Talk:El Tráfico

Unconstructive edits by SounderBruce

@SounderBruce: WP:BRD means you make a bold edit. Someone reverts you, and then you discuss, not you revert and hope the other editor discusses.

1. MOS:SEEALSO. You had the unrelated derby linked twice in your preferred version, so don't add it to the see also section.
2. The "history" section isn't about the history of this derby. It's about an entirely other derby.
3. LAFC did not replace Chivas USA. The latter team folded because they weren't making money in the league. The league recognized that the LA market was too large and financially important to have only one team so they were awarded an expansion slot to filling the vacancy in the market, per https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2014/10/30/major-league-soccer-awards-new-team-los-angeles. Don't make things up.

So in short, there is no history to this derby. What little is factual in that section could be merged into the background section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The see also section was removed, the history section is about the derby, the Background section is repeating what reliable sources (mainly the LA Times) have said about the two teams and their relationship with Chivas. Despite the corporatespeak from MLS, to a layman and to the media at large, LAFC replaces Chivas's place as a second team in the LA market. The history section can easily be expanded as time goes on, because it's still young, but it's warranted coverage from international media outlets thanks to the first match. SounderBruce 01:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Does this even warrant an article at this point? Does it have sustained coverage yet? And why is there so much prose about Chivas USA in the background section? This is a completely different entity, the fact that it is a second team in LA that also happens to be in MLS doesn't merit four lines of prose at this point. The first line is good and should maybe be expanded, the rest not so much because it's basically a rehash of the SuperClasico article. If there is an article related to the two teams in question (such as this), rather than focusing on Chivas, that would merit inclusion. Jay eyem (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It might not deserve an article now but it probably will one day. It should be noted that the name was determined by a fan poll. This fact should be mentioned in the article so that readers won't think that it comes from some deep rooted tradition. MarnetteD|Talk 04:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The linked fan poll didn't decide the name, which had been coined earlier (2016 to 2017 ish) according to various online communities claiming they had the first use. I'd wait for a reliable source, which should surely come in the run-up to the next two matches. SounderBruce 04:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

While Chivas USA was indeed a separate entity, it does warrant some explanation to set the context of this rivalry. That is, the Galaxy have had an in-city rival in past seasons and now have a new in-city rival. To leave it at "Chivas USA disappeared" without giving an explanation would confuse readers and not be fitting of a comprehensive article. The current section summarizes SuperClasico down to the record. Admittedly, the origin of the SuperClasico name could be tossed out if we're looking to slim it down further, but the rest is still sound. SounderBruce 04:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that works better. I just feel like there's a bit of undue weight on the SuperClasico and not enough on this particular rivalry. Maybe that will just have to come with time. Jay eyem (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And another revert. The history is not about this derby so why is it included? The "fan activity" is not about the derby either. @SounderBruce: This is now clear WP:OWN on your part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But thanks for not reverting the MoS and formatting changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's directly related to the rivalry and reliable sources have connected the two as such. To toss out certain things would be WP:OR and I'm explicitly trying to avoid that. SounderBruce 03:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Either way, we should only include the prose that is in some way related to this rivalry. There isn't really a reason to include the head-to-head record between Chivas and the Galaxy since that doesn't relate to this rivalry. Neither is there reason to include how the SuperClasico got its name. I think the first two sentences are good, the latter of which could be reworked. We want to explain how LAFC has effectively replaced Chivas as the Galaxy's crosstown rival rather than rehashing the SuperClasico article: that's why it's linked in the first place. It would be preferable to rehash LAFC's history than the SuperClasico page, but there isn't even that much there. Maybe the "fan activities" section can just be incorporated into the history section for now. The fact that LAFC built the stadium in downtown LA could be better emphasized in the background section since it is part of the whole "urban vs. suburban" nature of the rivalry (assuming that can be proven w/ sources, of course). The bar is pretty low for a rivalry with only a single meeting. Jay eyem (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

