Talk:Major League Soccer/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Team Logos

Why not include team logos next to the team names? I'm thinking, in particular, the table in the "Teams" section. Is there a concern about trademark issues here? I don't see why there would be, if it's only used to help identify the teams. Wnorton (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern would be that it makes the section longer. Sometimes I am looking for information that I'm going to copy and paste into another application and the logos just interfere with that.208.185.201.194 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Could create a Teams page with logos. Would be worth it to add a column for field surface type, either grass or FieldTurf, on the table.Donutcity (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed fair use issues with using all the team logos here. And I would note that no other comparable league article, wether North American major league or top-flight soccer league, use team logos on the page. As for a separate article, it would likely be merged anyway. oknazevad (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oknazevad makes a great point about logos and i agree. so what about field surface type on the table of teams and stadiums?Donutcity (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally ambivalent. The table's about the teams, not the stadiums. Note that it doesn't contain the capacity, either. So I don't really see the need. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Founding or Franchise

I alluded to it above, but JonBroxton once again insists that the franchises are all that matter. If you want to change the wording to founding go ahead, but the club websites indicate that the Whitecaps website indicates that they were founded in 1974 and granted a franchise for the MLS in 2009. I'm sure similar documents can be found for Montreal. Once again, if you're going to be true to the legal term, the franchises were granted in those years but they were not founded in those years. There have been fights on several Whitecaps article web pages to this end and either you have to change all of them to agree with this table or you change the table to agree with the consensus reached on those articles. It can't be both ways. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep dragging me into your arguments? By the way you continually name-drop me, anyone would think that I was the person who invented all the rules. I think what you meant to say was "the established consensus of the vast majority of the editors who work on MLS articles, via the WP:FOOTY group, insist that the franchises are all that matter". JonBroxton (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do you explain current consensus for the infoboxes in both the Whitecaps' and Impact's articles to say they were founded in 2009 and 2010 respectively? --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a Whitecaps franchise that was founded in 1974. However, it ceased operation in 1985 with the rest of the NASL. It is interesting that when I watched the Whitecaps/Toronto FC game, people were holding up scarfs that read "2011 INAUGURAL SEASON." Doesn't inaugural season mean the first season that a team played? It's interesting also that there has not been this argument with the Sounders or Timbers over the founding date of the franchise. KitHutch (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not dragging Jon into this I am simply stating that you have more than once argued for and refuse to bend on the fact that MLS teams, I won't even call them clubs, are franchisees. All history stops when the all might MLS rolls into town.

I have argued against and made changes against implying that the Whitecaps were founded in any year other than 1974 based on their history page. The senior men were granted an MLS franchise in 2009. Nothing more. They played their first MLS match in 2011. Nothing more. Inaugural means first. The women's team, the reserves, etc. remain unchanged and those are part of the football club. To suggest anything else either about the teams or about my edits is a lie. See http://whitecapsfc.com/news/2011/02/whitecaps-fc-unveil-2011-mls-regular-season-schedule "Whitecaps FC's inaugural season in MLS" and other locations. Just like you two dance around the Whitecaps' history, the press must also. They don't want to offend the MLS nor do they want to offend the PR group in the Whitecaps office.

The Timbers and Sounders have no part in the running of the Whitecaps. If you want to change their founding dates, it's up to you, but anon from Montreal and I are both confused by using the term "Found" when the teams were not founded in the year listed in the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent solution by removing the contentious column. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitely understand if others feel differently but I don't support removing the founding dates. The time of a club's inception seems to be a very significant piece of information. If these dates are so controversial for this article, why are they acceptable on the teams' respective pages? If standing consensus for these years is good enough there, it should be good enough here. If the issue stems from disagreeing with one or two dates, that separate issue should be taken up on the team's talk page and not interfere with the legitimacy of the founding column in general. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not acceptable on the article pages. They are a compromise. They are understood as the dates the franchise is granted, at least for the Whitecaps. There isn't an Infobox MLS soccer team template so we use the Infobox football club. If you want, I can go into the existing template, add a parameter for MLS that will change the label related to the founded parameter to read "Franchise Granted" for MLS clubs. That would then deal with this issue in the correct way since, as we discussed above, the teams are just franchises not clubs. In the best case, the Whitecaps FC were founded in 2003 and according to their web site, they trace their roots to 1974. Others would disagree, but that's the argument from the anon from Montreal as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that some founding dates could be tweaked a little more but right now the consensus from evidence presented in other talk pages is these are founding dates. The arguments I've read against your point of view are not compromising with you. You may personally say they are understood as merely dates a franchise was granted but I don't see anyone agreeing with this opinion. Assuming these dates are "understood" to be a compromise, there's no reason such an understanding from you couldn't exist here. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't add founding date back in as it's an outright lie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Other points-of-view other than your own can be considered. No one is trying to spread false information or deceive people. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperLiga on team pages

The North American SuperLiga was offically cancelled in March after just 4 tournaments, in part because of the reformatting of the CONCACAF Champions League out of the Champions Cup. Most teams have their participation (or more commonly, lack of participation) with the SuperLiga noted in their "Year-by-year" subsections. Because of its limited impact as a tournament, I removed it from the table over at D.C. United, but it was restored with the suggestion that we keep it because its "on all other team's pages", which is mostly true. I'm curious if we can start a discussion as to when it would be appropriate to remove this (or similar tournaments) from team pages. I can see how the New England Revolution would want to keep it, since they were the only MLS team to win, but for most others its likely extraneous.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with removal. That we should have an entire additional column for a tournament that drew almost no interest and was disbanded after four years, when the original MLS team's are now 15 years old seem excessive and pointless. It would just look terrible, a long column with only four meaningful cells. And they're still listing the qualifications for this year's non existent event. Just get rid of them. oknazevad (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

20th MLS team?

