither should we waste Wikipedia server space on them. Delmlsfan (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to worry about server space. The team's first friendly, perhaps, is notable as a part of team history, but not every match that they ever play. That should be included in the team season article, which is where the details belong. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Friendlies are not notable enough to be included in a club's history. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you move the information to the team season article where it belongs, or just delete it? &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I got rid, assuming that it must already be on the season article. Is it not? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, as I never looked. I just wanted to ensure that the information was moved, not just removed. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheanon Williams the zero
Dunno if Twitter is regarded as a proper source, but according to the club’s Twitter page the 0 is just a placeholder and the real squad number is yet to be defined, see http://twitter.com/Union2010/status/22650394723 On a related note, is 0 actually an allowed number in MLS and/or has anyone ever wore it? –Kooma (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Twitter's reliable, as blogs generally aren't and Twitter is a microblogging service. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Article?
I'd like to encourage any of the regular editors of this article to consider notminating it for WP:GA review. The article is complete in it's coverage, makes appropriate use of pictures and is well referenced. The lead section needs to be expanded, but other than that I don't see it having any problems at GA review. --SkotyWATC 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it's long enough to qualify for GA at this point; it would need some expansion. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  16:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

US Soccer navbox
So, let me get this straight; despite the fact that Philadelphia Union is an American team which plays in an American league, you're objecting to the inclusion of a navbox about the American league system because the words "Philadelphia Union" don't appear in the navbox? Despite the fact that Philadelphia plays in that league system, the navbox provides a handy block of in-context links to a whole host of useful articles about American soccer in which readers might understandably be interested? Really? --JonBroxton (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am. I'm probably one of the biggest navbox proponents among sports editors, and I still think it's unnecessary. Is the Philadelphia Union linked to MLS? Yes. Is the Philadelphia Union linked, directly, to a list of statistics for the US men's national team? Or a list of US soccer venues? That's like saying the Philadelphia Union are directly related to the Galaxy's home stadium just because they play in the same league. "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them" (WP:NAVBOX). &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  02:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Third kit
Philadelphia has a third kit that they're wearing today against Vancouver. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Change in roster format
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) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your links are confusing. Is this a change proposed across all Wikipedia, or just one developed by the three Cascadia teams that their supporters want to roll out in MLS first and then all Wikipedia? Delmlsfan (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to confuse.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62 is an early discussion on the topic to apply this across English Wikipedia.
 * The football project is discussing the issue presently, started by an EPL editor who doesn't like the format as it is used at Watford. Many Wikipedia Football Project edits counter the negative arguments and put forward the positive ones.
 * The other links are to MLS team articles that show it in use which is now the three Cascadia (Pacific Northwest) teams, and I can add Toronto FC (which has an excellent use of team colours, which I believe is more difficult to do with the current template), DC United, and New York Red Bulls. Six of the nineteen teams as of now.
 * In short, the new format has been used sporadically, but the hope is to move to it over the next year and I suggested that MLS be the first league to adopt it, and there was no objection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing importance scale
Just noticed that team is listed as "low importance" for wikiproject: soccer. Since this is a team in the top division of men's soccer for US and Canada, and Seattle and NYRB also qualify for "medium", shouldn't this also merit at least "medium" importance as well? Solardrum (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mwanga notable?
Danny is a nice guy and all, but hardly notable. On the MLS scale of things, being a first round draft choice does not automatically confer notability. I am removing it. Delmlsfan (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Our notable former players list is embarrassing
The list of former notable players is filled with second tier names. It makes the team look pathetic - on the same level as people who buy aristocratic titles in an attempt to seem important. Let's tighten up the criteria for notability. Maybe only Kleberson deserves a place. My deletion of Mwanga (above) was reverted. But what is Danny doing now? How about some discussion on notability? Delmlsfan (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ownership has changed
The club's ownership has changed. A WP:COI editor initially removed the name of the former owner, along with the associated references, and then in a second edit removed the owner's name, but leaving the references to the former owner. I'm looking for suggestions on how to incorporate the current ownership and reflecting the name of the owner who left. I don't know enough about the subject so I'm looking for assistance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor add the COI template to the article as a result of the COI addition. A second editor removed it (and other maintenance templates). I would have not problems removing the COI. before being indefinitely blocked., effectively giving it the correct context and removing any possible COI. Let's leave it in-place for a while and, if by the end of November, no one objects to its removal, we can remove the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly we have a problem. : you added the COI and JaMikePA feels that he has "fixed" the issue and continues to remove that template and unecessarily removing in the process—the very fact that both are being removed leads me to believe that he doesn't understand either issue. However, Orangemike, are you satisfied that the problem has been resolved? if so, please remove the COI template. If not, please explain what you see the outstanding problems are. JaMikePA: Stop removing maintenance templates, particularly when you don't have as clue what you're removing. If you have any comments to add, this is the place you would want to add them, not in edit summaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The COI tag seems to be annoying . I don't like assuming anything, but I will state that if you don't comment here by the end of the month, explaining what your concerns are, I will remove the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template since Orangemike has not voiced any concern but has been editing actively since the pings were posted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Active Teams
Deleting Active Teams box, following the seemingly end of discussion on Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1. If you have objections, please take it up there, so as to keep everything in one place. Elisfkc (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Philadelphia Union. 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 https://web.archive.org/20081209093457/http://web.mlsnet.com:80/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20080229&content_id=141210&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp to http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20080229&content_id=141210&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117173019/http://web.mlsnet.com:80/mls/events/superdraft/2010/draft_tracker.jsp to http://web.mlsnet.com/mls/events/superdraft/2010/draft_tracker.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329061215/http://www.philly.com:80/philly/sports/soccer/The_Union_go_down_in_their_debut.html to http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/soccer/The_Union_go_down_in_their_debut.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100504053940/http://www.mlssoccer.com:80/content/le-toux-helps-union-hold-dc-philly-debut to http://www.mlssoccer.com/content/le-toux-helps-union-hold-dc-philly-debut
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100508231535/http://www.philly.com:80/dailynews/sports/20100507_Union_to_host_Manchester_United_at_the_Linc.html to http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20100507_Union_to_host_Manchester_United_at_the_Linc.html

