Talk:Major League Soccer/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Major League Soccer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Let me be clear about the purpose of the table. This was always intended to be a history of the two MLS trophies, that is MLS Cup and the Supporters' Shield. Every league article on WP lists the history of the major trophies determined entirely by league play, it just happens that MLS and the A-League have two, in that they have regular season and playoff champions, as opposed to most European leagues that only have a regular season with no playoffs. The reason we can include the MLS Cup and the Supporters' Shield without having to include the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup is that the US Open Cup is not in any way determined by MLS games.

So again, for clarification, this was never intended to be a "list of MLS champions," nor does the table "carry more weight as a list of MLS champions." MLS has two trophies and they should both be represented in the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested. In the meantime, the opinion of myself and SixKick has been clear since you reversed course; you should not revert the page until you have some other support from other users that would outweigh consensus. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is based on argument, not on a poll. There is no reason not to include something in the article that is in the infobox. Unless you have a policy reason to bring up, I honestly don't care if 100 people agree with you. WP is not a democracy. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing my hat into the ring here, but I tend to agree with Grant Alpaugh. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to provide an accurate, helpful and complete source of information on a topic for people who want to read about it? MLS recognises the regular season champion as having 'won something', and recognises the teams which won it retrospectively, so doesn't it make sense that an article about MLS should tell readers who those winners were? If they aren't listed in this particular table, they surely should be listed somewhere else. I really don't get what the big deal is. Nowhere is anyone saying that the regular season championship carries more weight than the playoff champion. It's just a historical record of what happened. Isn't it? --JonBroxton (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I didn't say it better myself. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then I'd call for adding the Open Cup champion as well since they not only win something equal to the SS but it is also open to all teams in MLS as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The US Open Cup is administered by a different governing body though, isn't it? The winners of that competition should be listed on the USOC page (as I believe they already are). We're talking about competitions administered by MLS, not USSF. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The USOC is not determined by MLS league games, whereas the MLS Cup and Supporters' Shield are. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grant, you're being disingenuous, boarding on outright lying. You say "nobody has argued merits, except for those who agree with you." Do you not see the problem with that mentality? Blackbox77 had a great post on the merits that you have yet to reply to. Instead you create a new subheading and ignore it, then say nobody is arguing the merits. Let's just have another poll like the W-L-T debate so that we can put this one man crusade to bed finally. Sixkick (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackbox can learn not to make personal attacks if he wants his arguments to be taken seriously. He apologized though so that's over and done with now. The crux of his argument, and mine, however, can't be effectively addressed by either of us because we're arguing from two completely different paradigms. I created the table to be a history of MLS's two major trophies, whereas he contends that the table is instead a list of MLS champions. JonBroxton seems to agree with me and he's the only one who has weighed in on what the purpose of the table should be. If you look through the comments I don't think I'm being "disingenious" or "outright lying" to say that. So maybe we should instead have a discussion about what the purpose of the table should be in the first place, like my fancy new subheading indicates we should. I'm really not out to crusade about this, just trying to have an honest discussion on the merits. Really, there's no hard feelings or animosity on my side of this discussion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of us have been pretty clear that the purpose of the table should be to show the championship history. By the way, the disingenuous comments I'm referring to were your revert comments.Sixkick (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but I could be wrong. Either way, this has never been so clearly the focus of the discussion as it is right now, so if people believe the table should only be for MLS champions, then let's see them say as much under this subheading. I still think, as JonBroxton does, that the "History" of MLS should include the title history of the two major trophies MLS awards. And for the record I knew exactly what you were referring to and I still think I was right to use that language in the revert summary. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, such vitriol around here! Anyway, back to the issue at hand. Sixkick, Grant, could a viable solution be to have two separate tables in the MLS History section? One indicating the MLS Cup winners - and making sure that readers are aware that they are the recognized champions of the league in a given year - and a second table, just below the first one (subliminally emphasising the former's importance over latter) indicating the regular season champion? Really, I think the only issues here are to make sure that both sets of useful information is available to readers, and that it is presented in a way agreeable to all parties. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussion for a while now (how irrelevant my columbus crew suggestion turned out to be), but now that the reverting has begun once again I've decided to throw my opinion. While I do agree with Grant and say they should be in one table for the sake of history, I will formally accept JonBroxton's idea for the purpose of satisfying both parties. Now one problem is that the tables may take too much room up and potentially take away from the text, but I'm sure we can find a way around that now can't we? Greecepwns (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the parenthetical text under the trophy titles did that, but maybe they could be tweaked in order to be more clear, without creating a whole seperate table that would clog up the article. Maybe listing MLS Cup as "Playoff and League Champions" where as the Supporters' Shield could be listed as "Regular Season Champions." Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the table as it stands currently is perfectly fine. Two separate tables would take up too much room, and the information is effectively communicated in one. Links for MLS Cup and Supporters' Shield both exist for someone who wants to learn more. If anything needs to be clarified, a footnote can be added under the table to state that the MLS Cup winner is considered the champion of the league or something. This is a serious molehill that does not need to be turned into a mountain. howcheng {chat} 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because this has turned into a rather drawn out debate, I'm willing to stand down and accept the table. Grant, I see your point of a historical table encompassing all MLS-only sanctioned trophies. I think somewhere down the line, it was implied (at least for me) that the SS was some sort of equivalent to the MLS Cup. That was back in April (!!!). Through subtle tweaking of titles and phrases, I can better accept the table. If you're now asking a preference to labeling each column I like "League Champions" for MLS Cup and "Regular Season Champions" for SS. All that being said, I'm still very against the SS mentions in the infobox. For me the infobox should be a brief sampling of all the most important, relevant info of the league. In my eyes, the SS is not that. I'd be content if that could be a compromise. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the tweaking of the table is working to build consensus, but I do think that it belongs in the infobox for all the reasons it belongs in the table in the article. I hope you see the value in listing the major trophies awarded by the league in the infobox and article, just as is done in the A-League article for example. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I'll ever agree with lesser trophies being featured in the infobox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbox77 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is not their relative importance to each other, but instead that they are major trophies awarded by the league. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have volunteered to mediate this discussion. On the mediation case page Roehl Sybing had outlined your problem and the issues with consensus. To help you all to reach consensus, I will endevor to explain what consensus actually it. Consensus is all about agreement, if all editors agree, then there is clearly consensus, but not many issues are as clear cut as that. Determining consensus is about weighing up the strength of each side of an arguement (not just counting votes), trying to reach an idea that everyone agrees on (or agree to disagree without objection) and resolve or mitigate the objections of minority groups. If consensus is used corectly then there should be no objections to a certain edit at all. As such, consensus is not all about the "majority view" but making everyone agree or agree to disagree without objection. Consensus is not a policy per se, its more than that, its a way to enforce policy. Even though it is not a policy, it should still be followed as if it is one (as it says at the top of its page) I will be elaborating this more once I have time.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, if you want to change something, try and convince all users to accept your view. I am pretty sure that there is no policy involving this situation, so it will go by consensus.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has died down. Are you still in need of mediation, or has your dispute been solved?  Atyndall93 | talk  13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested some international blokes are trying to replace the MLS Infobox with the generic Football one. However as we know that one has several discrepencies with MLS Soccer. Not the least of which is the use of non-American English, Ground rather than stadium, etc... Discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#MLS_team_infobox. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am an "international bloke" but not the one who is doing that. I still reckon the MLS one is better. Malpass93 (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If so I'd go comment there. The rest of the international community is riding roughshod over the MLS articles again. Might be time for this Wikiproject to take control back ;) Gateman1997 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the word derby not American English?
From local derby: In many countries the term local derby, or simply just derby (pronounced 'dur-bee' in American English and 'dar-bee' in British English after the city of Derby)