The Charleston Battery soccer team was predicted to join MLS, but according to research by jumping into the link: they aren't part of Major League Soccer. But references of them (the Battery) exists in the parody Uncyclopedia web site. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/South_Carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.26.168 (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll use the MLS as our source thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Battery was probably aborted or inable to join the MLS, because the league is expected to contract or reduce the number of teams in the 2012 season. Same dilemma in all the other pro sports leagues in North America (the NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL). 71.102.26.168 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? oknazevad (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is just a troll. I wouldn't respond. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy Williams?

In the "games played" box (at the very bottom), Canadian "Andy Williams" redirects to "American singer Andy Williams" (83 years old), which cannot be right :). Perhaps Andy Williams (Canadian footballer) doesn't have a Wikipedia page or I just can't seem to find it.--Oleg Morgan (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to the person who made the required changes! :) --Oleg Morgan 00:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

MLS is a US league, so a Canadian domestic cup is not an MLS domestic cup

archive 5 in the discussion has the full details of the back and forth about establishing that MLS is a US league, not a Canadian league, but here are the highlights:

• the CSA does not and can not make any decisions about the organization and running of MLS. the USSF does.

• the CSA does not collect dues from the league. the USSF does.

• the USSF is the sole governing body.

• Canadian teams can not qualify for CCCL by winning MLS cup as US teams can. they can only gain enterance through the Canadian championship.

• Major League Soccer, L.L.C. is incorporated in the state of NY as a United States corporation with its headquarters located at 420 5th Ave. New York, NY 10018. It does not have any articles of incorporation in Canada, nor does it exist on any level as a Canadian corporation.

• FIFA recognizes MLS as a US league. Approval was sought by the USSF from FIFA, to allow a Canadian team to join the US league, which was granted. At no time was authorization sought, nor granted, to have a bi-national league.

• MLS is not, has never been, and will never be a Canadian league in part or in whole.

we find a similiar situation in Major League Baseball. we also see other leagues globally include a foreign team or two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_clubs_playing_in_the_league_of_another_country

as such, a Canadian domestic cup is not a US domestic cup, so is not an MLS domestic cup.--Triplehelix76 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a domestic cup that MLS teams are eligible for. That, to me, warrants an infobox mention. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mexico has regularly competed in Copa America. that does not make Copa America worthy of mention in the Mexico national team info box as it is not their regional competition. only the canadian teams compete in the canadian cup. those Canadian teams can't qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League through winning MLS like US teams can, and they cannot compete in the US Open cup. it is a foreign countries domestic cup and is incorrect to include.--Triplehelix76 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's incorrect to say that the CSA has nothing to do with MLS. According to the mlssoccer.com website, the CSA assigns referees for Canadian home games. I'll look up the reference when I get the time. Also, the domestic cup section is about domestic cups that MLS teams are eligible for. Therefore, the Canadian Championship should be listed. All of its participants are Canadian teams in US leagues. No Canadian Championship teams play in a CSA sanctioned league. KitHutch (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, i would like to see it documented that the CSA supplies ref's for MLS league games. i disagree with your interpretation of what the domestic cup section is. it seems the most logical interpretation is the domestic cup of the country the league is in, in which the teams participate.--72.224.158.59 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked, here it is: "REFEREES:All referees in MLS are either USSF (United States Soccer Federation) or CSA (Canadian Soccer Association) National Referees. All MLS games played in the US will be assigned by USSF and all games played in Canada will be assigned by CSA." That is from [1] KitHutch (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you. i wasn't aware of that, and removed it from above. i don't believe it makes the canadian domestic competition an MLS domestic cup, but appreciate the correction.Triplehelix76 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to in Archive 5 actually had nothing to do with listing the Canadian Championship in the infobox. It was pretty much a debate on how to word the opening paragraph. In fact, no body disputes that MLS is an American (and not a Canadian) league. However this does not take away from the reality that because aspects Canadian soccer are apart of the league, they are worth mentioning. Already in the infobox, we list the Canadian soccer pyramid, Canadian television networks, and Canada itself. Because there is no rule saying we cannot list the Canadian Championship, the only thing that could hold back listing it is a consensus. And right now, that is not the consensus. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackbox makes a strong argument. Consistency within the infobox would seem to dictate that the Canadian Championship be included. I think at the very least it should be included with an explanatory ref/note. DemonJuice (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I need to add that I understand the difference. American sides can qualify directly for the USOC through league play while Canadian sides can't qualify for the CC through league play. That is an important distinction. However, there is no current league where a Canadian side can qualify for the CC so where would an interested reader be clued in to the existence of that tournament? I think the infobox (with a note if deemed necessary) is an ideal location, especially for the casual reader. DemonJuice (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you imagining this note would need to say? --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be a very simple "ref group=" or "Template:ref label" that says something like: "Major League Soccer contains teams from both the United States and Canada. As such, each team is eligible for its respective domestic cup." Maybe a sentence explaining the qualification difference. If they want more info than that it should be in the prose of each article. DemonJuice (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, i am familiar with the archive discussion, and did not state it was about the info box, it was just the jump off point for what i see as the logical decision to exclude a foreign countries domestic cup. i am not familiar with a single other leagues wiki entry that contains the domestic cup of foreign countries that have representative teams in their league. if you want consistency, the overwhelmingly consistent format would be that as found across the rest of wikipedia. additionally the only reason the other canadian information is in the info box, is because canadians want to take part ownership of the league. again, looking at other leagues infobox's, we don't see this information, so i think the most consistent, and correct, would be to eliminate it from the MLS box as well. the reality is i know that the canadian fans will fight tooth and nail against the inaccuracies, so i've chosen my battles.Triplehelix76 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find many differences between Major League Soccer articles and the rest of the world's football league articles. In general, you'll find many differences between North American sports leagues and their counterparts elsewhere. All of which should be reflected in the articles. Entirely appropriate that MLS articles differ from other league's articles in my opinion. And isn't the encyclopedia here to inform readers. Especially those that may be deficient in knowledge about the subject? Why hide pertinent information because of a technicality? DemonJuice (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

