Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:12, 29 August 2017

Major League Soccer has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 23, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football: American & Canadian High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sports This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles (Sports) Requested articles (Association football) Requested articles (Association football women) Requested articles (Motor sports) Requested articles (Estonian sportspeople) Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status. Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required. * Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show." Expand : Professional sports (crucial article explaining the salaried undertaking of sports) * Sport industry (currently a sub-stub) Photo : for pages listed in Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of sports and games and sub-categories. Stubs : work on articles in Category:Sports stubs Update : List of world sports championships Other : Translate the page of sport in each country from corresponding article in other language Misplaced Pages to English Misplaced Pages which was marked in red. Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project RfCs: answer requests for comment Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Stadium Capacity and Founding Years

I remember a while ago that someone had added the capacity of the stadiums to the table but was later reverted back and also someone else had added the year that the teams were founded only to later be reverted. My question is why aren't we including the stadium capacities and founding years to the table? I saw the other pages for the sports teams after that and all of the major North American sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) include them in their table. I think we should add them this page to match the other leagues. Also, it adds useful information that someone might want to know. I didn't want to do anything until I got some feedback. Any thoughts? Rodre112330 (talk) 13:02, 22 Octobrt 2016 (UTC)

As User:Walter Görlitz said in a previous post on this subject, less is more. The MLS teams table is much better than the other leagues, which are overloaded with so much clutter that the font size is shrunk to a small hard-to-read size just to make the content fit. Adding a column for MLS clubs founding year adds clutter without adding much useful information because for the vast majority of MLS teams the year of founding is 1-2 years before they began play in MLS. CUA 27 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was someone else who argued against it. I simply agreed. Just because other leagues list unnecessary information and want to crowd templates, doesn't mean we have to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That being said, the founding years of the teams that make up a league is pretty critical information even if they are only a year apart. I would actually suggest doing it like the NHL where it is only one column but it is split if the two dates are different. There is so much white space on this table there is plenty of room for some pertinent information like capacity and founding. I wouldn't add anything beyond that however. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The founding year for every MLS team is different than the year they began play. The NHL has two columns because a number of NHL teams came over when two rival leagues merged, a situation that we do not have with MLS. For some of the MLS teams there have been heated discussions as to what the founding year is, and so best to avoid an edit war over that if we can. CUA 27 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CUA 27: Yeah, the Ice Hockey Project has long discussions about the Founded usage as well, as seen Here. My comments there were that the Founded date as currently used is useful on the NHL table because it indicates that the franchise played before it entered the league and indicates how the league grew and expanded. However, if it uses actual founding dates (as in the date that the franchise was announced), that information is more team relevant since there can be long time between "founding" and "joining" where the team never played and is therefore not useful for the generalized league table. On the other hand, I do feel stadium capacity (as used when the team plays with caps and such) is an indication of what kind of draw the league aims for in general. It can be useful info, but it is not critical. Yosemiter (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And that's the thing, the teams technically did not play prior to joining the league even if teams like San Jose, Portland, Seattle, Montreal and Vancouver all claim an earlier founding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Except that at least in Montreal and Vancouver's case they did, can't speak to the other two because I don't know their history as well. But Montreal and Vancouver switched leagues, the articles here for some reason indicate "replaced" but all the news articles up here that would verify such things indicated that they are the same team that just switched leagues. Similar to a number of teams in other sports that retain the same ownership and name etc and just go from one league to another. A couple good examples since they are the same cities are the Vancouver Canucks or the Montreal Canadiens both of which started in other leagues and then moved to the NHL, although the Canadiens weren't an expansion team like the Canucks. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think Founded years are critical info for a generalized league table, which was my intention behind my statement. I was just pointing out it can be helpful to indicate that it added organizations that had previously been playing (how the league grows), but there are other ways to indicate that such as a note. Yosemiter (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

League Championships

This table has for quite some time had the numbers centered in the columns. It looks more professional that way. CUA 27 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not with the different numbers of dates in the years column. Since those lists-within-the-list are not all the same length, they should be left aligned, similar to a stem-and-leaf plot. It's the same sort of layout one sees for charts in newspapers, almanacs, encyclopedias and other reference works. The single-number columns can be centered, as they do look better that way. oknazevad (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is best to have it aligned to the left. It is used in many pages from other soccer leagues.

