New York Cosmos (1970–1985) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other than a couple Cosmos fans on message boards (and Pinton himself, who has a financial interest), have there been any substantive talks to revive the Cosmos name, either for a new MLS team in New York or for the Red Bulls?
I'm not aware of any. It seems to be a classic case of what a little Internet traffic can do to skew a debate. -- Chancemichaels 13:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Pinton owns the name and he won't let it be used in a situation that will devalue it. That being said, he did offer it to the Empire Soccer Club before they decided on MetroStars, but they couldn't work out a deal. The one fellow that has been pushing for revival of the name is apparently quite enthralled with the idea and has been posting it all over the Internet for years. Pinton is aware of him and does not support his efforts. So the article should not include a reference to 'talks to revive the name'. (BTW, I'd add the above information to the article, but it's completely OR.) -- Butseriouslyfolks 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - that section had already been removed from the article. -- Chancemichaels 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Maybe should have read this first but, looks like name/image rights have been sold.-- EricPZ ( talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This statement is very much POV "The New York Cosmos are still the only team to have all the world's best players playing in it in a short period thats why this team will be rememberd as soccers international dreamteam." I think that although this is sort of true there are other teams that have made efforts to do the same - Real Madrid with their Galacticos policy and Chelsea with all of Abrahmovich's cash. I'm going to remove this statement because I think it is too emotive. -- Wikipediatastic 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The statement is correct, in the 70's the absolute star players of the world were, Pele Beckenbauer Torres Cruyf etc. they all had a chance to wear a Cosmos shirt, in recent days there are more football stars and not all of them have worn a Madrid or Chelsea shirt i am putting back that statement please lets discuss here if you disagree,
I'm 99% sure Johan Cruyff never played for the Cosmos, but only for LA and Washington in the NASL. I didn't delete it because I'm not 100% sure, but no all-time Cosmos roster I've ever seen includes him, and no Cruyff bio I've ever seen mentions the Cosmos as one of his clubs. Can anyone confirm?
April 8, 2007 My apologies if I'm not placing this correctly... -Cruyff was never 'rostered' with the Cosmos other than playing an exhibition game with them in '77. -Also, Clive Toye did not 'coin' the team name. There was a contest in the newspapers and radio in which a youth soccer player's entry was chosen. The description of the name is correct in identifying it as short for 'cosmopolitan' but was also chosen (as suggested by the entry) for its synonymous meaning of 'universe' as well. -Hope this information is helpful. I'm a newbie to the site. (But loving it!).
From the New York Times dated February 5, 1971 page 14... "New York Soccer Club Is Nicknamed Cosmos" February 5, 1971, Friday Page 14, 152 words
Displaying First Paragraph -- "Cosmos became the nickname yesterday for New York's entry in the North American Soccer League. The name was chosen from 3,000 entries filed in a contest conducted throughout the metropolitan area."
Apologies for not knowing the protocol...--Crusty 23:54, 14 April 2007.
Thanks, would like to be learning faster but only have so much time. My original statement was actually from memory (I used to work in the lockerrooms when I was younger) and when you asked for a verifiable source I thought it would take forever to find one. However, I got lucky! The link to use in order for you to confirm this fact is: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B1FFD3D5F107B93C7A91789D85F458785F9 This is the direct link I found through the archives of the New York Times. Hope this is the type of thing you need to set the record straight. All the best, --Crusty 16:21, 16 April 2007.
The claim is still in the article - I'll leave it up to the regulars here to decide how to put it accurately. I have set up a page for Clive Toye - not as a hagiography, but just because he comes from my home town. It would be good to nail down exactly what happened with the name, and someone needs to sort it. For now I'm leaving the sentence alone and just putting a link in to my stub. (Pele always used to say 'Cosmos' like the word cosmos, when he talked about the club). Stevebritgimp 14:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's soccer in the US (where the team played) and a couple of other countries (Canada, Australia), football (or some literal translation) in most of the world and apparently association football somewhere. The term "association football" may be neutral but means nothing in the US. (It's not even in the name of the relevant WP project.) Can we leave it at soccer for this article as the term for the sport that was actually used by the team, its fans and the league in which it played? -- But| seriously| folks 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This article about an American topic is written in American English which uses the word "soccer," not "football" or "association football." "Soccer" is unambiguous and if someone is befuddled by the term, it is linked to Football (soccer) which should fix any confusion. -- D. Monack | talk 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Soccer is what it's called in the United States, soccer is what it was called by the team, and as such the article should reflect that. -- Chancemichaels 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
There was the announcement about the revival of the Cosmos' name. It's my opinion that the new Cosmos should get a separate page since it is a new team. After all, we do have three different pages for the San Diego Sockers.
Okay, I've cleaned it up and expanded certain sections.
Thoughts? SixFourThree ( talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree
Can we look for some consensus here? I'm thinking that the new Cosmos are an actual continuation of the original club, since there is an unbroken chain of ownership. This isn't a new organization trying to revive an old brand. Actually, the Cosmos now are in the same business they've been in since 1985 - youth soccer. I'm not sure this warrants separate pages. Thoughts? SixFourThree ( talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree
In English grammar, the word "the" is only capitalized when it appears as the first word in a sentence. Why does one editor feel that it is necessary to have this team as "The New York Cosmos" every time the name is mentioned in the article, even if it's in the middle of a sentence? No other sports teams are referred to it this way. It's "the New York Yankees," not "The New York Yankees." KitHutch ( talk) 19:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:AHMET ERTEGUN (1923-2006).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
I must register my objection to this move. I fail to see that a newly-formed, minor league team that has not yet played a game is equal to an internationally know team with over a decade of history. Yet by putting a date disambiguator on this article, it's essentially being stated that both have equal claim to being the primary topic. I fail to see any evidence of that. oknazevad ( talk) 01:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Clear primary topic. Cúchullain t/ c 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
New York Cosmos (1971–1985) → New York Cosmos – Although this move to a disambiguation page was done in good faith - this page should go back to New York Cosmos with the {{ for}} hatnote being sufficient to redirect those seeking the new team. Although the (1971-1985) disambiguation page may eventually be the page where this content settles, it is too soon to assume that this latest resurrection of the Cosmos brand will have long-lasting impact enough to displace the original team as the WP:Primary Topic. --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Bloodzeed ( talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the unsourced pronunciation. If "Cosmos" is the singular abstract noun meaning "universe", it's pronounced /ˈkɒzməs/, /ˈkɒzmɒs/, or /ˈkɒzmoʊs/; but if it's the plural of "Cosmo", I guess it should be /ˈkɒzmoʊz/. So which is it? "Cosmos" meaning something akin to Galácticos has an obvious appeal. But the origin of the name is by analogy with the NY Metropolitans>Mets : Cosmopolitans>Cosmos, so at least in the early days it ought to have been with /z/. I suspect there is variation between people and possibly over time. Counting contemporary Google news matches for "Cosmos is" and "Cosmos are" indicates a majority favour the plural form. It may be that Carl Sagan's 1980 TV series affected things. Listening to the film of Once in a Lifetime: The Extraordinary Story of the New York Cosmos, the majority of mentions seem to be /ˈkɒzmoʊs/, but it's often hard to tell, and Phil Woosnam and Clive Toye seem to say /ˈkɒzmoʊz/. In any case the film would be WP:OR as a source. jnestorius( talk) 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Virtually all the other NASL teams which have been revived have a date stamp on the original team article. This team is legally the Cosmos, has been advertising as such for four months, and the inaccuracy is being used by the current team's detractors as proof that there is no connection between the teams, when the team's organization is not only adamant that it is, but has the support of all the living members and staff of the original team. Just today it came up again with Wikipedia being "proof" that there were no links between the original team and the current one. They have played two games in England and begin regular league play on Saturday.
Please date stamp this title. The arguments against it are based upon personal preference. In the past four months of preparation, the amount of media coverage given to this "minor league team" has been greater in scope than most MLS teams,which could easily be demonstrated in a Google Trends chart over the past year comparing it to MLS' flagship team and an average team (Sporting KC): http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=New+York+Cosmos#q=New%20York%20Cosmos%2C%20Los%20Angeles%20Galaxy%2C%20Sporting%20Kansas%20City&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q 69.117.236.14 ( talk) 01:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this was me. DcnJosephSuaiden ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just have one simple question. Why coludn't the old New York Cosmos stay just as it's old team, because Manchester United is one of the oldest football clubs worldwide? -- Jutty10 ( talk) 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New York Cosmos (1970–85). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)