i understand what your saying, and there are many inconsistencies arcross wikipedia. my understanding is that the community generally strives to minimize these inconsistencies, and present information in a reliable, repeatable, unified fashion. since we've already established the MLS is a USA league, not a US/Canadian league, can i ask what would justify including Canadian broadcasters but not the other foreign broadcasters?Triplehelix76 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Because, for a Whitecaps or Toronto game, the Canadian broadcaster is not a foreign broadcaster. The National Hockey League is headquartered in New York City, (and as an unincorporated association, has no articles of incorporation anywhere) but no one would argue that the Canadian broadcasters are "foreign". Our article on Major League Baseball (which only has 1 Canadian team) reports the nationwide broadcast of Toronto Blue Jays games on Rogers Sportsnet in the MLB on television section, not the International broadcasting section. Canadian broadcasting for Canadian teams is not foreign broadcasting. Gentgeen (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you gentgeen. with your examples, while i don't agree with the displayed information, i can accept that while not consistent with global wiki formats, there is a consistency within United States major league formats. is there anything analogous to the domestic canandian cup in hockey and/or baseball? i also don't know how similar the NHL is as an example, as it was founded in Canada, and while US participation and finances now dominate the league, it was, (and possibly is? i'm not familiar) a Canadian league, where MLS has never been.Triplehelix76 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

MLS 2012 - Montreal Impact

With the inclusion of Montreal Impact in 2012-13, does it mean that the Conferences will have to be rejigged? Joshuaselig (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll remind you that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I realise that, I was wondering whether the tables for the conferences will have to be rejigged again with the inclusion of Montreal Impact as does it not leave one of them unbalanced? 195.188.152.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Something will have to happen as there will be 19 teams. What will happen is not yet known. No sense in worrying about it until we know. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FORUM.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

History of Major League Soccer

What are people's thoughts on a History of Major League Soccer article? I'd imagine the present History section and some portions of the Organization section be moved entirely to the new article with an abbreviated history here on the main page. That'd free the new article up for further expansion without the worry of it getting unnecessarily long. And frankly, I'd be happy to see specific portions of the Expansion of MLS page merging into this new one as well. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Joining it with the expansion article is a great idea. Fewer, higher quality articles is always a good idea. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Division 1 Soccer Leagues in the United States

For some time now, the box at the bottom of the page has claimed the APSL/A-League was the US' division 1 league prior to the MLS formation. However, to my knowledge, the only FIFA sanctioned division 1 leagues ever to exist in this country were the NASL and MLS. The APSL and the MISL were de facto top leagues (as division 2) but they were never division 1 leagues. I'm making the change but thought I'd bring it up here because there could be objections. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Two issues. First is that FIFA doesn't sanction leagues, the federations do. Second is that even if FIFA did sanction the leagues defacto D1 is still D1 and worthy of mention. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct, USSF sanctioned D1 leagues (just mixing up the fact FIFA still approves of a league's official status). But the problem is the box clearly states it is referring to Division 1 but has been including Division 2 teams. The confusion lies in calling a league D1 versus calling it top tier. Saying something is the "de facto D1 league" is confusing as "Division 1" implies something very specific. However a D2 league can definitely be the de facto top level if the D1 slot is vacant (e.g. the years between NASL and MLS). But this D2 league is most definitely not D1 - as the box states - and all the specifics that being a first division implies. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blackbox here. If the time between the folding of the NASL and the launch of MLS is to be noted, we should rename the succession box to call it "top tier" or something of that sort. It is factually incorrect to call the A-League/APSL "Division 1", which has a particular definition that that it never met.oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the original MISL was sanctioned by USSF. I'll look up the reference when I get the chance. KitHutch (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Match vs. Game

Before this gets blown out of proportion, I want to bring it up here. First of all, this is strictly an issue of writing style and not content so I hope no one feels overly personal about this. But there is an acceptable way to deal with it. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." This is similar to the point I made back in March about Club vs. Franchise. Unless the meaning or grammar of the text is being called in to question, it is at the discretion of the original editor how to word the sentences they write. Other editors should not override this decision just because to them it doesn't feel right.

The fact is the world "match" is used to describe soccer games all over this country. American play-by-play and sports commentators use this terminology as do American writers and journalists. If U.S. English dictionaries say this is an appropriate term to use, then it is not up to others to say it can not be. Personally I would probably use both the words "match" and "game" intermittently if I were typing a paragraph for the sake of variety. It can be tedious to use the same word over and over again in one's writing. --Blackbox77 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports announcers and reporters tend to lean towards "game" but will use the term match in some cases. It would be better to remain consistent within the article though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Game" is far more common in American English among the general usage. It's more of a small community that actually uses "match".

Just as a side note, there were other issues related to ENGVAR that were fixed as part of that edit. Namely, the use of definite articles before team names. There are rare exceptions (D.C. United comes to mind), which are usually for the handful of teams without plural noun nicknames as part of the teams' full names. But for most teams using "the" is correct.oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I too would lean toward "game" as being the preferred term. It's what is used in North American sports and used in the majority of articles I've read about MLS. Match is used too, but it is not as common, and in the interest of uniformity game should be the term used. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ENGVAR. Unlike "soccer" vs "football" where "football" is technically never correct American English, "match" is real, bonafide American English. I hear "match" on American TV, read it in American articles, see it used by American teams and leagues, and hear it in my own community that I would describe as far removed from any hotbed of American soccer. If people want to claim it is less common, well, that's fine but cite an authoritative source first. But even then it's irrelevant because my source is an American dictionary and Wikipedia makes no restrictions on vocabulary within the same variation of English. And this brings me back to the original and more important point that no body is discussing: per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, editors should not change another editor's correct entry simply because they'd like to see the style suite their own personal preference. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And, as I said above, there were other, proper ENGVAR reasons for the edit. So it wasn't just changing for the sake of change, it was to correct the grammar in American English. The switch from "match" to "game" was a throw in, and one that is really correct.