Now that is two to one. CUA. Honestly, if you don't agree to it, that wouldn't be a reason to revert edits. Bluhaze777 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with the version that oknazevad has proposed; that format is consistent with the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A. I do not agree with the version that Bluhaze777 has been trying to impose. I have not found another significant league that uses that format; please provide links to the "many pages from other soccer leagues" that use that format. CUA 27 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bundesliga article does not have the same type of table, but the similar table lists the clubs centred, so I understand that there is not uniformity across league articles. I would argue that the number should be left-justified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bundesliga has its championships table at List_of_German_football_champions#Performance_by_club, with the same format as the rest of the European big four leagues — i.e., single-number columns are centered, dates are left-aligned. Walter Görlitz: So we're all clear, when you say the number should be left-justified, which number(s) are you referring to? CUA 27 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Years should be left-justified. Goals scored (which is not what we're talking about), mathces played, etc. All numbers left. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at a few more high-profile footy leagues: French Ligue 1, Campeonato Brasileiro, Argentine Primera División, and Liga MX. They too share the same format as the big four European leagues. I say we follow that format, which oknazevad had proposed. CUA 27 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I also looked at the WP:FOOTY templates for guidance and found some tables at WikiProject Football/Competitions#Performances, which suggests that single-number columns should be centered. CUA 27 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That page that had nothing? I wanted the years to be aligned left. Since it's two Trophies that are shown, having it centered doesn't work well, the chart is too big as well Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue

Just so we're all clear on what's been happening here and on related pages, Bluhaze777 has three times now tried to make the same edit on this page to align single-digit numbers to the left in the table. He has claimed that he is doing it "to match other leagues" and that "It is used in many pages from other soccer leagues", but he has not provided any example of another soccer league, even though he has been asked to, and even though he has been provided with eight examples that don't match his preferred version. I reverted his edits and started this discussion on the talk page.
While the discussion was ongoing here, and without having achieved any consensus for his preferred version, he then made the same edit at Supporters' Shield claiming that he had "Aligned it to coincide table as to those in other leagues". And he then made the same edit at MLS Cup.
I've reverted some, but not all, of Bluhaze777's edits. I have left three warnings on his talk page and asked him to self-revert. I am not sure how to best proceed at this point. I would appreciate thoughts from oknazevad, Walter Görlitz, Dale Arnett or any other regular editor of this and other MLS pages. CUA 27 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And within hours of me leaving a warning on Bluhaze777 talk page, we now have IP 131.118.229.7 — an account that has not edited on wiki during the past six months — joining the fray and repeating the same reverts that Bluhaze777 had been making on the Supporters' Shield page. CUA 27 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, the change has been to the MLS Cup titles and Supporters' Shield Wins table. In the section above, youo linked to three European league articles. The equivalent table in Premier League#Champions is the wins by club section, and the years won are left-justified. That is also the case at La Liga#Performance by club and Serie A#Champions. So why are you warning Bluhaze777 when he's doing exactly what your examples indicate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz — Thanks for the question. The best way for me to clarify would be to show the three options below (I've truncated the tables to show only four rows so you can see them all on one screen if on desktop). To be clear, the five big European leagues, the three largest Latin American leagues, as well as MLS, NASL, and USL all have single-number columns centered. CUA 27 (talk)

Being it's exactly what I suggested, I think version three is the best. But let's assume some good faith here regarding Bluehaze; I'm going to assume that his all left aligned version is the result of lacking the knowledge of how to code the table. I certainly didn't know, which is why I don't make the adjustment myself. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Version 3 is the way to go. I'll wait to see if any reasoned opposition appears, and if not, I'll conform all three articles to this format. CUA 27 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

16 Team Bracket

In case anyone was curious I created a 16 team bracket in the event that MLS decides to expand the playoffs from 12 teams to 16. You can find it under the title Template:16TeamBracket-MLS Divisional.

Founding date of MLS

The infobox, article text, and cited sources, disagree. The infobox says 1993, and cites to an MLS release, here. The article text says that MLS was formally founded in 1995, as successor to the original, and separate, 1993 entity. That's supported by a link to the opinion in the players' suit against MLS regarding the single-entity structure, here. Elsewhere MLS's own media material describes itself as founded in 1996 - link. Yet another MLS source, here, also states 1996. Which do we like? Whichever it is, I think everything should agree with itself at least. Comments welcome! JohnInDC (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The 1996 date is, of course, when the league commenced play. The 1995 date, as the date of organizing the business operations, seems to be the valid date. As noted, the 1993 date was for an earlier proposal for the league that did not play. The legal founding of the business was 1995 per the Fraser decision. No date prior to that should be used. Of course, whether or not the exact day of the year the business office was organized is important is the real question. I say it's not. The attempt to add such info to every team article is unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope others weigh in as well. Meantime there is a somewhat related discussion at Talk:D.C._United#DC_United_founding that might benefit from another person's views as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oknazevad. That has essentially been what I have been saying (writing?). Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

game balls

• 1996-2000 Mitre
• 2001-2002 Kappa
• 2003-2005 Puma
• 2006-pres Adidas

Czechia2016 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Soccer history in soccer clubs' respected cities.

Mikemor92 (talk)

I don't get the big deal of why a few editors think having existing soccer history in North America is irrelevant. I think It isn't​ up to editors that hasn't contributed in research and time in doing this. I myself haven't even planned on being here for this long as I have and I have began my journey in the military as well.

