Talk:Houston Dynamo FC

Untitled

I moved all the stuff to this page and added a redirect, someone more knowledgable please finish the job. Thanks. BobbyAFC

Wow, that was fast! Jhbutcher 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time, please do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)

If you cannot rename a page, or you think that the renaming may be controversial, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming History and Controversy & NPOV

There's quite a bit of information regarding the team name and the controversy surrounding the naming decision(s). While this is good, useful information, I think that it's much less significant than the achievements and history of the team on the field. I'd suggest either moving the naming history down lower in the article or, better yet, creating a new article on the history and controversy surrounding the team name and provide a link to that article from this article. Any comments before I proceed in doing so? Michael McFarlane 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. This information may not be important to you, but to many hispanics that call houston home, it is very important. The problem you have is that you are embaressed by this organization's stupid choice of name, which was insulting to hispanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.96.173 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important information because it belies the insecurities that many in the Hispanic community showed. The irony is that the name of the city itself (named after the General that won the war of independence) is not offensive to the Hispanic population, yet the year in which the city of Houston was founded, is. By the logic of the protesters, the team should just be called "Dynamo." "Houston" is offensive because Sam Houston won the war against Mexico, and anything that celebrates Texas independence is obviously offensive to Hispanics who call Texas home... Right? Thus, this information in the article is absolutely necessary to highlight this ridiculous fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.6.232 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.4.186.6 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The whole controversy section seems packed with weasel words, and hurt feelings by a fan of the original 1836 name...

Agreed. I'm not sure that the majority if the naming "controversy" is noteworthy enough to remain in WP either in this article or in a sub article. The entire 1836 stuff could be summed up in a single, concise sentence and the article would greatly benefit from doing so. It really bogs the article down as it stands. Regards, Ryo 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The controversy of the naming process is definitely noteworthy enough to remain in the article but I agree that it is definitely far too long-winded and provides information that definitely reflects a biased point of view. Noze

The section on the controversy is highly biased. The information is useful, but it needs to be presented in a better way. Niasain (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This section states that fan surveys haven't been allowed to name expansion teams since Houston, but Sounders fans voted on the naming on the team, and in fact the name Sounders was a write in, as it was not one of the three on the ballot. CarlosTakeshi (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Logo leak significant

Why was the part regarding the logo/name leaked? i can see taking off the "spoiler" section, but the leak was certianly a major incident in the young club's history? SteelyDave 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dashes

All other MLS team pages use regular dashes in the team info box and in player, coaches area. If you switch this page to use mdash and ndash, please be consistent and change all other MLS pages as well. DR31 _(talk) 13:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Those articles and the version you keep changing back to are NOT dashes—they are hyphens. Hyphens and dashes are used for different things. I suggest you consult with an English instructor or take a look at how to use hyphens and dashes in the college writing manual. Please do you not change dashes to hyphens again. You are using it incorrectly! I do not have time to change all of the articles to the proper en dash and em dash. Also, please do not force your preferences on using the hyphens on all articles. I believe it was you that made all the articles "consistent" by improperly using the hyphens instead of dashes.

Here are examples of what the hyphen, en dash, and em dash look like and when to use them:

Hyphen: (third-largest)

En dash: (1995–2003)

Em dash: (2005—)

RJN 22:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, there is no set way to do this, no matter what a writing manual says. Some people can do it one way, some another. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. All I ask is for the pages to look the same, that's all. Please don't take it presonally. DR31 _(talk) 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

History/Stadiums edit

The two recent additions under "History" and "Stadiums" both seem to be too long-winded and irrelevant for this article in that they really belong to other articles (esp. the Robertson Stadium ones. I think both sections should be taken out but don't want to do so unilaterally ... opinions? Jyardley 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The history section is too long and most of it does not apply to the current Houston Team. This information should be added about on their respective team pages and/or a history of the respective leagues. I have reverted to the last version by Jyardley. You can see the long version here: [1]. I am willing to work on cutting this into other articles. It seems like quite a bit of good information. --Rballou 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard on this and I didn't think it should go into the Houston Dynamo article because there is too much information and detail that is going to go into this. Once the stadium IS decided to be built, then it can be moved to that section as part of it's "History." All too often, we forget what kind of trials a major project goes through and this offers a good opportunity to document it. So far this stadium directly affects TSU, UH, Bellaire,Houston Dynamo, and to a lesser extent, the Gulfton and Galleria sections, as well as the future University and Uptown lines and eventually, their articles. If it should all fall apart, it can be renamed, condensed, and absorbed into the Dynamo section.--Hourick (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Houston Dynamo, Dynamo sports society, Soviet secret police