How does what happened in a derby that is no longer contested relate to this derby? Is it that the prior derby includes one of the teams in this derby? If that's the case, all of the London derbies should reference each other in a dedicated section. As should the Madrid derbies. And since El Clasico is actually a derby between two Spanish clubs, I suppose that derby should reference all other derbies that exist in Spain. Or are you simply suggesting that a derby that existed before the one being discussed should be referenced, particularly if the derby no longer exists? That could become needlessly detailed and intricate. I can see it now: start with a definition of the word, list all cross-town derbies that existed prior to 2018. The section seems so incomplete with that line of reasoning.

Let me put it to you this way. Do any reliable sources state that this derby is the successor of the Californian Classico?

As for the fan section, Jay eyem's suggestion makes sense. Again, the way it's currently worded it's not about the derby. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I was more thinking along the lines about how LAFC replaced Chivas as MLS' second team in LA, which is precisely what happened, rather than how it replaced Chivas as the Galaxy's crosstown rivals. THAT is what should be written about, if at all, because that's exactly what MLS wanted: they wanted a second team in LA because they believed it to be a significant soccer market. I'm certain it was in their minds that it would result in an instant crosstown derby, but I doubt that can be sourced. Unlike the rest of the world that uses the club system, the franchise system (and especially the single entity system that MLS uses) does lead people to believe that LAFC is the spiritual successor to Chivas in many ways. Honestly I think this entire article is a bit premature because I don't know that it currently has sustained coverage. It certainly does not have much in the way of history.

Also, please watch your tone. Your straw man arguments about London and Madrid clubs do not relate to what I suggested, and the "I can see it now" line was particularly uncalled for. Jay eyem (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What's uncalled for is the history section, but I understand: irony to the point of sarcasm is hard for some people to appreciate.

So remove the "The team shared the Home Depot Center in Carson with the Galaxy, ... " sentence, even though it's sourced because it's not about this derby? Also the next two sentences. Leave and expand the urban vs suburban wording and merging in the fan activities that relate to it. Merge what's left of the background section into the history section. Start the whole section off with a merged in definition of the term. MOS:LAYOUT reminds us not to have short sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

All of those changes sound good. And don't go off on me not appreciating your sarcasm, this isn't the place for it. Jay eyem (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Original Page Removed

Yea I originally created the page and now I don’t see any of my contributions in the history. Could someone clarify where they could have gone? Thank you. Nick40ghs (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

They appear to be located in the revision history of "El Trafico" (note: this has no diacritic). I'll propose a histmerge. Jay eyem (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thsnks for that User:Jay eyem. Since we’re all here to work collaboratively, it would be nice to see User:Nick40gs’s contributions in the page history. Ckoerner (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Nomination withdrawn Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

---

El Tráfico → El Trafico – The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions in that the majority of the sources do not use the accented "a" in the title. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a Spanish word, of course it will be non-Unicode in non-Unicode sources like sports papers. Sources that are full font, like New York Times "delivering some welcome buzz for the league in a rivalry that had been preemptively called El Tráfico.", or Press-Enterprise, like Wikipedia, will spell correctly. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Assumes that the supplied sources are actually "non-Unicode". MLS, which is one of the sources, routinely uses accents and other diacritics. El Trafico both are used vs Rusnak/Rusnák both are used, Rusnák. So it's a bad assumption that just because they don't use it that they can't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Indifferent although it's worth noting that neither spelling is really a common name yet. Just from a quick google news search of "el trafico"+"soccer" yields several with the diacritic (New York Times, Pro Soccer USA, AUFC's Dirty South Vox site), without the diacritic (LA Galaxy's LA Confidential Vox Site, US National Soccer Players, NBC, Soccer America), and sources that have used both (MLS' official website, Seattle's Sounders at Heart Vox Site). Jay eyem (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per In ictu oculi. GiantSnowman 15:18, 18 May 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.