Talk:Houston Dynamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Houston Dynamo article.
Article policies

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Player identification help

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Western Conference Champs?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)