It's true that the Dynamo sporting society was not only "sometimes supported by the KGB" - as anonymous users keep adding to the article - but indeed sponsored by various political-police organizations, including those preceding the KGB, and initially created as their sporting arm. However, I'm thinking that it's fairly tangential to the Houston Dynamo article, and that people can find out that info, if they care, by clicking on the link I put in there. I don't think we need to go into the secret-police association of the name in this article, especially since it was never intentional. Bill Oaf 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Player identification help

See Talk:Major League Soccer#Player identification help. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Housing Situation

Are the Dynamo happy with having home games in Robertson Stadium, or are they looking to build a new home?--BigMac1212 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They have 2 more seasons for Houston to build them a new stadium. That was one of the conditions of them leaving San Jose and moving to Houston in the first place. Robertson was never a long term solution. Gateman1997 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the recent developments Letter of intent signed, should a new section involving the possible location be mentioned?--Hourick (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Players

There is a list towards the bottom titled, "Notable Players", but what exactly defines a notable player in this article? Tennis DyNamiTe 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Does anyone know who 204.63.34.15 is? He/she keeps changing this page to indicate that Enrique Perez, not Taylor Twellman, scored against the Dynamo in MLS Cup 2006. If someone knows how to properly report these incidents, please do so. Michael McFarlane 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChicagoFire.png

Image:ChicagoFire.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LAgalaxy.PNG

Image:LAgalaxy.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Conference Champs?

Chivas WERE NOT the western conference champs. The article was incorrect, and the people who run MLS's web site took it down as soon as they were notified of the error. This is not hard to understand. The ONLY team that gets to claim a conference championship is the team that wins the playoff game and receives the trophy. Call the league and ask them. As far as the Dynamo claiming the conference title as a team honor, they are totally within their rights to do so, and anyone who wants to add it to their list of honors on this page would be correct in doing so. The Dynamo were Western Conference champions in 2006 and 2007. There IS NO champion yet for 2008. It will be decided in the conference final the weekend of Nov. 15-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.85.254 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this part. Why is it the Dynamo having Western Conference Champs shirts/hats etc...as well as the trophy but don't get to claim it as a team honor. Please someone explain this to me, I believe the MLS needs to do something about it, its a bit confusing. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankfantry (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Chivas were the Western Conference champions (it is listed near the bottom of the article) as they finished first in the regular season. Houston won the Western Conference Play Off Final to qualify for the MLS Cup. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand that but what I am saying is shouldn't the club who 1.) represents the West in the MLS Cup, and 2.) Holds the trophy be considered the Conference champs. Not trying to start a fight with anyone but to me that would make the most sense. I think they need to get rid of the playoff system all together. The best record wins the Cup and like the English Premier the shield is played for by the first and second place team. I believe MLS also need more international cup with South America. Tankfantry·Talk 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity to this at all. None. MLS acknowledges the winner of the conference final playoff game with a trophy that says "Conference Champions". They are given hats and shirts to that affect. No honor is afforded the team that finishes first in the regular season standings except the right to host the conference final if it advances. That's it. This has been confirmed over and over by the league. There is no such thing as a regular season conference champion, and there is no western conference champion in 2008 yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.85.254 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

MLS alt template?

Should we go back to the regular MLS infobox template that uses the Football Kit template instead of the alt infobox template that uses a graphic? I know everybody's making a big deal about the use of non-free images in Wikipedia. I didn't want to make the change without getting a consensus first. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynamo Crests

Couldn't we change the crests section to something less redundant? I know we would like to show off the MLS cup successes of the Dynamo to the rest of the world, but the crest by itself hasn't changed since the original 1836 logo. It looks like we're trying too hard and in any of the other football clubs' pages, they don't change the crest picture due to the team winning a new championship. I'd change it myself, but I thought I'd get some input on this first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surelyitsjohn (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I would like to see someone add the fact that while we may have never won to West out right we do have two sets of hardware (western conference trophy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.15.250 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Honors section

Does the Carolina Challenge cup really belong in this section? It's a preseason tournament and I don't believe winning it is necessarily the number one priority for most of the competitors, Dynamo included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.92.226 (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Worst Defeat

I noticed the preseason friendly loss to Gamba Osaka was changed by anonymous IP to the team's worst defeat (in the infobox). Despite the fact the tournament is named the Pan-Pacific Championship, it was still a friendly and I'm not sure it should be considered the team's worst defeat. Of course the previous was listed as the 5-2 loss in a friendly Houston played at CF Pachuca last April. Is that section not for the team's worst defeat in league or cup games? I don't really care but just wondering because if we have to keep up with friendy wins/losses it just seems a bit rediculous. Again, this is just my opinion which is why I didnt change until there is some sort of consensus. --otduff ^t/_c 17:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed, friendly matches should not count one way or the other with regard to statistics.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Site Cleanup

Hey, I cleaned up the site as some things were put haphazardly and took up a lot of space for a general article on the Dynamo (the site itself was 31 kb big and things weren't this confusing on the other club sites). I created a couple of side articles to facilitate the cleanup. I kept the crest logo history on despite my irritation on the idea in general (are we really going to add a new logo to the main site every time we win a MLS cup?). Since it's Wikipedia, I invite any changes to the article, even going as far as fixing what I changed. I love that we have the most informative club site out of the other MLS clubs, but I just thought things needed to be presented better.

Surelyitsjohn (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

2009 season article

I've started an article for the Dynamo's 2009 season. I don't follow the Dynamo and noticed that editors here were able to maintain a season article up through the 2008 season, so hopefully someone from here will be able to maintain the 2009 season article. I'll try and keep the schedule information updated, but team news and trades will probably not be on my list of things to maintain. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 images

Images from the game against Colorado are now on commons at commons:Category:Houston Dynamo v Colorado Rapids 2009. Nanonic (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Houston Dynamo Traveling Fans section

I remember hearing a commentator describing Dynamo fans traveling to other venues is what should be happening in MLS because that's what happens in Europe. Could a section be created for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyvo (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If it can be documented, I can't see why it shoudn't be. --Hourick (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It should probably just be added to the supporter's section however. It's not unique in MLS anymore as most of the teams have traveling fans now. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

conference champs

Talk:New York Red Bulls#conference champions

just adding a link to a centralized discussion on division champions conventions. Please post comments there.

Nlsanand (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dynamo history

both the Houston Dynamo and San Jose Earthquake posting are wrong!!! The Dynamo is not an expansion team, while Earthquake were on hiatus. AEG move the team to Houston and the "new" Earthquake were an expansion team, with a new owner. MLS refered to the team moving, not "some of the players and staff" as the article claims, but "ALL PLAYERS AND COACHES". The AEG owned "earthquake/dynamo" franchise has four MLS titles, and the "present SJ team - NONE" Ask where are the trophies? In Houston!

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=352315&cc=5901 http://www.soccertimes.com/mls/2005/dec16.htm

"MLS commissioner Don Garber said San Jose could obtain an expansion team as early as 2007, though AEG's failure to find a local investor and inability to put together a stadium deal before finally deciding to move might cast doubt on that prospect.

In the meantime, Leiweke emphasized at today's press conference that Houston would not go through the growing pains usually associated with expansion. All San Jose player and coaches contracts have been transferred to Houston.

San Jose won the MLS Cup title in 2001 and 2003 and captured the 2005 MLS Supporters Shield for the league's best record of 18-4-10 (64 points).

"This is not an expansion franchise," Leiweke said. "This is one of the best teams in the MLS. You're getting an extraordinary franchise"

I am guessing the person that controls these pages is from San Jose, and wants to think "their" team won something in the past. Untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetinhouston (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

El Capitán image

Does anyone have a picture of El Capitán? I think an image of the cannon would really raise the value of this article and the Texas Derby article. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a photo of El Capitán to both the Texas Derby page and the main Dynamo wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imapuppy (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Combining sections for "Robertson Era"

Please refrain from editing changes I've already made. I'm changing it for the new year and new stadium. I will be combining the sections from [2005 till 2011] to make [Robertson Era]. The changes will start Monday (10/24) and shouldn't take too long. Treyvo (talk) 05:03, 22 October 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) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oscar Boniek Garcia

He is no longer a DP as of the new season. It was only his transfer fee that made him qualify as a Designated Player.

Deleting Active Teams

Deleting Active Teams box, following the seemingly end of discussion on Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1#Infobox. If you have objections, please take it up there, so as to keep everything in one place. Elisfkc (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not you're call. Why does that bother you so much anyway? Bluhaze777 (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent major expansion of history

Should the recent major expansion, which looked pretty good, be reduced and the entire history moved to a history sub-article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Houston Dynamo. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://houston.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20070722&content_id=107324&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&team=t200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531204109/http://www.houstondynamo.com/stadium to http://www.houstondynamo.com/stadium

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FC added to the name

I feel that FC should not be included above the logo on the right, in the "Infobox football club" "club name" line. Many pages for big clubs around the world do not include the FC in that spot, be it Liverpool, Bayern, Barcelona, Man City, Valencia, Arsenal, Leicester, Celtic, Rangers, Porto, and many others. HTownDynamoFan (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)