Not the sort of subtlety that would necessarily be picked up by a dictionary, but in American English "match" is essentially reserved for one-on-one competition. Tennis, boxing and chess have matches. The use of "match" for a team sport is a Britishism that has bled over somewhat because of the EPL even in American coverage. So it's not entirely incorrect, but it's not really standard in American English. oknazevad (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A "Britishism"? Are you sure that it didn't disappear from American usage? It's probably more prevalent in Canada because of British and French influence (match de hockey, etc.) so I shouldn't comment aside from saying that the Vancouver media will refer to both "game" and "match" to refer to the Whitecaps events, sometimes interchanging them within the same broadcast or report. This is despite making reference to "shut-out" rather than clean-sheet, soccer shoes or cleats rather than boots, goalies rather than keepers, and other common British terms. Watching Seattle TV, they almost never make reference to matches. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing further, Canadian broadcasts of EPL, UEFA Champions League, and International matches are generally done by British announcers in Canada so our fans more exposure to Britishisms however there is a Canadian-based anchor desk. The exception to this rule is Canadian international matches and MLS matches. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just what I'm talking about. The commonality of British announcers, even in American coverage, has lead to some bleed over in terms. Similarly the moderately common use of "pitch" instead of "field" in America. Conversely, another example of "match" referring to one-on-one competition popped into my head: golf. Specifically the events that are single elimination head-to-head tournaments are known as "match play", versus the more common "stroke play". oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not discussing your other edits. There were a number corrections you made that were needed. But when you start claiming this isn't "the sort of subtlety" a dictionary can pick up on and give your own opinion of how to define the word, I'll point you in the direction of three definitions all specifically including teams. [2] [3] [4] Even our fellow editors at Wiktionary concur. [5] (I've even heard or read of volleyball and lacrosse matches.) I'm not saying "match" is equally used or more prevalent but it is definitely not wrong. It is correct American English in every sense. You need to prove your claims if you state them with authority. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Roster format

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Roster format regarding a proposed change to all club roster pages that would honour WP:MOSFLAG. Please see the discussion started there and the original discussion at Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#New squad format for Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

League Template

What are people's thoughts on the current state of the league template at the bottom of most MLS pages? I feel like I tried to do something similar a few years ago and it got met with some backlash.

Current state:

Previous state:

--Blackbox77 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would benefit from the league articles on the bottom being categorized, but either the current format or the previous one are pretty decent. --Fifty7 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks more standard and less like eye candy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the current version having a cleaner organization of teams and sharing the style set by other major US sports league templates. But I also like the older version for being less cluttered, highlighting individual seasons, and following the Wikipedia soccer template format. I'd agree the current definitely can be accused of being eye candy. Red and blue aren't even MLS conference colors. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note incorrect

I have no problem with MLS being described as a US league with some teams based in Canada. However, the note saying that the CSA has no involvement in MLS is incorrect. According to [6], "All referees in MLS are either USSF (United States Soccer Federation) or CSA (Canadian Soccer Association) National Referees. All MLS games played in the United States will be assigned by USSF and all games played in Canada will be assigned by CSA." KitHutch (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. I think the meaning is that CSA doesn't have any responsibilities in sanctioning the teams. How to change the note? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The change should be the note totally being removed. I'm going to delete it but if someone feels this is too bold, feel free to revert and discuss further. Aside from the note being 100% factually wrong, does anyone have any problems with the article's lead? The only thing controversial that gets brought up now and then is what "based in the United States" implies. To some people, it degrades the importance of Canadian involvement. But MLS itself[7] as well as many other authorities in the sport describe it as being a United States league. Canadian soccer is incredibly important to MLS but it does not define its identity beyond it being an American league that happens to have some Canadian teams (and refs). Somewhere under the "Organization" section, the CSA should be mentioned with the link KitHutch provided. Canadian soccer should get its fair shake but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It may have been too bold, but the lede has been acceptable until Spinerod added the note the other day. Let's see if he has a comment on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the intent of "no CSA involvement" is in reference to the league itself. Yes, Canadian teams have shown themselves to be valuable assets to the league, but beyond providing refs for games in Canada, the CSA is not involved in anyway to my knowledge, in the organization or running of the league in the way the USSF is. I think these distinctions are important, mostly stemming from my time on soccer forums, where there seems to be a huge amount of confusion about this, specifically amongst Canadian posters. I'm not going to add it in, but I think further discussion on how to address the designation of the influence or lack of the USSF and CSA exert is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplehelix76 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism" in re: Playoff Structure

Given that the Playoff Structure has changed for this year, should the criticisms about it be removed, or reworded to explain to former criticism? Achowat (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-written but not removed. The problem is not the structure of the playoffs but rather their existence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not what the article currently says. The Arguments brough up in regards to the Cup playoffs are the West/East crossover and the Playoffs reducing the importance of the regular season. Do you have a source that there is significant criticism on the idea of playoffs at all? Achowat (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick explanation of why I removed "and creation of unbalanced scheduling" from the wording:

1. MLS has had 14 seasons of unbalanced schedule in the 16 seasons proceeding this season, so there is nothing "created" about this unbalanced schedule.
2. The unbalanced schedule is not why they stopped using the cross-over wildcards, or at least, it was not the deciding factor. For 2007 and 2008, they had the cross-over wild cards and an unbalanced schedule.

All in all, it is enough to say that the playoff format was changed in 2012 to eliminate the cross-over wildcard spots. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick explanation of why I restored it: last season it was balanced and so they're creating an unbalanced schedule again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be some comment put in about the schedule (balanced or not; I'm sure there's verifiable criticism to be found, but Bob L. Head is right, the way the sentence reads with that included would lead most readers to assume the norm had been Balanced Scheduling. Achowat (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As an example, here's the quote included in the MLS announcement of the change:

“The MLS Cup Playoff format in 2012 gives increased reward to clubs that fare well in the regular season and removes the possibility of clubs winning the opposite conference championship”[8]

I think it is fair to include that they eliminated the cross-over wildcard seeding in 2012, but not that it was because of the change back to the unbalanced schedule. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Major League Soccer on television

Come pick apart Major League Soccer on television and help expand if you'd like. --Blackbox77 (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fraser v. Major League Soccer

Trying to continue with creating more MLS-relevant articles such as the MLS on TV page. This one is Fraser v. Major League Soccer, the antitrust lawsuit that saw MLS successfully defend itself in court with a single-entity defense. Come help edit and expand this one too! --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of this case, the History and Organization sections on this page could definitely stand to mention Fraser. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

This message is being posted to inform editors that there currently is a discussion at Talk:2012 Major League Soccer season inclusion of single results table as opposed to the only the eastern and western conference tables. Please discuss there, not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over the phrase "based in" located in the lede

I have taken the term to mean "headquartered in" and it appears that this is the common understanding of the term. However it seems some editors have recently interpreted it to mean "with teams situated in". Perhaps we can work on a new lede instead of edit warring over it.

Major League Soccer (MLS) is a professional soccer league that is sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer) and whose operations are are based in the United States.

The lede then goes on to describe the teams and where they're distributed. This doesn't address the vagaries of the league: each team is part owner of the league and each team is a franchise of it as well. So technically, with three Canadian teams, it is also based in Canada. However, since the Canadian Soccer Association does not sanction the league, and has nothing to do with its operations (save for requesting dates when the teams based in Canada can participate in the Canadian championships) it would be misleading and otherwise WP:UNDUE to have Canada in the lede. Sorry is this was rambling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Really it's not an issue of whether the league is single-entity or not; it's all about how we personally connotate our words. I once had an English professor that liked to say there is no such thing as a true synonym...otherwise what's the point of having so many words? In this case, the league is definitely headquartered (literally meaning it's main offices are in NY, NY, USA) in the United States. One could conclude that because of this, the league is specifically based in the US as well. But it is just as equally correct to state the league is in general based in the US and Canada since that wholly defines where it operates. So what are we trying to say here? I think for some editors, it's really important to communicate that MLS is an American league (USSF sanctioning, etc.) while others find it important to make immediately clear that the league spans two countries. Really they are two very different but important points. I personally like the lede as is because it addresses both in the first two sentences: "based in United States" (defining it as American) followed by a quick outline of where the teams reside. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's true, isn't mentioning where it's based giving undue weight to where Don Garber's office is. I propose striking the line completely. Leaving us with something like "MLS is a league sanctioned by USSF. It has 16 teams in USA and 3 in Canada". Achowat (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an acceptable solution, however I would note that saying "based" in the context of a sports league is usually referring to where the league has teams. Headquartered is the word usually used to indicate where the home office is. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I performed a brief survey of the six main leagues in Europe. The first three, Premier League, La Liga, and Fußball-Bundesliga have the following format:

The {league name} is the top of the {country's football system}. Contested by {number of clubs} clubs. {Interesting aside here is that the Premier League article here mentions that the member clubs act as shareholders.} Most games are played on Saturdays and Sundays, with a few games played during weekday evenings.

The next three leagues, Serie A, Primeira Liga, Ligue 1 have similar elements but focus on slightly different things.

With respect to that, we could reformulate the lede paragraph here as

Major League Soccer (MLS) is a professional soccer league, sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer), represents† the top tier of both the American and Canadian soccer pyramids. The league is composed of 19 teams — 16 in the U.S. and 3 in Canada. The member clubs act as shareholders in the league. Clubs are granted franchises in the league which and there is no relegation from or promotion to the league. Most games are played Friday through Sunday, with a few games played during weekday evenings.

†It only represents because it's not sanctioned by CSA but holds that position de facto.

How does this feel? It avoids the "based in" phrase entirely but is clear about both sanctioning and where the teams are based, placing that material early. It also follows the format of the other major European leagues so readers will not feel as though they've landed on another planet. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Love it, support the Walter solution. Achowat (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not read the phrase "based in the United States" as a reference to where the league headquarters are but instead as a way of defining MLS as an American league. But I lean more towards Djasso's interpretation than revamping the lede entirely. What about...

Major League Soccer (MLS) is an American professional soccer league based in the United States and Canada. Sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer), the league is composed of 19 teams including 16 in the U.S. and 3 in Canada. MLS represents the top tier of both the American and Canadian soccer pyramids.

Walter, I'm not a fan of the last 3 sentences at the end of your proposal. It just feels like a lot of lesser details that is either already in the second paragraph or would more appropriately fit in the main body of the article. --Blackbox77 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all a fan of your offer. It's not an American professional soccer league, and as we have seen, the problem is the term "based in", which your version simply perpetuates.

As for my last three sentences, the last one can go, but the other two are very accurate and since similar sentences exist in other league articles, it's consistent. The sentences in the lede should be expanded in the article, and it appears that they currently are, but those sections could be expanded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, honestly I'm not really in love with my proposal either but that's only because I'm really in favor of the current opening lines. The term "based in" does not have to be controversial if we can accept the phrase has a broad meaning. But about your additional points, the only article the shareholder talk is consistent with is the Premier League page. None of the other European leagues you linked to have any mention of league governance. Besides, with MLS you have it backwards – member clubs don't act as shareholders in the league, the clubs are owned and (technically) controlled by the league. Your version implies teams have a degree of independence like clubs other in other leagues when in our case the league and the clubs are legally one-in-the-same. --Blackbox77 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, in part. The league owns the teams and the teams all vote on league matters. We should strike it then. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not 100% accurate. The 18 shareholders of MLS Inc (a corporation who maintain a legal address in New York City) and each of those shareholders are entitled to operate an MLS team in the market. Achowat (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Have we agreed on a new lede?

Major League Soccer (MLS) is a professional soccer league, sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer), represents the top tier of both the American and Canadian soccer pyramids. The league is composed of 19 teams — 16 in the U.S. and 3 in Canada. There is no promotion to or relegation from the league.

This is my new proposal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That solution is acceptable. Achowat (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you remove the parenthetical phrase in the 1st sentence, the grammar is off. My tweak...

Major League Soccer (MLS) is a professional soccer league representing the sport's highest level in the United States and Canada. Sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer), the league is composed of 19 teams — 16 in the U.S. and 3 in Canada.

I would suggest pulling the pro/rel line from the first paragraph as the subject of pro/rel is not very important in the world of MLS. Maybe the second paragraph's third sentence could be something like "The league's closed system opperates with no promotion or relegation." That seems like an appropriate spot to get into the details of how the MLS system works. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not even sure we need to mention that it is sanctioned by the USSF in the lead. Of course it should be mentioned in the article but I would say its really not that important to be in the lead. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point sounds reasonable. It could be brought down to the 2nd paragraph. But maybe at that point the 1st paragraph becomes so sparse the 2 should just be merged. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree that the sanctioning body should not be mentioned. It's vital to the nature of the league. Similarly, the lack of promotion and relegation make it unique in terms of the sport in the world although it's absolutely normal in terms of North American leagues. We have to recognize that North American readers are not the only ones who will view this article. As more European players arrive in the league, it will garner attention from curious international fans. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. But do you really believe it's one of the top 2 or 3 most important things to tell a reader right off the bat? What about what I suggested just bringing it down a bit? It just feels like the undue weight even with the reasons you asserted. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Sanctioning and Pro/rel aren't "big" enough for the lede. What are the 4 most important things about MLS? If you ask anyone coming from a Footballing background, they'd say 1. Plays soccer; 2. USSF D1; 3. Some teams in Canada; 4. No pro/rel. The lack of pro/rel gets maybe 900 blog posts written about it annually. People clearly care, and we shouldn't hide that information. Achowat (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that, to me #2 is probably one of the least important things to most people who are going to read this article. I doubt the majority of people who read this article are even going to be aware that the MSL would be sanctioned by anyone being they are the top dog league in NA and more importantly, very few people are likely to care. Yes its important to tell it to them eventually somewhere in the article, but is it important enough to tell it to them before everything else? I doubt it. Remember this article isn't just for people who are hardcore soccer fans. It is also for people who know nothing about soccer. And for those people, who the league is sanctioned by is probably one of the least important things in the article. Remember when you write an article you are supposed to write it for the people who know nothing about the subject, not for those who do. As for the lack of pro/rel. It should also be mentioned, but probably in the second paragraph. Not in the first one. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to "hide" it. I made a suggesting a couple of replies up concerning pro/rel and people either just don't want to respond to it or they think it's a bad idea. Coming from a "footballing background," I would not say the issue of pro/rel defines the league so much that we have to lay it on readers in the first few sentences. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not about what North Americans thing about promotion and relegation, it's just a common feature in the other league articles. How does a team get to the first division is explained the articles of the six mentioned above, which is why we should mention it. If not in the lede paragraph, at least in the lede somewhere if not the article, which at present time isn't discussed at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

And for those who missed it, the lede was updated to reflect the agreed-upon material and Blackbox77 made an improvement to it already. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not much discussion right now. I'm going to make a bold edit to see if it sparks any debate. Also, I'm removing the team numbers next to the countries in the infobox. Going through List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country, it doesn't seem like other multi-country league articles tend to do that. --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

While maybe not done with other soccer leagues, it is done with the other major cross-border pro sports leagues of the US & Canada (the NHL, NBA and MLB, to be exact), as well as with the minors. Subsequently, it is entirely appropriate to include such an infobox breakdown here as MLS is quite comparable to those leagues. To that end I reverted that deletion. oknazevad (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with oknazevad. Have to keep in mind this there are more than just soccer articles it would be matched with. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

An anon just changed the opening sentence again so I thought I'd clarify the agreed-upon edit and include the copy here:

Major League Soccer (MLS) is a professional soccer league representing the sport's highest level in the United States and Canada.

Adding "United States" before "a professional" is also grammatically incorrect. One would add "American" there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"MLS" v. "the MLS"

Another editor and I are having a disagreement on the talk page on the Chivas USA article and as I made my last comment, I thought the topic would be more properly hashed out on the main MLS article's talk page because it might get a wider audience and is an issue of wider interest than just as to Chivas USA.

The sentence that sparked the discussion relates to their stadium and reads as follows (footnote omitted and punctuation adjusted for grammatical reasons): "Built in 2003 as the home stadium for Los Angeles Galaxy, the 'HDC' is a 27,000-seat soccer-specific stadium, the second of its kind in the MLS, but has hosted other sports such as rugby and football."

I revised the sentence by deleting the article "the" prior to the initialism "MLS" because "MLS" does not take an article. It's akin to "MLB," referring to Major League Baseball. You don't say "the Major League Soccer," so you don't say "the MLS." Another editor undid the revision with the edit summary, "In North America you do. We also say 'the NFL', 'the NBA', 'the NHL', but oddly not 'the MLB'." Following further disagreement, it's been the subject of a discussion involving the two of us on the talk page there, but upon reflection I thought it worthy of wider discussion.

My thoughts are as follows: First, according to just about every major style guide, you only use "the" before an initialism when it's grammatically part of the name, as it would be incongruous to omit it there. Thus, "the National Football League" becomes "the NFL." The same goes for the NBA and the NHL. We don't say "the MLB" because it's wrong—we also don't say "the Major League Baseball" except when it's used as part of a longer construct like "the Major League Baseball record for consecutive games played is 2,632." (In the latter case, the name is being used as an adjective, so it's a different scenario.) The pro soccer league is called "Major League Soccer" without a leading "the" and the correct form therefore follows the example of "MLB." As the Chicago Manual of Style's online FAQ states, "use 'the' unless the abbreviation is used as an adjective or unless the abbreviation spelled out wouldn’t take a definite article." (Source: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations.html ) In this case, the abbreviation "MLS," when spelled out, wouldn't take a definite article unless it were being used as an adjective ("the Major League Soccer record book" or whatever).

The other editor cited a number of media sources that use "the MLS," although five of them are British sources and thus should not be considered relevant for a North American soccer league. In-house style does not and cannot control for "standard usage," though, because sometimes it's flat-out incorrect. For example, the Washington Post stylebook requires reporters and editors to refer to a particular British political party formerly led by Tony Blair as the "Labor Party" (with a capital "P" denoting a proper name). Obviously, that's completely wrong. The name is "Labour Party" and it's a proper noun; regardless of what one's stylebook says, it's wrong to Americanize the spelling unless the reference were generic (say, "Tony Blair attended a conference of world Labor Party leaders"), much as it's inaccurate for the Brits to refer to the Twin Towers in New York as the "World Trade Centre." In other words, media outlets have their own peculiar rules for doing things the way they do them and their stylebooks demonstrably contain inaccuracies. Media usage is therefore of questionable controlling value.

I do see the usage "the MLS" (by itself, as opposed to as an adjective) appears TWO times in this lead Major League Soccer article. I don't want to take the time to count the number of times it appears as simply "MLS," but a quick review reveals it's far more. In addition, the league's own usage does not use the "the."

Finally, if you advocate "the MLS," then you should also advocate the form "the United" when referring to D.C. United and omitting the "D.C." part of the name. Some media types persist in doing this; I also know of one soccer fan who does it with the specific intent of annoying people. I recall for many years D.C. United press releases always ended with a paragraph headed "Note:" asking media outlets not to say "the United." It's decidedly non-standard and weird. But if you advocate "the MLS" simply because some media sources use it, then presumably you ought to do the same with "the United."

In the great scheme of things, is it a "Big Deal"? No, of course not. If we were to engage in an edit war it'd surely qualify for that list of "lame edit wars" because it's over a three-letter word in a single sentence in a single article. On the other hand, it's an issue that's likely to come up over and over again, so I thought it worthy of hashing it out. 1995hoo (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"The United" is not used in media. At least I have shown that "the MLS" is commonly used, and the fact that five are British shows that they, who invented the language, are using it correctly. Discounting the sources because they're not North American is xenophobic at best.

I agree that we should be consistent and would have no problems removing the definite article before the initialism.

Finally, the fact that "the MLB" isn't common is simply ignorant since "the National League" and "the American League" are used and that entire point is simply a distraction.

I would argue that the correct location for this discussion is not on this article page but on the football project page. I'll let them know. I suspect that a few editors there will take exception to the idea that the British can't speak English correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous of you (and it certainly violates WP:GF) to accuse me of saying the Brits can't speak English correctly. I never said that. What I said is that British media are not relevant in determining the proper form for a North American article. I believe WP:TIES is the relevant policy here: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." In this case, articles about MLS and MLS teams have very strong ties to the United States and less-strong ties to Canada (I say "less strong" simply because only three of the 19 teams are based in Canada). I also believe that WP:CONSISTENCY counsels that it ought to be one way or the other. 1995hoo (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an open and closed case of WP:MOSVAR. I would suggest to whomsoever is even considering objecting to this they they've picked an extraordinarily silly hill to die upon. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not a MOSVAR issue. American English tends to add, not remove, definite articles. See Comparison of American and British English, which is what makes this so odd. And if all the cases were simply British English, it could be dismissed. It's used by both North American and British sources.

Also, I don't disagree that the definite article shouldn't be removed, but we should reflect common usage rather than set it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's a MOSVAR case. It is quite obvious that the primary difference between sources which use the definite article and sources which do not is a geographical one (whether universal or not). Per MOS:TIES, this plainly favours the conventions of the local sources, as quite clearly provided by 1995hoo. That is literally the end of the debate when it comes to articles such as Chivas USA. In cases where MOS:TIES does not apply, the waters are slightly muddier, but that is categorically not a licence to war over it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of a way to do some kind of quantitative assessment as to "common usage" but I'm at a loss for how to do it. That is to say, in some cases you can do a Google or Bing search for the usages in question and then use the results as partial evidence. That method was one of the ones used in discussing whether the word "Cardinal" should go in the middle or before the name of a Catholic prelate ("Donald Cardinal Wuerl" versus "Cardinal Donald Wuerl," for example)—in that case, you just search for each phrase. In this particular case, you can't do that because searching for "MLS" versus "the MLS" doesn't work. The former search results will all include the latter unless there is some way to force Google or Bing or whatever to search along the lines of "MLS not within three words of 'the.'" (I don't know if they can do that sort of search, but even if they could, it would still be problematic because it would exclude articles that say, for example, "MLS was founded in 1996. The MLS attendance record was set blah blah blah." An article of that sort should go in the "no 'the'" column.)