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 17:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Union Season Pages
One of the reasons I really enjoy Wikipedia and providing edits/content to pages is to help with documenting the history of the teams I typically work on (Union, Steel FC, City Islanders, etc). One thing that's bothered me a bit is how inconsistent the individual season pages are formatted and written out. I wanted to engage the discussion here to see if there was desire to correct this and have each season more comprehensively and consistently covered? Considering there are only about 7 season so far, it seems like a good time to collectively work out some of these details at a manageable level of effort. --JCC (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to standardize across MLS articles and be aware of the guidelines at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

History Update
The history section for the Union is a bit disjointed right now (I just added the Supporters' Shield season, which was a huge miss). But I'm thinking organizing the story of the Union's club history after "Drive for expansion" probably better is told by eras of sporting directors rather than coaches.

I'd like to propose the following sections under History (each of which can be elaborated a bit further):

1.1 Drive for expansion

1.2 Inaugural season and Sakiewicz (2010–2015) 1.3 Earnie Stewart era (2015–2018) 1.4 Ernst Tanner era (2018–present)
 * First season highlights; opening of PPL Park
 * 2011 playoffs, key player acquisitions
 * Transition to Hackworth
 * 2012-14 seasons; key player acquisitions/departures
 * Transition to Curtin; first Open Cup Run
 * Hired Earnie, front office/off-field culture improvements
 * 2015 Open Cup Run
 * 2016 draft class; key acquisitions; 2016 return to playoffs and 2017 playoff miss
 * 2018 key acquisitions; second consecutive playoffs
 * 2018 Open Cup Run
 * Ernst hire Ernst; Stewart to US Soccer
 * Continuous rise year-over-year 2018-present
 * 2019 first playoff win
 * 2020 MiB run
 * 2020 SS win
 * 2021 first CCL run

Individual season pages should elaborate on more detail, but I think this is probably a good draft for a concise history for the main page. Open to others thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSafi ToffeeFan (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Be WP:BOLD. Your suggestions make sense though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)