Talk:San Jose Clash v D.C. United (April 1996)

Notability of this article

@Quidster4040, SounderBruce, and others: I was wondering if you think this article meets Wikipedia's WP:notability guidelines, or if it should be merged into 1996 Major League Soccer season (or elsewhere). Currently the article is very short with two-thirds of the words belonging to summaries of the two teams' seasons which is not directly related to the main topic. I was planning to expand the article but I had trouble finding secondary sources that describe the match in any more detail than any other regular season game. This topic did get a bit of coverage two years ago for the 20th anniversary, but still not enough to warrant its own article in my opinion. –BLAIXX 04:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Article length is not an appropriate way of determining notability. Based on the Lasting effects policy, I think this match is worthy of a separate article; various sites have run anniversary articles from time to time, while the league itself organized a 20th anniversary match and is likely to organize similar anniversary matches in the future. SounderBruce 04:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this topic qualifies for Lasting Effects, based on my interpretation of: "an event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance." Although the inaugural game was a catalyst for the 20th Anniversary game, the 20th Anniversary game is not notable itself either. BLAIXX 16:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

San Jose Clash v D.C. United (April 1996) → Inaugural Major League Soccer match – Seeing as this event is only notable as being the first MLS game, I think the title should reflect that. Per the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the proposed name greatly increases the recognisability by describing what the article is really about. The proposal is also more natural due to how it can be used in prose and it also eliminates the disambiguation. There may be a slightly different version of the proposal that could be better (e.g. "First MLS game", etc). BLAIXX 17:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew hk (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "First MLS game" (and similar monikers) would be rather obscure and violate the spirit of soccer match naming consensus. The title is fine as it is. SounderBruce 18:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "obscure"? If anything, I would consider the current title more obscure because it doesn't describe the significance of the game. As for the spirit of soccer match naming, my rationale was to match the formatting of MLS Cup 2018, not Atlanta United FC v Portland Timbers (December 2018). I do realize there are articles titled as this one (United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup) comes to mind), but for examples like those, they are named that way because a more concise title does not exist, unlike in this case. BLAIXX 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support some change there definitely needs to be something regarding it being the inaugural game in the article's title, since that is why it's notable. There is nothing readily apparent about the title without that context. THe proposed change or something to that effect. Jay eyem (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? On his talk page, SounderBruce suggested "Inaugural MLS match" for brevity (while still opposing the page move). BLAIXX 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I'd agree with Blaixx in the previous section that this is not notable. None of the aftermath section is meaningful at all or relevant to the game's being the first, just an unnecessary rehash of the teams' respective articles. Were there any special events or celebrations around this that could justify separately recording a routine 1-0 result? I see no reason why this shouldn't be merged to History of Major League Soccer - this game isn't notable, the start of the MLS is. However if this stays, the name should reflect why an otherwise unremarkable game (right?) has an article. Reywas92^Talk 04:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not able to find any evidence of special events surrounding this game (other than trivial stuff like the president of FIFA being in attendance). There are several articles that mention this game in passing, however the extent is usually mentioning that the only goal was scored late in the game, something that does not require a whole article. BLAIXX 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting note: consensus is leaning in favour of some move, but I am opting to relist as opposed to move as some users have indicated it could be moved to a better proposal, yet not offered an alternative. SITH (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per standard naming convention in Category:Association football matches which involves the team names andd date. The exception to this rule (for finals of competions/tournaments) does not apply. GiantSnowman 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, very few articles in that category follow the "standard naming convention". For the ones that do, it is only because a more WP:CONCISE title does not exist. The matches that do have a suitable title (ex. Disgrace of Gijón), tend to use it. BLAIXX 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Nominator fails to list reliable source to show his proposal is more recognizable name, or the most common name. The existing one may be not the best article title, but the new one is not that good either. Matthew hk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Here are some of the variations I have come across, mostly from primary sources unfortunately:

• DC United (2011), MLS celebrates 15th anniversary of inaugural game: "So that inaugural MLS match was huge."
• MLS (2016), A league is born: An oral history of the inaugural MLS match: "Bob Bradley (left of Arena), prepares for the start of the inaugural MLS game"
• San Jose Earthquakes (2016), Clash 20th Anniversary: "... the 20-year anniversary of the 1996 MLS inaugural match at Spartan Stadium", "John Doyle Reflects on the Inaugual Match"
• Washington Post (2016), 20 years since MLS inaugural match, D.C. revisits San Jose in search of first 2016 win

No the proposed name is not perfect, but I think it is certainly more recognisable than the current name. BLAIXX 23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

sjearthquakes.com is primary source . In the same paragraph, it also mentioned the day and the name of the two clubs, in which "MLS inaugural match" only came after the two information.

mlssoccer.com also primary source. Also, despite "inaugural MLS match" is in the article title, the date "APRIL 6, 1996" is immediately mentioned

dcunited.com (quoting mlssoccer.com) is a primary source. Also, in the opening paragraph one of the name of the club Salt Lake was mentioned

Only The Washington Post is a secondary source. But the full title of the news article was " 20 years since MLS inaugural match, D.C. revisits San Jose in search of first 2016 win ". Bold is my own emphasise. Matthew hk (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, each article about the first MLS game mentions the date it happened and the teams that participated, I don't see why that is important. And yes, the D.C. United article also mentions that Real Salt Lake was competing in the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League at the time, why do you bring that up? BLAIXX 12:47, 23 January 2019 (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.