Talk:Blake Wagner

Whitecaps/Whitecaps FC

The Whitecaps team which played in USL and USSFD2 was universally known as "Vancouver Whitecaps" in infoboxes, as per the articles for every player who played for the Whitecaps in those leagues. The new MLS Whitecaps team is shown as Whitecaps FC, to differentiate it from the USL/USSFD2 Whitecaps (in the same way we use Sounders/Sounders FC to differentiate between the two Sounders teams), so we are showing it in infoboxes as Whitecaps FC. If you want the old Whitecaps to be shown as "Vancouver Whitecaps (USSF-D2)" in infoboxes, you need to change the infobox for every player, not just Wagner as an anomoly. JonBroxton (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) and 2010 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season show Vancouver Whitecaps FC, which was the team's legal name since 2003. This confirmed in the article and at http://whitecapsfc.com/history (. "On February 24, 2003, the Whitecaps men and Breakers women were brought under a new club structure called Whitecaps Football Club (FC)"). I was at the stadium (for the season opener in 2003) when they made the announcement. I'll make the appropriate changes to the other player articles. As for Sounders v Whitecaps, the Sounders were never knows as Seattle Sounders FC until they entered the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what the legal name of the team is - that's immaterial. This is purely about infobox shorthand. 99% of the piped links to Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) simply say "Vancouver Whitecaps" as per WP:COMMONNAME, and the standard practice of not having FC/SC/AC or whatever in piped links for teams which don't have it as part of their everyday, common name. The new Whitecaps team is at Vancouver Whitecaps FC, so it makes sense to leave the FC in the piped link to that team so that there's no confusion between the teams. Having the name of the league the team played in as part of the the pipe, in general, is against the WP:FOOTY MOS, unless there is no sensible alternative - which, in this case, there is, by either having or omitting the FC. This isn't a "Whitecaps are like the Sounders" issue, despite your efforts to make it one. There's no ulterior motive here. Come on, show some common sense. JonBroxton (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not suggesting that there is an ulterior motive, but you're saying that we should use Vancouver Whitecaps/Vancouver Whitecaps FC "in the same way we use Sounders/Sounders FC to differentiate between the two Sounders teams" but the situations are not the same. It's closer to the Portland Timbers/Portland Timers situation as those two clubs had the same name in USL/USSF-D2 and in the MLS. I see that on Ryan Pore the earlier club is (incorrectly) identified as a USL franchise. Also with Kalif Alhassan, James Marcelin, Kevin Goldthwaite, Adin Brown, Steve Purdy, Mamadou Danso, and Bright Dike. Will make the change to the second division Whitcaps infoboxes later today to match that situation unless you have a better suggestion for dealing with the way the division 2 team names (Whitecaps and Timbers) should be handled. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean about having no sensible alternative. The old USL Timbers were not called Portland Timbers FC. The new MLS Timbers are not called Portland Timbers FC either, so there has to be a different, sensible way of identifying which one is which. I wasn't involved in the discussion for that, so it seems that the consensus was to add "USL" to the old Timbers, and leave the new Timbers at just "Timbers". It's technically against the naming policy, but this was one of the situations where there was no obvious alternative. There IS an alternative for the Whitecaps: leaving the old Whitecaps as just "Whitecaps", and having the new Whitecaps as "Whitecaps FC". JonBroxton (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not an alternative, it's an incorrect naming scheme as the Whitecaps where the club prior to 2003 and Whitecaps FC was the name of the club after 2003. Also, please show me where this consensus was discussed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where it was discussed. I wasn't part of the discussion, but that's clearly the consensus they came to. JonBroxton (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is just a clear to me that one editor made the change to differentiate the two. I think you need to stop making assumptions and start allowing others to speak on the topic because your opinion is clouding the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion of what? You think I have some sort of anti-Whitecaps crusade going on? Good grief man. Get over yourself. JonBroxton (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon, get over yourself. I don't think you have an anti-Whitecaps thing going on. I said that above and I'll repeat it again. You just want to impose some grand unified theory onto every club based on your experience, even when it doesn't belong. The worst part is that you usually do it without information, just like this one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this needs to be discussed WT:FOOTY? – Michael (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon added a request for the discussion to take place here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Blake Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100907040135/http://www.whitecapsfc.com:80/archive/feature02021002.aspx to http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature02021002.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100713205435/http://www.whitecapsfc.com:80/men/schedule/2010_07_14_v_Miami_FC.aspx to http://www.whitecapsfc.com/men/schedule/2010_07_14_v_Miami_FC.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)