I think, we should separate the rivalries section into "Derbies" or "Local" and "Other" Derbies (or Local)

• Chivas USA — Los Angeles Galaxy (Honda SuperClasico)
• FC Dallas — Houston Dynamo (El Capitan Clasico/Texas Derby)
• Colorado Rapids — Real Salt Lake (Rocky Mountain Cup)

Other

• Chicago Fire — FC Dallas (Brimstone Cup)
• DC United — New York Red Bulls (Atlantic Cup)
• Columbus Crew — FC Dallas (Lamar Hunt Pioneer Cup, preseason) (should we include preseason ones?)
• Toronto FC — Columbus Crew (Trillium Cup)

Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "derby" is used in American English, but not in the context of a rivalry between two football teams. It is generally used in reference to the hat or to races (horse races, roller derby, etc). Rivalries are generally just referred to as rivalries or for more specificity, cross-town rivals, when used in reference to sports teams in general. The wording you found in local derby is more a pronounciation guide rather than signifying that the term is actually used. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the only real derby is the Honda SuperClasico. The meaning has since expanded like with the Derby d'Italia between Inter Milan and Juventus, so called because until Juve were relegated in the calciopoly scandal in 2006 those two teams had been in every Serie A, so the Inter-Juve and Juve-Inter fixtures were, well, fixtures of Italian football. I think in this context it would be best to simply leave it as rivalries. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Bobblehead. In the context of soccer, "derby" is not American English. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have developed and am still developing an essay that I hope can be adopted by a consensus of regular MLS editors, in the hopes of channeling our influence on WikiProject Football. It is written to address the concerns that more than a few of us have with respect to reconciling Wikipedia's treatment of American soccer in the context of the world game. I invite everyone here to comment on the essay's discussion page; I look to revise and further polish the essay, ideally before it is taken up by all soccer editors. Thanks! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to insert a sentence into the expansion section concerning the likelehood of Montreal joining MLS, but it has been reverted. It had three references and the sentence was only a brief mention. The prospect of Impact joing the MLS is notable because they are an existing and well-attended team. This is slightly different from the status quo of lumping Montreal into a list of cities that might get expansion franchises. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have valid claims but there still are unknowns for exactly how the future will play out. A few things I noticed about the sources given... The Fox Sports blog never actually speaks of a MLS Impact club - just a MLS Montreal club. And even if it did, the fact that there is "talk" by journalists, bloggers, etc of the Impact joining is small time compared to the commissioner declaring the city in general is a viable expansion candidate. False 45th (another blog) quotes a forum poster imagining the Impact in MLS. The last source seems to mention a general Saputo-owned team joining the league. These aren't sources that discuss MLS executives or potential team owners saying outright "Montreal Impact will/can/should/might join Major League Soccer." All say the city of Montreal has the potential to support a MLS team. If there is direct talk of an 'Impact-to-MLS' situation, it comes from uninvolved people having fun speculating. Knowing what an official Montreal MLS team might be called is a scenario too far off in the future to accurately guess (unless it is Saputo saying outright it is specifically "Impact"). That's my take on it. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the general consensus on adding the names of the reserve players to the tables of MLS rosters? I think it personally might be a nice addition as it would be highlight the depth of each team and identify which players are on the fringes of the first team rosters. Lots of entries for other soccer teams around the world also list their reserves in their rosters. Anyone have any objections if I do this for 2008? --JonBroxton (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess that's a no then! --JonBroxton (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do object actually. MLS has 28 person rosters. Any additional players for reserve games are guest players that are asked to play for that reserve game alone. They aren't paid, contracted, or put anywhere on the official rosters. They shouldn't be included on the Wiki pages.Sixkick (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never did say they were paid, contracted, or put on the official rosters. I just thought it would provide some additional interesting information for readers. --JonBroxton (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JonBroxton on this. One of the major goals in MLS was to develop American talent. Some of that talent is on the fringes. Documenting it would continue that link for the readers to the USL-D1 and other leagues around the world. How many times have you asked the question, "Where was that player last year?" I was working on some Canadian player bios last night and it is great to see some clubs with a filled out roster. --Coppercanuck (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These players aren't being "developed." That would be the developmental squad. These are just bodies to fill in for reserve games. Regardless of MLS' goals, these players aren't not on the rosters of the teams and shouldn't be included. Sixkick (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever dude. I'm just trying to provide interesting information for readers. *I* like to know which 'non main roster' players play in the MLS reserve league, and I thought others might too. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sixkick as well. MLS teams have 28 man rosters. They aren't like European clubs that have huge academy systems with dozens and dozens of players. The guys that "fill in" for reserve games are PR guys for clubs or whatever. Ruud Gullit gave an interview about how when guys get hurt they're pretty much looking for warm bodies. So I mean these guys aren't exactly being cultivated as the future of US soccer, even on the fringes. MLS's reserve/developmental system is a joke. There's no reason to include anything more than the 28-man roster on club articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have taken on a mediation cabal case regarding this article in hope to help all editors involved to solve your dispute. This discussion will be taking place here in the above sections and all editors are welcome to participate. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rep MLS. Come discuss here. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently another user and I have attempted a little reformatting of the Teams section - specifically the table and map. Does anyone object to listing stadium capacity in the table as long as it is cited? The list of sports league articles (soccer or not, foreign and domestic) that do such a thing is lengthy, I won't attempt to post them all unless it really needs defending. It seems pretty basic and common among other league pages.

As for the map, another user and I have attempted to float the table in section's text instead of dangling the table below it. IMO, how the table currently creates a lot of unnecessary white space and appears jarring. IMHO, I believe floating the table to the right would look the best. The is a lot of precedent for this format. Anyone reading my plea should quickly click (but come right back!) on the following and note how their format is structured: NFL Teams, MLB Teams, NHL teams, NBA teams (scroll up for map), Serie A teams, La Liga teams, Bundesliga teams, AFL teams. All include the map in some sort of formal layout - not just arbitrarily inserted there. Would anyone be opposed to the MLS map appearing similar to this->[1]? --Blackbox77 (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In direct response to your issue of where to place the map, I think the best solution is to float the map next to the table or the table next to the map, I don't care which. I'm not sure that you can do it after adding the capacities to the table, but as I will get to in a second, that shouldn't be a problem. I think floating the map into such a small block of text is problematic, and it doesn't look as well as the current setup, which has the nice feature of the map and table being roughly the same width.

My issue with the capacities is that they aren't correct. The capacities for NY and DC are not usually the whole stadium's capacity except on rare occasions like Beckham games or friendies against Real Madrid. When Seattle comes into the league next year, for example, you'd have to list just the lower bowl as "capacity," because that will be the standard capacity. Unless your cites have these numbers, they shouldn't be used. Also, please see the this section in regards to the accuracy of these numbers and why MLS sources shouldn't be trusted. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% against listing attendance figures; it is info best left for a different context. I'm simply in favor of listing potential capacity for the venues teams play in. The links you've referenced are about attendance, not capacity. Sources I'm ready to cite are not sources MLS controls. I'm talking about stand alone companies that own the stadium, universities the stadium is located on, etc. I'm not looking to source any MLS articles stating "Such-N-Such Stadium was sold out at really-big-number!" If the capacity is of an NFL stadium that's usually not full for a soccer match, this number is the venue's true potential capacity. If that many people (or close to) demanded to see a game at Giants Stadium or RFK, would the club say no? This is about the nondisputable number of how many the venue can hold (capacity), not what the the venue does hold (attendance).--Blackbox77 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the table, the way it currently is and the two ways you suggest seem a bit messy...IMO. The links I provided for how other articles handle their maps seems like a good launching point for how we should handle our own. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree on all points. First, if you look at the articles, you'll see that there is much doubt as to whether the Home Depot Center even has 27,000 seats, for example, so your first assumption goes out the window. Second, if people were banging down the door to see a game, then yes, but the new team in Seattle, for example, has said that other than the opening day they are unwilling to open the upper deck. The reasons for this are many: opening the rest of the stadium means you dillute the crowd a bit which hurts the atmosphere, and it costs more to put security, janitors, and consessioneers in the rest of the stadium, which dilutes the value of hosting the game in the first place, and finally it reduces the scarcity and sense of demand for tickets that you're trying to create. So listing the potential capacities for these teams is unwise. Even still, if people were interested, I assure you they can click on the stadium link to see the full capacity for all of the tenants. As to your last point, I've put the map next to the table several times and I don't think it looks messy. As long as the table doesn't get much wider, I don't think it looks bad at all. All of the examples you pointed to of the map being included in a block of text are great, but the text in question is much larger than the lead into the section of the MLS article we're planning to use. I think that option looks messiest of all. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again, you've taken ownership of the article. When someone else comes along with an idea, assume good faith. Otherwise it's very tiring to debate you. Feel free to edit how you will. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please quote to me where, in your opinion, I've "taken ownership of the article" or not "[assumed] good faith." Making those allegations without justification constitutes a personal attack. Just because I happen to disagree with your idea doesn't mean I've violated policy. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to cut in, but my questions above have recieved no response. Have you solved your article dispute, or is it still in need of mediation because the discussion that concerns the dispute stopped as soon as I arrived.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure this is the right place to ask, but... Noticed in Jovan Kirovski's infobox, the LA Galaxy stats include playoff games, whereas the Colorado Rapids stats don't (according to his MLSnet bio). Is there any convention as to whether playoff games should included in the infobox stats? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-essential information was recently re-added to the infobox. I don't believe this is necessary. Infoboxen are meant to contain at-a-glance, current information. They are not meant to provide complete summaries of article information. I don't believe that the number of teams joining MLS in years to come, or who won trophies two seasons ago, is important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The teams in the next few years, I'm willing to agree with you on, but including the fact that DC and Houston have won their respective titles back-to-back adds relevant information and doesn't increase the length of the infobox at all, so if you can meet me half way, problem solved. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Just something to keep in mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It starting to seem like the expansion section could do with its own seperate article. There are just so many potential markets and future teams being reported in the media.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a little overkill as far as the rumors go if it had its own article, but I could be wrong. I think we should stick to the markets that MLS has officially said they have an interest in, as it seems to me those are the only cities worth mentioning without drifting too much into rumormongering. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you that just an article on future expansion would be overkill. I think the article should cover both the future and the past expansions of MLS. The creation of the league, the markets that were selected for the initial teams, the various expansion teams, the loss of the Florida teams, the expansion into Canada and the future expansion of MLS. While this is already covered pretty well in the article, it could do with a bit more detail which a seperate article could provide.

With regards the future teams, I agree it should try and avoid speculation as much as possible. It shouldn't include every small-town news columinist claiming that Moncton, New Brunswick or Anchorage, Alaska should/will be the next expansion, but rather it should include only markets that the MLS has identified or where there is evidence of a strong proposal for a team. I do think it needs its own article as it is a major part of MLS - at least in popular perception. A lot of people couldn't tell you who won MLS last year, but have a multitude of opinions on where it will be expanding to next. I'll start trying to gather some sources for this subject.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your research. If you would like some help or someone to take a look at any rough drafts you have going before you publish, by all means drop me a line on my talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can everything in the MLS Expansion Applications for 2009 not be speculative by having references to media saying that they will apply (for instance, Portland)? I can find nowhere online about Orlando MLS and it does not seem to be a definitive application from a Google search. Can someone either remove this as speculation or tag it with a legitimate reference? Thanks. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that any time anyone makes a change to this article and Grant.Alpaugh disagree with that change, he reverts it. He even ignores agreements (like the New York Red Bulls refering to the team and Red Bull New York refering to the organization) that were made long before he started editing. I didn't think that there was ownership of articles in Wikipedia! KitHutch (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't per WP:OWN. But if either one of your revert again we may have to get the article protected. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, please place new topics at the bottom of the page so that it is clear what order they were raised in. Second, I'm not ignoring your argument. I'm answering it. You contend that the table implies that the City, State/Province refers to the location of the organization, rather than the location of the stadium the team most often plays in. More to the point, the issue will be moot after a few months when Red Bull New York moves its headquarters to Red Bull Park after it opens. More importantly, the answer to that question has no bearing on whether the collumn in question refers to the club's name, which it does. Quite simply, the organization is owned/sponsored by Red Bull, the organization has the right to put a team in MLS, U.S. Open Cup, or any other competition, they do so with players that are allocated to the organization, and on and on. The only time it is appropriate to refer to the team as the New York Red Bulls is in the standings or results, i.e. when we're specifically talking about the team the organization fields, and not the organization itself, as we do in the 2008 MLS and Open Cup season articles. Finally, I think the assumption of animosity behind my edits is unfortunate, and a violation of WP:GOODFAITH and making frivilous allegations is a violation of WP:NPA. Either provide an example of where I argued that I was reverting simply because I didn't want other people to edit or that I was right simply because I was the one making the argument, or apologize and/or strike the allegation. To be clear, I have no problem with you or your editing style, and you have no reason to have a problem with me or mine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is trivially easy to avoid in future. If you're reverting a good-faith edit, and have reason to believe that it will be made again, always go to the talk page rather than relying on an edit summary to make your case. This prevents about 90% of all acrimony in content disputes, which is usually due to editors getting pissed with each other over revert wars. This applies to everyone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it was agreed long ago that when referring to the team, it would be listed as the New York Red Bulls. When referring to the organization that owns the team, it would be listed as Red Bull New York. For several months, no one had problems with it being "New York Red Bulls" in the team table because of this agreement. Along comes Grant.Alpaugh and he decides to ignore the agreed upon conventions for the Red Bulls and change it without even a discussion. Going along the same logic, Chivas USA should be listed as Club Deportivo Chivas USA because that is their name NOT Chivas USA. KitHutch (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then point to precedent instead of making it personal. This is how pissing contests start on Wikipedia, and they're extremely easy to avoid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

why the New York Red Bulls, they are not even in the same state, The Fire may not play in Chicago, but at least they play in the same state. (do not worry I will not change anything) :)--Ceezmad (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed on the table in the Teams section, it says D.C. United will be replaced by a soccer-specific stadium, noted by the superscript. While there is a proposal for a new stadium, the D.C. council has not approved it. The proposed stadium is Poplar Point Stadium and here is a link to an article that shows the most recent news about the proposal:[2]. So, I have removed this superscript, since it is not really accurate. --98.204.131.137 (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In this same vein: the soccer-specific stadium article says a "soccer-specific stadium (or football-specific stadium) is a term used mainly in the United States and Canada, coined by Lamar Hunt, to refer to a sports stadium whose primary purpose is to host association football matches." Now, while RFK obviously was not designed specifically with soccer in mind, D.C. United is the only current tenant of the stadium. Should we reflect this as being a soccer-specific stadium (at least currently), or perhaps with a different superscript? Or none at all (as it currently is)? Charles 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say none at all. While RFK is currently only host to soccer as a full time tenant, the stadium was in no way designed with soccer specifically in mind like the current run of SSSs. It's both too large and of a completely different design (ie: not a 10-27,000 seat rectangle with soccer as the primary serviced sport. RFK is still and always will be a multipurpose cookie cutter stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the crux of your argument, I think we would all agree that Old Trafford, just to name an example, was designed with soccer in mind, but has far more than 10-27,000 seats. Just saying that those are loose guidelines you quoted, not a specific definition. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article also says that "the design and purpose of an SSS is centered on soccer". Since RFK stadium was originally built and designed for football and baseball, I think it would be misleading to call it soccer-specific. I also agree with no superscript. Also, based on the soccer-specific stadium article, the stadiums for KC, Houston, and San Jose are also just proposals, although I haven't found much news on the status of these proposals. These teams all currently have superscripts denoting that a soccer specific stadium is coming. --Spw422 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to partially revert Grant on his recent move relating to exactly that. KC recently got approval to have the stadium and surrounding development built. And last week San Jose's owners made the first payment and aquired the title on the land their SSS is going on. So those two should have the superscript re added. As for size, yes Old Trafford is bigger and the guidelines are loose, but they're US specific. Old Trafford is a soccer stadium, not a soccer specific stadium. Slight difference to be sure, but SSS's are unique in the US due to our... disinterest historically with soccer. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was unaware of those two developments. The one thing I do know for sure, however is that there is a bunch of useless code in that template, and I deleted it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On sort of the same vein, at what point does it become better to assume that all stadiums are SSSes unless marked? I mean, right now it has to be labeled with a superscript indicating that it is a SSS. At what point should it be the other way around? When should they only get the superscript if it isn't a SSS? As it is, eight teams have a SSS, three more are under construction (not counting San Jose, since they already play in one, though it will likely be replaced), and three more are in discussions to get one. That's the whole current league. By 2010, most of the league should have one or will have one in discussions, and just about any expansion team from here on out will have to have one or have one under construction to start playing. Seattle is the only team without one and without one planned. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably after the next batch, KC/SJ/Hou open we could swap it to be the other way. By then Philly will also be in the league and with them their SSS as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is New England really looking for a new stadium? I thought that their deal was just sort of like:

"Hey are you guys getting a SSS?" *shuffles feet nervously* "We're working on it!"

Since Seattle Sounders FC have said that they're not going to get one, is there any chance New England just eventually says they're doing what Seattle Sounders FC is doing? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumors have been floating around for some time now that the Revs are looking to build a stadium of their own in Somerville, Massachusetts, and this article indicates that things are on the move. While I don't think they're in any great rush (since they don't have to lease a stadium or anything like that), I do think they're looking to get this project rolling soon. It's not anything that can be added to Wikipedia yet, but in my opinion I think the Revs will have a new stadium in five-ish years. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the Krafts own the Revolution it is likely to be a situation not unlike Seattle. There is no reason for them to push for a new stadium since the current stadium is owned by same organization. They've been talking with Sommerville and neighboring cities for a decade now with little to show for it. And as Grant suggests, despite ballparkdigest's speculation, Seattle's situation isn't going to compel the Revolution to move any faster, if at all on the issue since really it is a non-issue for the team. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do the stats in MLS player infoboxes include or exclude playoff games? Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Placed first in the article, "Competition format" is one of the more important sections. After the article intro, it delves in deeper as to what MLS is and how it actually works. Should over half of this section be caught up in how MLS teams qualify for non-MLS competitions? It seems a critical section such as this should stick exclusively to how the league works (this is it's article) and not how the independent clubs qualify for external tournaments. I'd propose simply and concisely placing the non-league cup information somewhere else - if included at all. --Blackbox77 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but firstly you have to recognize that the clubs are far from independent. All of the players are contracted with MLS and not their individual clubs. This means that all of these other competitions are inherent to the way MLS works, and for that matter something inherent to every league in the world is how the nation determines its representatives for international competitions. I think something that might be good (if only so that the information doesn't get too outdated unnecessarily) would be if the article only spoke about how MLS teams could qualify for other competitions, but not include the teams that have qualified each season. In other words, speak entirely in generalities (MLS Cup winner gets this, etc.). -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said --Blackbox77 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this section going to change every year? well I know it will change after each new team joins the league. --Ceezmad (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that cities offering for MLS teams should be included in the MLS expansion section or there should be at least a link at the bottom leading to page talking about cities bidding for MLS teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShadow7 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? There are dozens of cities that have said "Sure! We'd love an MLS franchise!" We all know that most if not all of these cities will never even get to have discussions with high level MLS officials about expansion, so why are we obligated to publicize every whack-job mayor's attempt to get press? I don't think we are, and WP is not the place for rumormongering. At the end of the day that's what most of this is. If it was serious MLS would add the city to the list of potential candidates, which by the way will be updated in a few months during the week of MLS Cup. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, only certain cities are serious about getting a team and have made plans to try to get one, and I think it would be good to have an article to help people like me keep updated on who all is in the running to get a MLS team, and to find out who is trying to get a team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShadow7 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please indent using one or more colons like this ":" to make the conversation easier to follow. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes like this "~~~~" so that we can know who said what. Now, that being said, I understand your want to stay current on the cities in contention for MLS franchises. Please use ESPNsoccernet, Sports Illustrated, BigSoccer, or many other sites to keep up on MLS gossip. As for Wikipedia, we need to keep verifiable and reliable information, and nothing more, about MLS expansion, lest we become nothing more than rumormongers. The best way to do this is to only use the cities MLS itself has identified as targets of expansion. They update this list at least twice a year, and I promise you that no city has gotten a franchise recently without being on this list first. We need to use that list and nothing else in order to keep the article accurate. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Hartford back to the section. AEG was the one who expressed interest, not the city itself. AEG is already a investor and team owner in MLS so it can be a considered "Sure! We'd love an MLS franchise!" situation. This is a least part of the MLS that wants to be in Hartford.

I'd argue it's not though for several reasons, 1. NE will never allow it. 2. AEG is being forced to divest itself form owning more than one team. 3. There are no plans in Hartford for a stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to create an article on MLS expansion (and a twin for the Australian A-League) but I have not yet got round to it. It would enable the expansion details to be discussed more thoroughly (including both the history of MLS expansion, and the League's plans for future expansion) without filling up this article too much. This page has got to be careful of overloading with the expansion issue, as a great many cities have hopes of getting a team. Its best, as has been suggested, to stick to the official MLS list on this page.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay Conrwallis, I think that would be a good page to have so if you do make such a page please put something here saying you did so so I could see.--NightShadow7 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea Cornwallis. Please do create both articles. I look forward to reading it once you've had the chance to make the pages. Caden S (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a great idea. Considering the breadth of recent expansion and the number of cities clamoring for a team, not to mention the extent of the expansion section as it is, I think it could make for a very good article. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the history of MLS expansion page going to be made soon because it has been said that it will be made above and I'm waiting to see it but have not seen it yet. Also the race for MLS expansion is getting interesting with the new Miami news so I think now would be a good time to make the page.--NightShadow7 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make it yourself. Just stop trying to put information about Miami expansion into the article unless and until MLS announces Miami as a candidate for expansion during the week of MLS Cup 2008. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not very good at making wikipedia pages so i'd rather not make it mysef, and also I am not the one who put in the thing about Miami.--NightShadow7 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the point still stands. Also, I think it is unfair for you to complain about how there's not an article for you to read about a given subject. Why don't you work on it yourself? It will be good practice, and no one is going to be mean to you if it is not that good, it will give people something to improve upon. Otherwise, it seems that you are pretty well informed about the subject already, so I don't see why you need an article about expansion for your own edification. I think that you should either work on it yourself (I don't intend this in a mean way, honestly, I hope you give it a shot) or you should stop asking people to be more generous with their time than they already are. People don't have an endless supply of time, and they work on the things they deem important. If you find this subject important, please start the article yourself. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done the basics for the MLS Expansion page, I copied and pasted all the expansion news from the Expansion part of the MLS throughtout the past few months. Whenever anyone gets the chance I would like it if they added the links and fixed up the page for me so that the page is useful and conveys its message.--NightShadow7 (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done some work on the expansion. I'll merge it in to the new article tomorrow.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's a really good job. Nice one NightShadow. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts and feelings on the new article. I sincerely hope I come off dispassionate and not like I'm just trying to throw my weight around.--Blackbox77 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying as I said on the MLS expansion talk, and what it really needs is a lot of work adding depth to it. --NightShadow7 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say this, I'm surprised the MLS has not looked into Richmond, VA, Rochester, NY, Atlanta,GA, Montreal, Que., and Orlando, FL for expansion.99.140.240.146 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)BigBoi29 BigBoi29

While MLS itself might refer to the competition as "MLS Cup" (sans definite article), what do secondary sources say? We go by common use, not branding, hence "the iPod" et cetera. If secondary sources (such as the sports media) use the definite article then so should we. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that everywhere else I've seen it as simply MLS Cup. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference you guys here are using (http://web.mlsnet.com/about/) says the league was founded in 1996, after the 1994 FIFA games. Unless you can provide a reliable source to replace the current one in use it must say 1996. We follow not what you know, but what is referenced.

And I quote "December 17, 1993: In fulfillment of U.S. Soccer's promise to FIFA, World Cup USA 1994 Chairman and CEO Alan I. Rothenberg announces the formation of Major League Soccer (MLS) and unveils the league logo."

So which is it? Since the website conflicts itself, we need another source. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems it's 1993 on multiple sites such as [3],

The history page on the U.S. Soccer website lists MLS under 1993, though the word "founded" is not used. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then the first ref should be replaced with the other one, so the information is correct? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems so. It seems only MLS doesn't know when they were founded. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the difference in dates between when MLS was set-up and when the first games kicked off? That might account for the discrepancy, but I'm only guessing. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The MLS Cup labeled as the "Playoff Champion" is disingenuous as the MLS Cup is awarded to the "league champion" and is recognized as such. The MLS Cup article states as much as does the MLS. They list the MLS Cup winner as the "League Champion" as shown on multiple pages here. We should list it as such as well as the winner of the MLS Cup is considered the champion of the MLS season. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's acceptable for clarity and accuracy sake. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The current table of MLS teams, the essence and definition of what the league really is, is here below. In my opinion, it feels sparse and rough.

Eastern Conference
Team	Stadium	Founded
Chicago Fire	Toyota Park	1997
Columbus Crew	Columbus Crew Stadium	1994
D.C. United	RFK Stadium	1995
Kansas City Wizards	CommunityAmerica Ballpark	1995
New England Revolution	Gillette Stadium	1995
New York Red Bulls	Giants Stadium	1995
Toronto FC	BMO Field	2006
Western Conference
Chivas USA	The Home Depot Center	2004
Colorado Rapids	Dick's Sporting Goods Park	1995
FC Dallas	Pizza Hut Park	1996
Houston Dynamo	Robertson Stadium	2005
Los Angeles Galaxy	The Home Depot Center	1995
Real Salt Lake	Rio Tinto Stadium	2004
San Jose Earthquakes	Buck Shaw Stadium	1995

I revised this and made the following:

Team	City/Area	Stadium	Founded	Joined MLS	Head Coach
Eastern Conference
Chicago Fire	Bridgeview, IL	Toyota Park	1997	1998	Denis Hamlett
Columbus Crew	Columbus, OH	Columbus Crew Stadium	1994	1996	Sigi Schmid
D.C. United	Washington, D.C.	RFK Stadium	1995	1996	Tom Soehn
Kansas City Wizards	Kansas City, KS	CommunityAmerica Ballpark	1995	1996	Curt Onalfo
New England Revolution	Foxborough, MA	Gillette Stadium	1995	1996	Steve Nicol
New York Red Bulls	East Rutherford, NJ	Giants Stadium	1995	1996	Juan Carlos Osorio
Toronto FC	Toronto, ON	BMO Field	2006	2007	John Carver
Western Conference
Chivas USA	Carson, CA	The Home Depot Center	2004	2005	Preki Radosavljević
Colorado Rapids	Commerce City, CO	Dick's Sporting Goods Park	1995	1996	Gary Smith
FC Dallas	Frisco, TX	Pizza Hut Park	1996		Schellas Hyndman
Houston Dynamo	Houston, TX	Robertson Stadium	2005	2006	Dominic Kinnear
Los Angeles Galaxy	Carson, CA	The Home Depot Center	1995	1996	Bruce Arena
Real Salt Lake	Sandy, UT	Rio Tinto Stadium	2004	2005	Jason Kreis
San Jose Earthquakes	Santa Clara, CA	Buck Shaw Stadium	1995	1996	Frank Yallop

It is common practice and accepted in many different sport league articles to include more than just a team name, city, and date. (Team table examples: USL-1, La Liga, Mexican Primera División, NFL, NBA, and many more). In fact, many other pages include basic information such as the city and head coach as well as stadium capacity, position in current league standings, first year in league (even if relegation does not exist), team colors, etc.

My table was taken down because the newer information was considered irrelevant and could be looked up in the clubs' respective articles. By such reasoning, no sports league article needs anything but a list of team names as all information can be found by just clicking their link. Is so much to ask to include basic info when it holds common precedent all over Wikipedia? I don't mind constructive criticism of my table, but quickly dismissing it (deleting instead of compromising) is harsh. --Blackbox77 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't simply dismiss the table. There's nothing to compromise on that hasn't already been discussed before. There is no need to repeat that the Columbus Crew play in Columbus, etc. There is also no reason to include a Head Coach/Manager, because like in Toronto, who is that supposed to be? Mo is still technically the manager, but John is the head coach. Why do we care about a founding/entry date, when for all intents and purposes the team comes into existance when it starts playing in the league? It's not like other nations where a club could have been founded just for kickabouts at first, then compete in cup competitions, before joining its first league. The clubs come into existance with more or less the sole purpose of playing in the league. Stadium capacities is a fuzzy one for issues we've discussed before, and sponsorships, colors, logos, etc. have been brought up and shot down before. There is simply no reason we need another table (in a different format from the rest of the article, by the way) to show all of this information. -->> LATE SIGNING -->> -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to put my 2 cents in. I have to say I would be happy with either, but my perference is for the new one. I like having the snapshot of basic team info all in one easily accessible place without having to load each team's article seperately. And as Blackbox points out his table does bring MLS in line with other North American and Soccer leagues. Additionally I'd strongly suggest adding at least the city since so many MLS teams don't play in the city they're named after. And in particular Chivas USA doesn't even list the city they claim to represent in the team name. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I really like the new table, though I'm iffy on the head coach and area of play. I think head coach is information critical to a team article but not the league article. In regards to the area of play, I've always felt that it's pretty obvious from either the name of the team or the city of location and is kinda redundant. I know Chivas USA doesn't have a specific location, but they do have a city. Just my two cents. Just personally not a fan of it.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True they have a city, but you already know what it is before hand. Someone unfamiliar with them won't know that. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If these issues have been discussed before, it does not mean they are not relevant now. That fact is all over Wikipedia policy. In regard to cities, out of the 11 clubs named after a city, only 5 actually play in their namesake town. That includes the Wizards who play in the smaller Kansas City, Kansas, not the larger Kansas City, Missouri. Then factoring in the clubs named after a state/region (plus Chivas), 10 teams make it ambiguous where "home" is when looking at name alone. For coaches, I thought after looking at other league tables that did this, it seemed to heighten just how important and pivotal this man and his decisions are. He essential defines the team and seemed worthy for inclusion. And as for the league entrance dates, IMO it is probably more significant and meaningful than the founding date (in a wider league perspective). I feel strongly about all three points but could compromise, tweak, or do away with coaches and entrance dates. The cities however seem highly important. Is a better label just "City" instead of "City/Area"? --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that "City" is better than "City/Area". A team can only be located in one particular town/city, which to me is what that column represents, the city of they play in. The New England Patriots and New England Revolution are in Foxborough, not New England, and the Golden State Warriors are listed as playing in Oakland and not the state of California. Just my two cents - I'm not going to be heartbroken if you keep it as city/area, I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherManNX01 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah the more I think about it, I like city better as well. Since copying and pasting on an iPhone is no fun (see: impossible), I'll try to post something again tomorrow. ;) Thanks! --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Bridgeview and Chicago is technical, and I don't think very relevant to the article, as clicking on the stadium article would give this information easily. One or two teams being an exception is not good enough to make a mostly redundant collumn in the table. Also, please, tell me how exactly you divined that Kansas City originally meant MO, but now means KS? I'm willing to bet that since the two cities are basically one large city, the team didn't intend to mean one and not the other when choosing a name. Also, stadium capacity is a no go, as many teams have unverifiable stadium sizes. There are many articles linked in the archived discussion about this, but aside from that how do you count things like when New England has an international friendly before/after their game, thus opening the whole stadium when normally only the lower bowl is open? Seattle will have similar issues. Also, the people at the HDC basically made up the 27K capacity when there is evidence to believe that on matchdays there are only around 24K seats available for use. Due to this average attendance is also a no-go. I would be willing to deal with the founding/joining date, because the teams with the same year are the exception, not the rule, though I would say colspanning is a bad move there as well. As for head coaches, I think that would be too fluid a situation, because what is next after that, captains, stars? I also think it should be just a standard Wikitable, as the blue makes the table look different from the rest of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wanted stadium capacity mentioned in this table. I agree with you 100%. And for the column spanning, I think I agree now as well. FC Dallas is the only club to be founded and join the league in the same year. My preference for the navbox as opposed to the generic wikitable is the former comes off concise and clean no matter what. Placing the newer info into a typical wikitable keeps big fonts and overloads table cells. From browser to browser and computer to computer, there is a great chance of distortion. A navbox helps here. Thanks for hearing me out. --Blackbox77 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I say go with the newer table as it is more in line with other soccer/sports leagues on Wikipedia. KitHutch (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grant, I feel your nitpicking of how the new table has to look is not treating my contributes as good faith edits and is coming across as acts of ownership. You insist on justification for my edits yet you don't provide justification for your own - only that you prefer it a certain way. I explained why a navbox format is preferable to the generic wikitable. As I've already said, from browser to browser and computer to computer, there is a great chance of distortion. Additionally, large wordy cells with entries like "New England Revolution" and "CommunityAmerica Ballpark 1 2" can become overwhelming. I'd bet at a smaller resolution they'd even take up more than one line. The navbox keeps the info a little more formatted, organized, and, most importantly, clean. Does anyone else have feedback? --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I have to agree. I think it's pretty obvious we have a consensus here to go with the new one as Blackbox has it. Or at the very least a modified version of his. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I also give my backing to the new table. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the fact that the text is much smaller than the rest of the article, also on my screen there is way too much blank space because of how wide the collumns are on this table. There's also no reason the table has to go all the way accross the screen. On my widescreen Mac monitor at my office, the table has acres of empty space in it. I think there is much less concern with people running 600x800 screens, than people running widescreen monitors with tons of empty space in the table because of it. It is not our job to make sure the article looks good on your iPhone. Sorry, but it just isn't. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with iPhones. I regret mentioning I have one because in hindsight it could come off that's why I built the table that way. (Although that wouldn't make sense as smaller font would be all the more smaller on a cellphone). One reason I crafted the newer table like I did is because there is precedent on many pages for such formatting. Obviously many others find it an acceptable form. And apparently others on this page do too. It is clean and better formatted and is less likely to distort. See my reasons above. This is coming across like a personal battle you're trying to wage. If there are others who disagree with me, please speak up. If I'm off base, call me out. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Blackbox on this. I'm running 1920x1200, and it was just fine the way it was, thank you very much. I thought we had a consensus to go with the new table here. No one mentioned anything about font size or empty space (neither of which bother me in the new table...in fact, I think it gives it a cleaner look). At the very least, could you at least raise these issues here before getting into an edit war over it? WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I have to agree. The new table looks and feels better than the older one. It fits in very well in the article.Hx823 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should edit the profitability article to add in that Toronto is now profitable according to this site, (http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/09/mls-soccer-beckham-biz-sports-cz_kb_0909mlsvalues.html). --NightShadow7 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do...(209.2.60.95 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

There is currently a discussion on whether the new Major League Soccer team for Portland should be located at Portland Timbers (MLS) or Major League Soccer Portland 2011. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please do so here. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you guys discuss whether or not the link should display U.S. Soccer or United States Soccer Federation/USSF here rather than edit warring in main space. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the first instance should use the full United States Soccer Federation name with "U.S. Soccer" in parenthesis. U.S. Soccer may then be used throughout the article. It's just like defining the acronym MLS as Major League Soccer in the first sentence - you shouldn't use abbreviations or nicknames until it has first been fully defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherManNX01 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but this isn't a nickname or an abbreviation. It is like leaving "Football Club" off of "Manchester United." USA Basketball, USA Baseball, USA Football, USA Track & Field, USA Volleyball, etc., etc. These names don't need any explaining before they are used, and this pattern shows that exactly no one should be confused by the name U.S. Soccer. It is the universally used name for the United States Soccer Federation, and follows a format that people are already familiar with. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there are like a dozen more examples here. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

USA Volleyball, USA Baseball, USA Football, et al...those are all the proper names of the organizations. The proper name of the governing body of soccer in the United States is "United States Soccer Federation", just like the proper name of the governing body of basketball in the United States is "USA Basketball". WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant, WeatherMan has a goodpoint. You're comparing apples and oranges with those examples. That being said, I believe the example you're looking for is FIFA. The "proper" name is Fédération Internationale de Football Association but no one in their right mind would write that out in an article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point about FIFA. Another is that "U.S. Soccer" is unquestionably the most commonly used name of the organization, as shown by the fact that "United States Soccer Federation" gets roughly 54,300 hits from Google, while "U.S. Soccer" gets over 653,000. The format "U.S.(A.) Sport" is well-known to Americans, and is completely unambiguous. So the use of "U.S. Soccer" for the first, third, or 468th mention in the article is completely fine, just like we would say "Manchester United" rather than "Manchester United F.C." or "Manchester United Football Club." There is quite simply no reason anyone will be confused by this, especially since it is the more common name by a wide, wide margin. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to play the numbers game with google, then you need to mention that "USSF" get 393,000 hits on Google. However, I wouldn't call Google a great arbiter since it can be manipulated. KitHutch (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I maintain, though, that in each of the "U.S.A. Sport" cases, those are the official proper names of the entities regardless of whether or not they are well-known. The official proper name of U.S. Soccer is United States Soccer Federation (and the article itself is named that). My argument is not one of common knowledge but of proper writing technique - the first instance is the full name, then abbreviations and acronyms may be used. I do understand your points, though, and more often than not I refer to the body as "U.S. Soccer". We talk often talk about sports in abbreviated terms - Pats instead of New England Patriots, BoSox instead of Boston Red Sox, NHL instead of National Hockey League - but in an article, regardless of how obvious it may be to to us, the first instance needs to be spelled out.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but in David Beckham's article we don't say that he began his career with "Manchester United Football Club," before moving to "Real Madrid Club de Fútbol," "Los Angeles Galaxy," and "Associazione Calcio Milan." This is directly comprable to that situation. In the article about U.S. Soccer, of couse we should use the proper name first, but not in articles where we mention it. That would be absurd, as the Beckham example illustrates. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

True, Grant.Alpaugh, but being soccer is an international sport and those are world famous (or in LA's case, well known) clubs, writing AC Milan or Real Madrid does not confuse many. Writing U.S. Soccer, on the other hand, would confuse people who are not as into the sport (specifically Americans). They may think U.S. Soccer implies Major League Soccer. Greecepwns (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly is that? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, forget about my last comment. Sometimes I just need to think before I write...Greecepwns (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am putting back the US Soccer/USSF compromise. Discuss before changing. KitHutch (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Over on the MLS 2009 season page myself and Grant.Alpaugh have ourselves' a grand ole stalemate that I request you all take a look at and hoping join in the discussion to find a solution. I would hope that when it is decided it could stand for the MLS article and not just the season pages. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This has annoyed the snot out of me ever since I started editing MLS articles. Red Bull New York is the name of the corporation that owns the New York Red Bulls, but the article is about the team, including the MetroStar history. If you are interested, please join the discussion here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new graphic (at right with no text overally yet) that I believe addresses some suggestions made on the discussion page for the current graphic having to do with coloring and more of Canada showing. It also adds indicators for announced expansion cities and removes the historical markers (no other league does that, I checked NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL). Comments? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made DC look like a Future site- not your fault obviously but that is what has resulted, and I have a problem with KC being shown in Kansas if this is in fact "current/future". I get that KC plays their home games in Kansas temporarily but by the time Portland and Vancouver are in the league KC will be returned to Missouri. I have always been against the highlighted state usage on the maps in the first place and honestly think they are silly and completely unnecessary. Also- why not get rid of the highlighted states and use a Circle to future sites and Squares for current, or used filled in icon for one and unfilled for the other?Morry32 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morry32 that the map should use a different mechanism than highlighting a state to show current for expansion. My only concern is that it is probably going to be difficult to tell the difference between a circle and a square at the size they are on the map. Maybe go with different color dots to ID current vs future. (Yellow and green?) As far as KC goes, the map is supposed to signify the current state of the league. Until the 2011 season, KC will be in Kansas. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Also can we continue to include the 96' teams on the map like we do now if we're going to update it? I'm rather fond of that particular feature of the old calendar. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, excellent points. I experimented with yellow and green, but couldn't get a good contrast with the background gray to make it work. The best I could do was to add a black outline around them, but that started to look sloppy. So instead I just made all of the currently occupied cities one color (blue) and all of the expansion cities another color (red). The coloring of the state indicates which conference the team is in (or would be in) except for D.C., but that one's kind of obvious I hope. Also, I'm torn on including the 96' teams. Gateman1997, are you just interested in including the Fusion and Mutiny or is it that you want some indicator for original teams that are still active (or both)? Like a said, I couldn't find any other league articles that bother showing former teams on the map. The newness of MLS certainly makes this unique though. It doesn't have enough history yet around expansion, contraction, merging, and moving to clutter up the map too much with that information. Imagine if they did that on the MLB map (there'd be dots everywhere!). However, since the defunct teams are listed in the "Former Teams" list and the "Founded" column in the table reveals the original teams, my preference would be to not show them in the map. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Bobblehead's Until the 2011 season, KC will be in Kansas thats only where they play their home games- the club's offices and training ground, yes they have a full training ground that will remain after the new stadium is built, in Missouri. The only thing that the club has anything to do with in Kansas right now is where they play 16 times a year and actually last season they played two games in Missouri plus each and every reserve match is/was played in MO at the training ground. I don't think it is just fair to say "KC will be in Kansas". When I brought these points up to the wikifooty community it was decided to pretty much make the main KCW article just read KC instead of either city or state.Morry32 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the map! I like that the western conference color isn't that bright harsh yellow anymore. As for the coloring in general, I don't mind shaded states at the moment. But it's conceivable one day we could have a state (i.e. Missouri) with teams from both the east and west (KC and St. Louis?). Of course they could both be in the same conference so it may never be an issue... Anyway, I'd have two suggestions. Could the map be cropped down closer to Vancouver? As this is the same template the NHL uses, they need their map to reach that far up so their most northern team (Edmonton Oilers) is included. Our map would look better if it could be cropped just a bit more south. My second suggestion would be to include no expansion teams. IMO this map is a current representation of what MLS is today. If we are going to discriminate against some nonexistent clubs (Tampa, Miami), we should discriminate against all teams not in league play. As they enter in, new teams will be inducted into the map. There will always be new teams in the future, and expansion clubs still being organized will always have special mention throughout this and other MLS articles. The map, for me, should be reserved for what the league looks like in its present condition. The past and future can be accounted for in other significant ways. Just my thoughts. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Morry32, your points were convincing for me. I moved the KCW dot across the border to Missouri. I think the location of the team HQ and the future stadium are sufficient grounds for calling them a Missouri team. I followed Blackbox77's suggestion to crop the map a bit since the MLS doesn't currently reach that far into Canada. The new version is uploaded (and the image above is automatically updated) I admit I liked the "forward looking" inclusion of the expansion teams in the map, I think we should keep them. Anyone else have a preference on whether or not the expansion teams should be represented in the map? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind again (well sort of). I removed the expansion team indicators to see what it would look like. I've uploaded that for people to look at. If you click on the image, you can see the history of what I've tried in case you missed the one above. I could go either way on the expansion teams. Anyone else have an opinion? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely like it as is (no extra expansions). It looks great. LIke I said above, expansion teams are very important and deserve their prominent place in the article. But for the map, it represents what the league is, not what the league has been or will be. And just overall, good job SkotyWA. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas on the recent outbreak of vandalism to this page? Morry32 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Philly's name was unofficially leaked earlier in the week. It came to a head today, so their is a lot of zolos trying to be the first to get the team's name mentioned on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that, I understand that. I was speaking to the point of IP users suddenly blanking the page and changing silly things. You know Vandalism.Morry32 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's no accounting for vandalism. It comes and goes for no apparent reason. Could be someone is just annoyed their team sucks this year, really dislikes soccer and is annoyed it's getting mentioned in the news, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"To borrow a line from Woody Guthrie, they're sticking with the Union.

That's going to be the name of the region's new pro soccer team, which will take the field wearing blue and gold, people familiar with those decisions confirmed yesterday. The long-awaited official announcement of the team name and colors is scheduled for Monday at City Hall." Full Article
James (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is silly and trivial but what the heck. I have a name change proposal at this talk page for the article MLS two-team Cups. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Qwest question above makes me wonder if a renovated PGE Park can be considered soccer specific. The stadium's renovation is being designed to not only be a soccer stadium for the Timbers, but also as the football stadium for Portland State University. Given the arguments above, this would seem to eliminate the renovated PGE Park as being soccer specific. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that PGE Park will be primarily the home for the Timbers but will also host other events in much same way Home Depot Center, Crew and Rio Tinto Stadiums do. At this point in time it is not soccer-specific, but it is slated to be renovated into such. That's how I see it anyway.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But until it is renovated and identified as such by outside sources it's not a SSS just like Qwest is not. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In "team names," Houston Dynamo was deleted as an example of "European-style" names. The editor said "other teams are named Dynamo, but it's not really the same convention or meaning." If this is grounds for deletion, what is Real Salt Lake doing in the same section? Was the club from Utah granted "royal" status by the Spanish crown, too? Or DC United, for that matter. Was the Washington team formed from the unification of two or more extant clubs? Houston Dynamo was never part of the Soviet Dynamo sports society, but obviously it's named in honor of a bunch of successful Eastern European teams -- e.g. Dinamo Zagreb, Dynamo Kyiv, etc. -- the same as Real Salt Lake or DC United. If a club has a European name, it has a European name, and I don't understand why Dynamo isn't an example of the same phenomenon. Deleting Dynamo because it doesn't share the same specific meaning is supremely ridiculous. 12.237.187.26 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor means, that it would have been a European-style name if the club was called "Dynamo Huston", though personally I think it clearly should be listed as a European-style name chandler • 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that Houston Dynamo is an American-style name using the city-nickname system found in American sports. The article itself declares that is has specific meaning to the Houston area. Compare this to Real Salt Lake and D.C. United which took more European style names. Put simply, the use of "Dynamo" in this case does not indicate a European-style name. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the "United" in DC United was related to the fact that Washington is the capital of the UNITED States, and was not intended to be a Euro-copy.--JonBroxton (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression Nike specifically requested it be United because it was a catchy Euro sounding name. But neither necessarily invalidates that it is a Euro style name in the vein of Man U in that it's Euro without actually standing for what it would appear to stand for (ie: two teams uniting as one). Gateman1997 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor that removed Houston from that list was myself and I certainly didn't mean for you to take it personally. If you had an opinion, I certainly wouldn't accuse yours as ridiculous. I'd just ask to discuss it. Here's what my train of thought was: United and Real were designations originally used to signify mergers or official royal significance. Overtime, it became common for them to be adopted as names "just because." There are very old teams named United that were not the result of a merger. And there are also South American clubs named Real with no connection to a king. But no matter how these two names are used, they are used as prefixes or suffixes to complement the core name of a team (Manchester, Madrid, D.C., Salt Lake, etc). In other words, United and Real are meaningless by themselves without name they are attached to. As for the name Dynamo, you are correct mentioning it was picked up by Eastern European clubs "just because" after more historical Soviet teams allowed the name to gather some prestige. But just like the United and Real additions, the Dynamo title is used to complement a club's core name (for example, you'd never call those clubs "the Dynamo" — you'd just call them "Dynamo"). In Houston's case, they are very clearly (IMO) using the name in the standard convention every major sports team here names them self (City plus Nickname). In fact Houston officially and clearly states that it is named for the area's association with the energy industry, symbolic of the people's "energetic, hard-working" attitudes, and alludes to past Houston teams named the "Dynamos" [4]. It just boils down to Houston using the word "Dynamo" grammatically and contextually different than any European club existing before. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A Dynamo or Dinamo name wasn't picked "just because" or "to gather prestige", it was a huge sport society in Soviet Union which has expanded through the entire Eastern Bloc after WWII. These clubs were supported by Ministry(-ies) of Internal Affairs, or by the police in simple words. —WiJG? 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)