History is history. While Europe has clubs that had been existing for over Centuries, there have been various clubs in the US and Canada that had came and gone in that same time span. They are general information as well. I want to show that. To let the reader have an idea that the MLS clubs' are not the first ever clubs in the cities they play in but the latest

So why is it irrelevant then for there not to show the cities' soccer heritage then if there is one? Soccer isn't the same in North America as in Europe so it should be seen and reflected as such on here. There wasn't a problem of this for years, LA Galaxy, San Jose Earthquakes, nor the Vancouver Whitecaps where the founding date of this current incated club is wrong. These aren't vandalism posts and I don't think those few editors are informed enough if the unique History of soccer ball the US and Canada do do those decisions. Soi will revert all edits if i have too since there is no valid reason to remove content other then one's personal opinion. Thank You. Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

These articles are about specific teams, not about the soccer history in those cities. There is merit in noting a previous team's history when the current MLS club either takes its name from that past team, or is essentially a continuation, but looking at your contributions, you are adding material on completely unrelated clubs and history. If you wish to start articles on History of soccer in Atlanta, Georgia and the like, feel free - and in fact, is something I would personally encourage. You could take what you've tried to add, throw in a couple paragraphs on the current MLS clubs, and have a series of viable articles. But one thing you certainly must stop doing is edit warring on the MLS team pages. You added material, it was reverted. Your next step is to try and build consensus, not continually re-insert in the hopes of wearing out opposition. Resolute 14:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Resolute. There are articles about soccer in specific cities, such as Soccer in St. Louis, where this content is appropriate. There are also existing articles about sports generally in specific cities, such as Sports in Atlanta, where this content can go.
User:Bluhaze777: I am very concerned by your edit warring over the past three days, and your statement above that "i will revert all edits if i have too". If you continue to edit war, you risk an editor reporting your behavior. CUA 27 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No one here cooperates and I'm sick of it. Specific clubs? The section itself is history. It's only interpreted history. That is it. I don't appreciate all of you reverting edits. I don't see anyone here contributing on these articles. I don't see a problem of this and I wasn't the only one adding those eidts. I should just leave Misplaced Pages. I do not have to this. This is only stressful and a waste of time. It's people like yourselves that always makes people that actually wants to put in ideas and effort to improve articles and pages to no longer want to continue doing so. That is what I was doing. Improving. So that's it. Regardless. I joined the military earlier this year. I planned on leaving Wiki for a while but again people like yourselves likes to revert and not contribute.

Honestly you guys are just as guilty on wearing out the opposition as well because I have been worn it a lot by User:Walter Görlitz and (User talk:JohninDC) who would only do what they think is right because they must know everything as If they are omniscient.

I would have reported you guys if I have know the way to do so since it wrong to classify me as the bad guy when it's you guys not doing any different. So I will leave. This gets old fast. Go on and do whatever you guys want. I won't be here. So go and edit and make pages and articles that will never reflect the league or the actual big picture of soccer in America. Keep making MLS and Soccer in America a recent thing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to report, you're free to start a post on WP:ANI. I can warn you that you will find no joy as it is clear that consensus is against you on this point. Also, "I'll just leave if you don't let me do what I want" also will not sway anyone. Your best bet, if you insist on adding all of this, is to focus on writing/improving articles for the actual older teams themselves, and/or articles on the soccer/sport history of each city. Resolute 14:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Back to the histories

There are been opponents to including a history of "all Whitecaps", "all Timbers" and "all Sounders" teams in the Vancouver, Portland and Seattle articles. I haven't followed other "similarly named" team discussions, but there are a few others (San Jose, Montreal and Minnesota are three that come to mind) but I have to agree with the majority here: without a common name it's unusual to provide a history of the sport in the city in any other articles, even European club articles. At least when it's included there, there are direct lines from the previous teams to the current team, and the name is likely not the only issue (merging of sport clubs, name changes to avoid an embarrassing past, etc.) What we have for the most part with MLS are articles about individual franchisees in the league, where the league (likely) owns the rights to the name. The exceptions I made above can show (however tenuously) a direct connect to the previous entities. That's not the case in the most of the edits Bluhaze777 has made. A general history of the sport in Chicago, New York, etc. do not directly relate to the team. A link to the history in the see also section is all that is needed, not an new section however well written and researched it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(User talk:Resolute)

I am not here swaying no one. I am done with dealing with you assholes. Go ahead and keep preventing anyone from contributing. Make those articles as inaccurate as possible. Go ahead.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Sports and recreation good articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class football articles
• High-importance football articles
• GA-Class soccer in the United States and Canada articles
• Top-importance soccer in the United States and Canada articles
• Soccer in the United States and Canada task force articles
• WikiProject Football articles
• GA-Class sports articles
• WikiProject Sports articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles