Jump to content

Talk:Washington Commanders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CaradhrasAiguo (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 20 December 2020 (Strike socks per SPI outcome). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KennyThayer (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jkappss (article contribs).

Based in Ashburn, Virginia

The Washington Redskins are headquartered in Ashburn, VA. I'm going to change to box at the bottom (similar to what the New York Jets have).

"Recentism" and the reporting of a significant event in the opening section

@Sabbatino:, and certainly others:

If a famous member of the team or organization died in an accident, would the reporting of that event in the opening section be called "recentism"?

The Washington Post, among other news organizations, has reported that the name of the team will certainly change, the major sponsors and the other NFL team owners now opposing its continuation.

"Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." This clearly applies to the content of the article as a whole.

Failing to give a recent event it due weight is certainly imbalance. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I can see no way that a one sentence, fully soured, addition to an article of this size and longevity would fit any of the listed Wikipedia:Recentism criteria nor the unlisted, but used in some cases, criteria. Based on the subject matter's history, it seems to pass the WP:10 year test. Similar text was also an addition to the existing section covering the issue. No editors have claimed "Recentism" there, or at the Washington Redskins name controversy article on similar editing.
At most, the editor Sabbatino should have used the Recentism tag ({{Recentism}}) template rather than removing a good-faith edit. Discussing it first here would have also been a preferred option. - ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░[reply]
Since the reversion of my contribution occurred on a holiday weekend, I will give this attempt to avoid edit warring a little more time, but if there is no more discussion I plan to restore the content, now reported by many reliable sources as a major change in the history of the team.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree that we should mention, briefly, that the team is reviewing the name in the lead. But keep it short and simple in the lead, with more detail in the body. Calidum 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both of Calidum's points. The lede is a summary and therefore should not contain too much detail. Also, words like "now," "currently," etc. should be avoided per WP:CURRENTLY. Wikipedia isn't a news source and an article should not be "reporting" on events. See also WP:NOTNEWS. 1995hoo (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Lede = SSS; short, simple, sourced (as it was in this case, but also keeping in mind WP:CURRENTLY, which was not). - ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░[reply]
The reports on the supposed name change today are currently in the lead, though I at least tweaked it to say "reported" as opposed to anything the team has formally announced. Ideally, I wouldn't have these reports in the lead if the team hasn't publicly confirmed it.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the team has put out an official release stating they are "retiring" the name and logo, what do we do with this page? Does the retirement take effect immediately (and we should temporarily move this page to something like "Washington DC NFL team" until they announce the new name)? Or do we just keep it as is and move the page title when the new name comes out? Canuck89 (Speak with me) 13:41, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
    The relevant policy is WP:NAMECHANGES. Still, the team hasn't announced a new name, and it's hard to imagine sources converging on a new common name in the interim.—Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that some sources already weren't using the name "Redskins" for other reasons having nothing to do with whether it was the actual name, which of course it clearly was (and still is). No doubt some media sources will jump on the bandwagon now. I'd suggest the best policy is what I say below: Look to the team's own communication on the issue, which is pretty darn clear. 1995hoo (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change: "Will" versus "Officially retired"

Since we're having a ton of back-and-forth editing, I think we should just keep the name and debate here instead.

I personally vote against the name change because the source itself says "will" which means it's about to change. All other news articles may be reporting that it is retired, but it seems it is not... yet. Thoughts? srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 13:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate. The team's press release is clear: They are still named the Washington Redskins and will remain such until they finish the process and announce the new name. Here's the text of their release, with the paragraph breaks omitted for ease of copying here because I don't know how to create a "block quote" on a talk page: "On July 3rd, we announced the commencement of a thorough review of the team's name. That review has begun in earnest. As part of this process, we want to keep our sponsors, fans and community apprised of our thinking as we go forward. Today, we are announcing we will be retiring the Redskins name and logo upon completion of this review. Dan Snyder and Coach Rivera are working closely to develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years." (Source: https://www.redskins.com/news/washington-redskins-retiring-name-logo-following-review ) That's it. The boldfaced text is clear. Wikipedia "consensus" cannot change this. The article is to remain "Washington Redskins" until the team itself announces what the new name is. Also, let's stop using "officially." People on Wikipedia like to throw around the stupid word "official" and "officially" as though it somehow increases credibility. This is a fine example of where overly-zealous editors want to use that word in a demonstrably incorrect way. 1995hoo (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it'd be better to have a clear posting about this, thanks. (By the way, some news sites are saying "official". That isn't my word.) I agree because official source trumps the new sites. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article really just plain needs to be locked down for the time being because this is going to be impossible to control. 1995hoo (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. By the way, I wanted to post a source so you know where editors are getting the "officially retired" wording: https://nypost.com/2020/07/13/washington-redskins-officially-retire-name-logo/ srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 13:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed that it should remain with the Redskins name per the press release. It's unfortunate that many news sources are reporting it as a case of it happening with immediate effect. only (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move per reasons above. The team itself is the most authoritative source and their press release on Twitter says they will retire "Redskins" once they pick a new name. So the title should change from "Redskins" to the new name once it is announced, rather than go to a generic "Washington NFL team" placeholder. Frank AnchorTalk 14:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a requested move. (If this was an RM, I'd agree with you.) O.N.R. (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that "upon completion of review" means what you think it does? Maybe it means that their review is officially complete, so the name is officially retired. Tom Danson (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement also says that the review they announced on July 3 "has begun." So the "has begun" suggests it's on-going and that this is merely an update on an aspect determined during the review rather than the conclusion of the review. The review is about the team identity (including determining a new name), not merely about whether or not to keep the name "Redskins." only (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key words are "will be retiring." "Will be," written in the future tense. I don't see how anyone can claim that verb form somehow connotes that the change has already occurred. 1995hoo (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles are saying they have officially retired their name and logo. Seems like Wikipedia is behind. Shouldn't we make the accurate current changes. I'll put in citations. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, those other sources are wrong. The press release clearly says they'll be using the name until the end of the review process. Wikipedia isn't behind; it's going with the correct information. only (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the ESPN website has officially stopped using the name and logo and has begun just using 'Washington'. As a Wikipedian, I Support the move to a new article, even if it is only to move again after the new team name and mascot/logo/colors are revealed. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The team is still the Redskins even if ESPN stops referring to them as such. We'll keep it as Redskins until the team stops calling themselves the Redskins. only (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it now only means we have to move it again once the new name is revealed (supposedly in the next two weeks). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, it's rather inaccurate to claim the name "Washington Redskins" is inappropriate here on the basis of media sources not using that name, as it's well-known that various media sources already refused to use it. I don't recall anyone refusing to use "Washington Bullets" after Abe Pollin announced his intention to change that team's name, for example, even though it was quite some time before they rolled out "Wizards" as the replacement. The Redskins situation is a little bit odd due to some people objecting to the current name for various reasons. I think this is an excellent example of a situation where Wikipedia's elevation of verifiability over accuracy simply doesn't apply, because in this case the team's own press release is sufficient for both verification and accuracy. The team determines the name, not the media, and in any event it's inappropriate to make ESPN the arbiter of these things as though their position somehow controls over everyone else's. 1995hoo (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here's my two cents: it seems obvious by now that multiple, reputable news sources have stopped using the name "Washington Redskins", and are now simply referring to the team as the "Washington" NFL team (here are the reputable sources I mentioned: NBCSports.com/Washington
USAToday.com ESPN.com NFL.com).With that in mind, I suggest that all other editors who have so far commented vote as to whether the title of the article should be changed to simply "Washington NFL team", at least until the team unveils its new nickname and logo, whenever that may be. Personally, I vote in favor of changing the article title to "Washington NFL team", but I am willing to listen and discuss in hopes of reaching a WP:CONSENSUS here, seeing as how I cannot unilaterally move the article title myself. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still say we wait, at least up until it gets closer to Week 1 (certainly the team will have at least come up with a placeholder name by then). If we move it to a generic "Washington (NFL franchise)" then we might have to move it again just days later. This is already going to be pretty messy as we have to change several related templates and wikilinks too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the team itself announces a new name, for the reasons already stated. This is a situation where it doesn’t matter that some media organizations say "Washington NFL team" or the like—it’s indisputable that the team itself is still named the Redskins and will remain so until such time as they adopt a new name. It’s also indisputable that some reputable media outlets, or personnel within media outlets, have refused to say "Redskins" for several years now—for example, here in the DC area, the late Jim Vance, anchor on NBC-4, stopped using it on the air in 2013 (and he had been a huge Redskin fan for years, wore team logo paraphernalia, etc.). But nobody could seriously contend that meant the name wasn’t "Redskins." The fact that more of them are doing it now after the team said there will be a new name in the future doesn’t change things at all. If anything, it might merit a one-sentence mention in the article, something along the lines of "Despite the future tense used in the team's announcement, many media sources immediately stopped using the name 'Redskins.'" That would be accurate, it would be relatively non-controversial, and it would address the very good logistical point Dissident93 makes above. 1995hoo (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing for lead sentence re: review

Trying to find the best way to phrase the sentence in the lead about the review to emphasize that the review is still on-going. Current phrasing is: After conducting a review of the name,[8][9] on July 13, 2020, the team announced they will retire the "Redskins" name.

This phrasing makes it sound like the review is over. The press release from the team (https://www.redskins.com/news/washington-redskins-retiring-name-logo-following-review) states that the review is on-going. It says the "review has begun" and that the name will be retired "upon completion of this review."

I think a better phrasing is something like On July 13, 2020, the team announced they will retire the "Redskins" name upon the completion of a review of the team's name and identity.

Thoughts on the best approach? only (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a tweak to the lead because I caught that too. See [1]. Calidum 15:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your change covers it well. Thanks! only (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a further change to cut down on the prose, we also don't need any exact dates because that isn't important in the longterm (can you name the exact date when renamed from the Braves to Redskins or just the year?) Once the new name is announced the section will be re-written anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
July 5, 1933, but that's not the point. O.N.R. (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Old Naval Rooftops, I'd honestly be shocked if you didn't just look that up. But yeah, just writing "on this day the team did this, on this day the team followed up" is just bad WP:RECENTISM writing in the style of WP:PROSELINE and should be avoided. We should be writing for a historical perspective, in which exact dates aren't that notable (in 95% of cases anyway and especially in the lead, which should be summarized per WP:LEAD). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will the history be that of the ‘Redskins’?

As of writing, this team is still the ‘Redskins’. This is a question about the future. When a new name is announced — just to be specific let’s call it the Omegas — will the history be rewritten? ¿That is, will wording change as follows?

  • “All of the Redskins' league titles were attained during two 10-year spans.” → “All of the Omegas' league titles were attained during two 10-year spans.”
  • “The Redskins finished the 1984 season with an 11–5 record” → “The Omegas finished the 1984 season with an 11–5 record”.

My preference is, in general, not to rewrite history: good and bad, it is what it is. But for certain a decision will be needed. Please express a preference. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at other teams with histories like this, I see a variety of approaches. Oklahoma City Thunder mostly splits its Seattle history to another article; in the lead it's basically set up as "In Seattle... X was achieved" and "In Oklahoma City... Y was achieved." Other articles refer to the team as "The franchise" when referring to the collective history (i.e. achievements across its whole history). In New Orleans Pelicans, they use the team nickname at the time when referring to that period of history. So for your 1984 example, they'd say Redskins instead of Omegas. only (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History of the Washington Redskins will likely be renamed "History of the Washington Omegas", but any reference to a specific season in which the team was called the Redskins will refer to that team as the Redskins. Any reference to an overview of the franchise will likely change to the new name ("the Omegas have won five league championships in their history"). History won't be rewritten here, but when speaking about the overview of the franchise, only the new name will likely be used. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the circumstances surrounding the name change are unprecedented (as far as I know), there are plenty of examples of teams changing names while "retaining their history," and this name change should be handled similarly to those situations. The Redskins themselves already have changed their name a few times (from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins to the Washington Redskins), and the corresponding sections on their history use the name for the team at that time. Everything outside of referring to the team in their historical context should be swapped over to the new name. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have an obvious local-area example with the Washington Bullets changing their name a while back. (Come to think of it, that franchise probably has more name changes than any other in the four major sports leagues: Chicago Packers to Chicago Zephyrs to Baltimore Bullets to Capital Bullets to Washington Bullets to Washington Wizards.) Their most recent name change was probably about as close as it comes circumstance-wise to the Redskins' situation, given that Abe Pollin had decided "Bullets" unacceptably connoted gun violence. Their history still uses all the names, and their banners in Verizon Center pretty much all say "Bullets" (as the Wizards, they only have one division championship). The situation is decidedly distinct from situations like the original Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore and "leaving their history behind." 1995hoo (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the spirit of MOS:SURNAME, where we use a person's name at the time of the period being discussed. In this case, refer to Redskins when talking about a specific related season. Anything about the franchise as a whole should probably use the new name.—Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However just for simplicity's sake, for any new staff or players that joined in 2020 (Ron Rivera and Chase Young, etc) we should probably just list the new name of the team instead of the "Redskins" once it is known (IE, Chase Young was drafted in the first round of the 2020 NFL Draft by the Washington Whatever). For anybody still on the team prior to 2020 (like Ryan Kerrigan), they should probably be listed as Washington Redskins (2011-2019) and then Washington Whatever (2020-present), right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that. You could say "Chase Young is an American football defensive end for the Washington Whatevers. He was drafted by Washington in the first round of the 2020 NFL Draft." But you wouldn't say Derek Carr was drafted by the Las Vegas Raiders. I see what you mean about the players new to the team in 2020, but a similar thing happened in 1941 when the Steelers and Eagles drafted players for their teams and then basically swapped franchises (see Pennsylvania Polka). All players drafted in the 1941 NFL Draft by the Pittsburgh Steelers franchise that became the Philadelphia Eagles franchise later in the offseason still say they were drafted by the Steelers (and vice versa). And for Kerrigan's infobox, it should say "Washington Redskins / Whatevers (2011–present)" like for players who played for the Tennessee franchise when they changed their name from Oilers to Titans in 1999 (Isaac Byrd, for example). Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eagles247, I wouldn't say Carr was drafted by Las Vegas because he signed his initial contract when they were in Oakland. We do for Henry Ruggs because the team had already been officially renamed (due to the move) prior to the draft. As Chase (and all other 2020 Redskin rookies) have not signed their contracts yet, this becomes a question of technicality for them since they were never officially "Redskins". However, I suppose the Oilers/Titans style is the cleanest option we have for the vets and free agents, yeah. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will most likely be renamed as soon as the new team name is announced. I'm hoping it's the Pigskins, but thats another matter. The article History of the Washington Redskins will most likely be renamed to The History of the Washington Pigskins and then a new article, History of the Washington Redskins will be created to keep the Redskins history there. Plenty of precident for this. Also all players who played for the Redskins will continue to be referred to as playing for the Redskins. For example, John Riggins was an NFL running back for the Washington Redskins. Again, there is precedent for this.--JOJ Hutton 20:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately it's up to the NFL to decide wether the records are credited to one continuous, but renamed entity or to two separate entities. We then merely reflect what the reliable sources report they do.Tvx1 18:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

The Washington Redskins were a professional American football team based in the Washington metropolitan area. The team competed in the National Football League (NFL) as a member of the NFC East. The team played its home games at FedExField in Landover, Maryland; its headquarters and training facility was at Inova Sports Performance Center at Redskins Park in Ashburn, Virginia, and the Redskins Complex in Richmond, Virginia, respectively.[2] The Redskins have played more than 1,000 games since their founding in 1932, and were one of only five franchises in the NFL to record over 600 regular season and postseason wins, reaching that mark in 2015.[3] The Redskins won five NFL Championships (the latter three in Super Bowls), and have captured 14 divisional titles and five conference championships.[4] The Redskins were the first NFL franchise with an official marching band and the first with a fight song, "Hail to the Redskins".[5] 71.254.14.239 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. See sections above. They shouldn't be referred to in the past tense. only (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same IP user made the same request on the main NFL article's talk page in an utterly vague and unsatisfactory way. I answered the request in the negative there and referred the user here, consistent with your response. 1995hoo (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment scandal

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/sports/football/washington-sexual-assault-harassment-dan-snyder.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.252.159 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending name

Officially, for the time being, the football team that plays in Washington will officially be known as... "The Washington Football Team". [2] So should we move it to such or wait until they get a better name, which they will, since they said it will be "pending"? - Jasonbres (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they officially drop Redskins, it should be moved. Calidum 16:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's officially dropped. They just don't have a new name yet.

"The generic name replaces “Redskins,” the organization’s 87-year-old name that had become a target for many who believed that it was offensive and a slur toward Native Americans. On July 13, the team said it would “retire” the name Redskins at the end of a “thorough review” of the name that the club started on July 3 in response to increased criticism and pressure from sponsors.

“For updated brand clarity and consistency purposes, we will call ourselves the “Washington Football Team” pending adoption of a new name,” the team said in a release. “We encourage fans, media and all other parties to use “Washington Football Team” immediately. The Redskins name and logo will officially be retired by the start of the 2020 season.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/23/washington-redskins-new-team-name-washington-football-team/ https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/us-sport/national-football-league/washington-redskins-new-name-change-football-team-2020-nfl-latest-a9635001.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/07/23/washington-football-team-redskins-2020-rebranding-logo-dan-snyder/5494337002/

Requested move 23 July 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:SNOW, especially now that the name is official. I see a hatnote has already been added to address the ambiguity. -- Tavix (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redskins → Washington Football Team – The team has officially adopted the name "Washington Football Team" while they settle on a new permanent name (see here). It is not appropriate for them to continue being referred to as the Redskins any more. – PeeJay 16:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The NFL have announced this will be their name until further notice Steven a91 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The" ??

Perhaps this is a trivial point, but it's an annoying bit of grammar. What is the name of the new team? Is it "Washington Football Team" or "The Washington Football Team"? This article is full of inconsistencies. This reminds me of Family Guy and Home Depot. Are those the proper names? Because very often, they're preceded by "The". It makes a difference; one is the formal, correct name. The other is not. Another example: universities whose name contains the word "institute" fall into this mess sometimes. Some people are happy to write "The California Institute of Technology", but no one writes "The Harvard" or "The Yale". Polihale (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The organization's press release said as follows: "For updated brand clarity and consistency purposes, we will call ourselves the ′Washington Football Team' pending adoption of our new name." Per MOS:THECAPS, Wikipedia follows the standard English-language rule that the word "the" should not be capitalized when used midsentence because it's grammatically incorrect (I assume you did this with your examples solely for emphasis). There have been umpteen arguments about that issue over the years because some people incorrectly claim "the" is a non-severable part of the name such that it's required to capitalize it, such as "Paul McCartney quit The Beatles in 1970" (should be "the Beatles" at midsentence). Obviously, a direct quotation from a source that incorrectly capitalized it would be an exception, and if the word begins a sentence then it should be capitalized per the normal rules. 1995hoo (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

Consider changing "The team's former Redskins branding, used from 1933 until 2019" to "The team's former Redskins branding, used from 1933 until 2020" - as the change happened in 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.3 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar wise yes, but they didn't play any games in 2020 as the Redskins. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but branding was still in use, I presume. No games does not mean no merchandise being produced necessarily. I've not looked inside, but for instance https://www.amazon.co.uk/Washington-Redskins-2021-Calendar-Companies/dp/1469378507 ?
I'll try and make it more clear. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plural, singular

Singular: Please change the verb to match the noun. "The Washington Football Team are..." should be "The Washington Football Team is..." Yes, I realize there are more than one team member, but that is beside the point. A team is a singular thing. "Redskins" would be plural, "Team" would be singular.

Plural: I don't agree with that because team names are normally used in contrast to one another, such that it sounds stupid when one name is used with a plural verb and the other with a singular merely because of the happenstance of whether the team name ends in an "s" or an "s" sound (the latter denoting "Sox," for example). Some media sources will say things like, "The New York Islanders are trying to win their fifth Stanley Cup, while the Tampa Bay Lightning is trying to win its second." That sounds absurd, and it sounds even more absurd to juxtapose the two forms like that. This is an instance where the British convention of using a plural verb with the mass noun is a better practice ("England have only won one World Cup."). In the case of the Redskins, the use of "Washington Football Team" is going to be a temporary thing anyway. BTW, for future reference, when you create a new section on a talk page, it goes at the END (I've moved it accordingly), and you should sign your comment with four tilde ~ characters per the instruction below the edit box. 1995hoo (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do "sounds stupid... sounds absurd... sounds even more absurd" have to do with advocating for your position? Sounding absurd or not is a highly subjective personal opinion; another person can just as easily argue the opposite, without an empirically falsifiable assertion on either side. - PhilipR (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plural: For US grammar conventions, we use the are for a collective team name, even if it “sounds” singular. The best examples of this are in the MLS where teams like New York City Football Club use the “are” instead of the “is”. only (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. You write, "we use the are." Could you please clarify the antecedent for we?
2. MLS is a very specialized case because of the heritage of association football and the keen interest in English sports media by its fans worldwide. Washington's gridiron football team is not owned by a group whose flagship club plays in England, with a name chosen to emphasize that connection. PhilipR (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Unclear: I also disagree as the Football Team is a collective noun; the fact it is not in plural tense is irrelevant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singular: Collective plural is not a standard feature of US English. Google searches (yes, quick-and-dirty):

  • "washington football team are" has about 25,200 hits;
  • "washington football team is" has about 336,000, over 13 times as many.

The top few hits with is include CBS Sports, Pro Football Talk, and Fox Sports--some of the largest sports media sources in the US. Empirically, it's not a close decision. Time to take action soon; we should leave a few days for someone to argue there's clear consensus to rebut my quasi-empirical case. - PhilipR (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singular: Should read Washinton Football Team is not Washington Football Team are Benjaminpbraun (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: see the section immediately above this for why "are" is appropriate. only (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. No evidence was offered for your position and no consensus was reached. I took out the section header since both pertain to the same topic. - PhilipR (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PhilipR, and are these not just your opinions as well? I've seen "Washington Football Team are" from those same publications you listed, and if we decided to go with "is" then shouldn't we be consistent with the other 31 teams and change them too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Above I noted that "washington football team is" has about 13 times as many Google hits as its counterpart. That is actually a verifiable empirical fact rather than an opinion. No reason to change the other 31 teams because Raiders, Patriots, Saints, and so forth are all derived from plural English nouns. Standard US usage is to treat plural nouns as plural. PhilipR (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are approaching the question from too narrow a point of view because I believe the correct analysis is not to treat "Football Team" as the most important aspect, but instead to treat that term as being similar to other North American sports team names that use a seemingly-singular term that does not end in an "s" sound (the latter part is meant to exclude "White Sox" and "Red Sox," both of which are clearly plural in form). Examples that come to mind are the Miami Heat, the Oklahoma City Thunder, the Tampa Bay Lightning, the Minnesota Wild, and the Colorado Avalanche. To be sure, there is divergence in media usage as to whether to use a singular or plural verb as to those names as well: The Washington Post, for one, stubbornly insists on singular ("the Minnesota Wild is still looking for its first Stanley Cup"), while plenty of other media sources use the more correct plural form ("the Tampa Bay Lightning will seek to defend their Stanley Cup championship whenever the next NHL season begins"). The Chicago Manual of Style advocates for the plural form in part because of the reason I cited in an earlier comment that you felt the need to disparage: They pointed out, quite rightly, that using singular for these sorts of team names creates a strange juxtaposition when used together with a "plural form" team name (example: "The Washington Capitals are seeking their second Stanley Cup, while the Tampa Bay Lightning is seeking its third."). My prior comments were focused on this particular issue and were from the point of view that "Washington Football Team" should be treated as akin to these "mass noun" "singular form" team names, such that if you treat "Tampa Bay Lightning" or the like as plural, it is logical and proper to treat "Washington Football Team" the same way. Of course, I suppose that might raise a different question of whether "Football Team" is really the team name or whether it's simply a descriptive term in the interim! 1995hoo (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, I did a survey of Wikipedia's articles on the four major North American pro leagues' teams that have names of this sort; I excluded MLS for the reason you noted before about soccer fans having a predilection for using European conventions even when it's unnecessary or possibly inappropriate. MLB and the NFL have no teams, other than the OFKAR*, that fall into this category. The NBA has four (Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Oklahoma City Thunder, and Utah Jazz), and all four articles use the plural, at least in the initial paragraphs. The NHL also has four (Tampa Bay Lightning, Colorado Avalanche, Minnesota Wild, and the future Seattle Kraken), and three of those use the plural, again in the initial paragraphs, while the remaining one (the Wild) uses the singular, again at least in the initial paragraphs. I didn't take the time to read the entirety of every one of these articles to look for inconsistencies and exceptions. I also didn't look at the talk page for the article about the Wild to see if they've had some discussion about the issue. But either way, I think the prevailing use of the plural in these articles here on Wikipedia at least lends support to the notion of a consensus behind the use of the plural form as to these sorts of team names. (Incidentally: *OFKAR==>Organization Formerly Known as Redskins, analogous to a certain deceased singer who changed his name to a symbol and was then often called "TAKFAP" to denote "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.") 1995hoo (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington football team is not a name, it is a description. And "team" takes "is" in American English. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Heat is singular as per the teams website https://www.nba.com/heat/community/heat-community-affairs-community-activities. Look down at "HEAT Glades Sweep": "The Miami HEAT takes its green initiatives to the Florida Everglades by hosting the HEAT Glades Sweep presented by the Miccosukee Resort and Gaming."
Same with Orlando Magic https://www.nba.com/magic/community, see "Donation Requests": "The Orlando Magic supports charitable causes and events by donating to businesses around Orlando." Same with Oklahoma City Thunder, https://www.nba.com/thunder/donate, "The Thunder takes great pride in our community relationships and donates memorabilia to hundreds of community organizations annually."
Same with Utah Jazz https://www.nba.com/jazz/community/donation-requests "The Utah Jazz proudly supports charitable organizations and fundraisers through donations of merchandise."
To be sure there was no funny business, the Celtics are plural: https://www.nba.com/celtics/community "The Boston Celtics are dedicated to giving back to the local community through a multitude of programs and initiatives."
But why are we bringing up basketball? Let's look Washington's website, from one of their press releases: https://www.washingtonfootball.com/news/washington-steelers-inactives-week-1 "The Washington Football Team has announced the following inactives and lineup changes for tonight's game against the Pittsburgh Steelers"
It is singular, backed by verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4101:29D0:24FF:885B:44B6:92EB (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably agree with you if it were normally written in lowercase the way you wrote it, but it isn't. It's almost always written as "Washington Football Team," capitalized, which I think makes it more akin to a name than to a descriptor. If we were discussing trademark issues, I'd certainly agree that would be about as weak a trademark as you could imagine (trademark law uses the term "merely descriptive," which I think might even be too generous a description for "Washington Football Team"), but we aren't discussing trademark law. The organization and the media seem to be treating this as the team's name for the foreseeable future, even if only because they don't have some other option to use. 1995hoo (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is no more a name than "FYROM" was. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not exactly trying to make a very convincing argument. (I seem to recall reading that the country you reference was, bizarrely, alphabetized under "T" in various international organizations when it used the name you cite as its legal name.) 1995hoo (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And we at Wikipedia told all those international organizations to get stuffed and referred to it as Macedonia. The point is, "Washington Football Team" is just a placeholder designation and should be subject to the basic rules of English that apply to such descriptive terms. --Khajidha (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at NFL.com for a different reason and I note their schedule treats "Football Team" as the name, not as a description. For example, for last Thursday's game it lists "Football Team 41 @ Cowboys 16." If they were treating football team as a mere descriptor, it would say "Washington 41 @ Cowboys 16" (and some media sources do just that, such as ESPN.com). 1995hoo (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

new a fix to the "early" snyder issue section

Having early on snyder is simply not sensical. perhaps someone can offer a solution. i've tried two fixes and had them undone. maybe someone else could offer a solution.SailedtheSeas (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SailedtheSeas, I don't really see what the problem is? The team changing its name after nearly 90 years is surely worth being considered a new era. And just calling it the "Synder ownership era" implies he no longer owns the team. It seems you are forcing titles to follow other "eras" which just involve personnel changes, but aren't accounting for the fact teams don't usually change their names. Again, I don't disagree with you that "early ownership" is awkward and should be changed, but your suggestions so far haven't really been improvements. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to refer to what I put on your talk page but I'll try and be a little concise and put my problem here and hopefully some others will weigh in. Right now WFT is a placeholder name so I don't believe that qualifies as an era particularly when it's only about 4 months old. My original problem was referring to Snyder's first 20 years as "early" and then starting this new "era" that is only 4 months long. I did relook at the page, and the section headings and i just like consistency and i think it was inconsistent. The new change I think suffers from your comment on my earlier change where it makes it look like snyder is no longer involved and i'll leave it to others regarding what i think is a negative comment about snyder that i suspect someone will not like but an earlier heading also is framed negatively so that's not inconsistent. I do truly believe that it is too early to call this name change a new era and think it would be better under snyder. Once they pick a new name that definitely would be a new era as i see it now. I'd also like to say when I was looking at the history of the article you are definitely active and work very hard to improve the article, so I appreciate your letting me voice my opinion and hope that you feel that I too am adding some value. Take care and stay safe. SailedtheSeas (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

In the first sentence, the author writes, "The Washington Football team are a professional American football team..." Please change the "are" before "team" to "is" because "team" is a singular collective noun, which requires "is" instead of "are" to proceed it. 50.81.226.95 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously discussed under 'Plural, singular' Red Jay (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus was reached and I just produced an empirical case for a change. Please rebut above if you wish. - PhilipR (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While not entirely conclusive, a quick Google search shows a much greater use of "is". --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the use of plural/singular verbs for "Washington Football Team"

Should the noun "Washington Football Team" be used with singular verbs or plural verbs? Examples of each have been given below:

  • Singular verb The Washington Football Team is a professional American football team based in the Washington metropolitan area.
  • Plural verb The Washington Football Team are a professional American football team based in the Washington metropolitan area.

Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 01:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

  • Singular verb. According to one of our articles on the subject (American and British English grammatical differences#Subject-verb agreement) American English almost always uses singular verbs with collective nouns such as the word "team", except in names of sports teams, where the plural verb is used. That being said, the vast majority of American reliable sources seem to be referring to it with the singular verb. The New York Times has never used the phrase "Washington Football Team are..." and has exclusively used the phrase "Washington Football team is..." [4] [5]. Likewise, the term:
"washington football team is" site:apnews.com
returns many results when searched on Google while the corresponding search for the phrase "washington football team are" returns no results (I won't provide links as Google appears to keep personal data in the URL). I believe that this is a case of an exception to the general rule that the plural verb is used for sports teams and that we should be following this exception as well to reflect what reliable sources have said on this topic. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singular verb - per Chess. The "except in the names of sports teams" caveat only applies to actual names, not to a descriptive placeholder like this. There is absolutely no intention for "Washington Football Team" to be the permanent name in the way that something like "Wigan Athletic Football Club" is, and even if it were, general American usage would still favor "is". --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the parallel case of The Band where a generic word for group is used as a specific name. That page starts out "The Band was a Canadian-American rock group"--Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that other terms that basically mean "group" are treated as singular, even when they are capitalized: Democratic Party, Justice League, Boston Pops Orchestra, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, etc all use singular verb forms. The guideline that 1995hoo keeps mentioning ("American English almost always uses singular verbs with collective nouns such as the word "team", except in names of sports teams, where the plural verb is used.") is simply misphrased and should be rephrased to read something more like "American English almost always uses singular verbs with collective nouns such as the word "team". An exception allowing for structurally singular names for sports teams - such as the Utah Jazz - to use plural verbs exists, but is not universally observed." This clarifies that the sports team name exception is generally not used for the bare word "team" and the like and also that some sources do use singular verb forms for things like the Utah Jazz. --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misattributing that quotation to me. User Chess is the one who posted the sentence you are quoting. Nowhere on this page did I ever use that sentence. 1995hoo (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that mistake.--Khajidha (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I actually don’t view this as a WP:ENGVAR issue because I’m not sure American English truly does have a hard-and-fast "rule" that would apply here. British English would arguably be clearer, but would also be inappropriate for this article for obvious reasons. That’s why I’ve tried to be careful to make it clear that my point is one of consistency with other North American sports team names with the exception of soccer teams (and, in turn, that’s why I acknowledge there is some divergence in usage, as I noted elsewhere with the Washington Post and New York Times versus the Associated Press). I haven’t included soccer because, as has been discussed elsewhere, many soccer fans seem to try to default to British English when discussing the sport, so I question the value of soccer precedent as to this discussion. 1995hoo (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We already see usage of singular verbs with capitalized "Team" in cases like the NFL All-Pro Team or the Pro Football Writers Association All-NFL Team. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plural verb for reasons I've thoroughly stated elsewhere on this talk page. The words "Football Team" are being used as the team name, not as a mere generic description, and it should be treated the same way as other "singular form" team names like Miami Heat, Tampa Bay Lightning, or Colorado Avalanche. 1995hoo (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singular for sure. I was about to make the change, thinking a well-meaning Commonwealth English editor was responsible for this, when I noticed the comment pointing here. Given the team names that 1995hoo cites, it should be fine to use plural if the team settles on such a name, but it's clear that other sources are treating this placeholder name differently, and we should too. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plural verb per 1995hoo's reasoning. It seems like people supporting the use of "is" are treating "Football Team" as a generic noun and not proper and basis their argument on that. If we do end up going with "is", then shouldn't we be consistent with every other plural-sounding proper noun, such as several musical bands and other sport teams like the Stanford Cardinal? If not, then why are we specifically focusing on this article and no others? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) "are treating "Football Team" as a generic noun and not proper" Ummm, because it IS a generic term. 2) Those other instances are proper names, not just generic terms. The only example I can think of that is truly similar to this is the one I mentioned above, the Band. Which, as I mentioned, uses singular verbs. --Khajidha (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just let people vote? Isn't that the point of this, to let people express their own opinions? You had your say. 1995hoo (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1995hoo: Officially, RfCs aren't actually votes and we have a whole policy on how they're not at WP:!VOTE. This straw poll is only meant as an auxiliary measure to the actual discussion section below. In actuality nobody really cares about the discussion section anymore (it's frequently omitted) and I'm not sure why I even included it when starting this RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oklahoma City Thunder and Stanford Cardinal are not any different than Football Team. Yes, it's a generic phrase but it's not a generic noun. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally just the words "football team" with capital letters. Do you really mean to tell me that you would write "The Washington football team is..." but "The Washington Football Team are..."? --Khajidha (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it would not be considered a proper noun in that format. Why are we picking and choosing what is and isn't here? This entire RfC is dubious if that is how people are viewing it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That position seems beyond ludicrous. -Khajidha (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singular-I'm so glad someone did this rfc. I don't think what we think matters, but rather what WFT uses and they use singular. Here is but one example. 1)WFT Press Release 2)more examples of team using singular. Also see Chess's arguments above. Also, contrary to the argument that there should be consistency across WP, I don't know the shortcut, but one of WP's things is that just because something is a particular way on another page does not dictate how another page should be. I personally disagree with this, but it's WP guidance. SailedtheSeas (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plural verb the team officially calls itself the "Washington Football Team," with Football Team capitalized, asserting that "Football Team" is the proper team name, not just a generic term. Therefore, it should follow the precedent set by other American sports teams that have a singular term as its team name and use the plural verb (ex. The Oklahoma City Thunder are...) Frank AnchorTalk 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Anchor, you cite "the team officially calls itself" but the team officially uses the singular(see my examples above, but show me where they've used plural). So since the team has decided it should be considered singular, then singular should be used should it not?SailedtheSeas (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought in these polls we didn't respond to other people, but since others have done so, I guess it's OK. It seems to me you're placing too much reliance on the grammar used in press releases. In ordinary circumstances, there's nothing "official" (what the heck does "official" really mean in a discussion of grammar, anyway?) about the team's PR department's use of grammar. Most likely nobody in the team's front office has thought about the issue at all. Consider how rushed the whole circumstances of changing from "Redskins" to "Football Team" were. I'd suggest, as a comparison, when DC United's press releases used to contain a note to the media asking that the team not be referred to as "the United" but rather as either "DC United" or simply "United." In that case, I think the team's affirmatively addressing the issue did have significance as to what they deemed correct, whereas in this case, it's just a plain old grammar issue. Surely if they issued a press release that misused the subjunctive, we should not feel bound by that in describing the press release, should we? (BTW, I see further up the page in a prior discussion an anonymous user wanted to know why I mentioned NBA teams. I also mentioned NHL teams, and the reason simply is that there is no other NFL franchise using a name that could raise the "singular versus plural" debate. Every other NFL franchise's team name ends with "s." The Redskins' future name most likely will as well when they decide on one.) 1995hoo (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So much for what should be so little of issue. First, the PR Dept is the voice of the team, so I don't believe you give them enough credit or due. Also, since from what I've searched newspapers are also using the singluar, so they are either taking their que from the PR dept or made their own decision to use singular. Also too much weight is being given that it's done a particular way on other teams - One of WP's things is that one page does not dictate how another page should follow which I incidentally disagree with, but it's WP's guidance, so it doesn't matter if EVERY other sports team is treated differently than how WFT is. Along that same line, the referenced grammar page clearly says "usually treated as plurals" which means that singular is 100% appropriate. But since so many examples have been given, please look at Alabama Crimson Tide which uses the singular, so using singular is not extraordinary for a sports team. I'm sure I could find other examples, which is why I think we should just honor what the team uses and leave it at that. SailedtheSeas (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I simply think there is a fundamental difference between what the team wants to be called ("Washington Football Team" versus "Washington Redskins" or "Washington Lobbyists" or whatever), which is a substantive matter and should be respected for these purposes, versus their use of a verb, which is not a substantive matter in terms of their press release. The analogy that readily comes to mind for me has to do with music, specifically album and song titles. Wikipedia follows the traditional and standard rule that you capitalize the first and last words of a title, as well as all other words other than articles, conjunctions, and prepositions of four or fewer letters. Thus, for example, Bruce Springsteen's 1978 album is properly referred to as Darkness on the Edge of Town, and the original LP sleeve capitalizes it that way, but since then the record companies have taken to capitalizing every word: "Darkness On The Edge Of Town." On greatest-hits compilations, they capitalize the song of that name in the latter style. (If you use iTunes, you may have noticed the Gracenote database does this too.) A few years ago, some Wikipedia editor was trying to move various Springsteen-related articles—the one that comes to mind is the single "Dancing in the Dark"—to articles in which every word of the title was capitalized, and his argument was that the capitalized version is the "official" title (whatever the heck the throwaway word "official" means). That was a silly argument. The record companies' current capitalization styles are not binding, and should not be binding, on anybody else. I cite all this because I view the football franchise's use of the singular or plural in the press release as similar—it's simply what someone in the team's PR department may have thought sounded better or more natural, but it's not something they expect to be binding or influential on anyone else (and certainly not "officially official"). It's interesting to note that different media sources have different standards on team names of this sort, too, such as the Minnesota Wild or the Colorado Avalanche: The Washington Post and the New York Times both maintain that a team name is to be treated as plural only if it ends in an "s" sound (thus, Capitals, Nationals, Red Sox) but is to be treated as singular if it doesn't (thus, Wild, Avalanche, Thunder, Magic). The Associated Press maintains that all team names are treated as plural regardless of how they end. It doesn't matter whether, as an anonymous editor further up the thread suggests, the teams themselves use singular or plural. Major American media outlets typically either follow the AP guidance or have their own stylebook augmenting it, and they treat those stylebooks as the Gospel, slavishly adhering to them even when they are demonstrably wrong (e.g., the Washington Post used to call the British Labour Party the "Labor Party" even though it's a proper noun), but they almost universally respect a sports franchise's decision as to its actual name (e.g., the media do not continue to refer to the Washington Bullets, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, or the Edmonton Eskimos). That all goes to why I think there is a fundamental difference between the team's use of "Washington Football Team" as the team's name and their use of singular or plural verb forms. 1995hoo (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singular in the lead sentence. When referring to the organisation as a single entity, as is the case here, the singular verb form should be used; the plural should be used when using the team's name to refer to its players or staff collectively, e.g. "the Washington Football Team have lost to the Minnesota Vikings this afternoon". The vast majority of cases will follow the latter format, but the opening sentence of the article is simply talking about the single entity known as "the Washington Football Team", of which there is only one. – PeeJay 07:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Team" is grammatically singular in American English (which presumably is the English we are using). Surely we aim to be grammatically correct, no? I don't know what there is to debate. Funnyhat (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Singular generally. Use a singular verb for singular noun. If the name is being used to refer to the collective group, or a collective action then it’s just one thing. (“The Washington Football Team is going to play the Giants”.) If the name is one of a list then the list is plural and verb should be plural. (“Bill Gates and the WFT are making a donation...”) Finally, if the name is a collective for individuals or a plural use later in the phrase, then use plural. (The WFT are 3 quarterbacks, 2 halfbacks, and a partridge in a pear tree. The WFT are a diverse set of individuals. Members of the WFT are Alex Smith, Dwayne Haskins, Kyle Allen, ...) I would discount the usages other US teams largely because they use a plural naming (GiantS, DolphinS, etcetera) and are actual team names. I would similarly discount British place-name teams (Manchester United, Ashton United) because British usage is not appropriate for a US team. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Commanders&oldid=995261208"