In other words, I'm willing to discuss the issue of "common usage," but I don't think Walter Görlitz has established that "the MLS" is indeed the common usage as he appears to be suggesting. Yes, it might be a common usage, but I don't believe that means it's incorrect to revise "the MLS" to "MLS" in a sentence of the sort cited in my original comment. 1995hoo (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, one other thought: I don't view this as being purely a MOSVAR issue. My original revision in the Chivas USA article was based solely on it being a grammar issue. As I said before, you don't use "the" with an initialism when it's not also used with the full name (thus, "the National Football League" becomes "the NFL," while "Major League Soccer" becomes simply "MLS"; to cite Walter Görlitz's two attempted rebuttal names, "the National League" becomes "the NL" and "the American League" becomes "the AL," but "Major League Baseball" becomes simply "MLB").

My reference to the policies on the MOSVAR issue were intended to relate to Walter Görlitz's citation of British media articles as purportedly proving that "the MLS" is the standard form. I simply expressed the opinion that British articles cannot be considered relevant for establishing the "common usage" when the organization in question (a pro soccer league) is North American, and I expressed that opinion especially because of his edit summary that claimed to represent proper North American usage (see my original comment above, which quotes his edit summary where he said "in North America" it's correct to say "the MLS").

I certainly find the argument that "the British invented the language and therefore they know what's correct" to be an absolute irrelevancy. I don't want to assume bad faith, so I won't call it disingenuous. 1995hoo (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not an ENGVAR case, but you're missing the whole discussion so I'll copy the two North American sources I found here

• http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/scoring-crisis-in-the-mls/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/report-mls-team-queens-article-1.1329966

I used https://www.google.ca/search?q="The+MLS"+-listing to find these (-listing because MLS in Canada is also the name of the multiple listing service, which is about as popular, to Google, as Major League Soccer).

And rather than provide more from that list, I'll say that if consensus exists to change, I'm not opposed to the change, as long as we're consistent. I have stated that I agree that not using a definite article is stylistically correct, but it's not the common usage. At the leagues official website, I never found an instance of them using the definite article before MLS, except where MLS was being used as an adjective such as "the MLS Award..." or similar.

My point is that this has reached a consensus of silence and we need to create an actual consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely clear that "MLS" (without "the") is the common usage in the United States. I've seen UK sources use "the MLS", but I can't speak to common usage there. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me say that I've never disputed that there are indeed some (may I emphasize the word "some") North American media sources who say "the MLS." That's one reason why I mentioned the D.C. United example—I've seen North American media sources (thankfully, only a very few) that refer to the team as "the United" as well. I've seen far more North American media sources who do not use the leading article, however. As I said before, I don't know of an easy or practical way to do a Google search for "MLS" but not "the MLS," so I don't know of a good way to try to give a universe examples without posting a bunch of links. I'd rather not do that because I think it'd be annoying.

Regarding "the common usage," I wonder whether we might be using that term in two different ways. I'm using it to refer to common usage in reference to Major League Soccer, not as to any other sports league (or government agency or whatever). I cite the other sports leagues solely as examples to explain a grammatical point. As I read your latest comment, I find myself wondering if by "the common usage" you might mean "common usage as to sports leagues in general." Certainly I wouldn't dispute that common usage as to the NHL, the NFL, the NL, the AL, and the NBA is to use the word "the," but I simply don't think that sort of "common usage" can be said to establish anything as to sports leagues in general—rather, I think it simply reflects the ordinary grammatical principle I cited before. I submit that the same is true as to the normal omission of the leading article when referring to MLB and MLS. 1995hoo (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok here's my take. NHL, NFL and NBA don't use articles. Their organisations are "league" or "association". "The league" or "the association" is fine (this last word making the abbreviation in each case being the head noun). Thus "the NHL", and so on. For MLB, the head noun is the sport, as is the case with MLS. "League" isn't the head noun, thus is not modified by an article (the), which (if used) would be taken to refer to the sport and not the league. C679 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_League_Soccer&curid=71802&diff=553112997&oldid=553066753

all-time leaders; games vs minutes

How come Nick Rimanda is listed to have played 319 games and 28,863 minutes? If we multiply 319 games×90 minutes/game we get 28,710, which is 153 minutes less than the amount in the table. At least usually the game length is counted as 90 minutes, even though there is the additional/stoppage time. 82.141.95.124 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It could be that he played in extra periods. It could also be that someone edited the values of one or the other. What does the source indicate? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick did play in MLS when it had regular season overtime so that may indicate why he has more minutes. KitHutch (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point of listing both Games played and Minutes played on the main MLS page. They are measuring (in a slightly different way) the same thing - longevity in the league. Plus, having five columns next to each other (with Goals, Assists, and GAA) makes it very squishy. I suggest we cut either Games played or Minutes played from this page and move it to the MLS records and statistics page. Between the two, I'd keep Games played here, and move Minutes played, since the Minutes played statistic tends to be more goalkeepers and not strikers, whereas Games played has more of a mix of players of different positions. Barryjjoyce (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

See my previous comment. I moved the Minutes Played column to the MLS records and statistics page. I did this because the MLS main page does not need stats on both games played and minutes played (both stats measure longevity) and minutes played seems the lesser important stat. Plus, there is now less clutter in the stats section, so I increased the font size for readability. If you disagree with the change, please post your comment below. Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Goalkeeping stats

The goalkeeping stats provided here seem to be flawed in presenting the history of the league. One of the problems isn't really addressable- the league was much higher-scoring in the league's early days, so there is a hilarious bias towards more recent players (eight of the top ten had nearly their entire career in the last five years). But there's not much that can be done on that front.

However, the 1500 minute threshold seems incredibly short. That is less than one-half of a season. While the global player market of soccer + short history of MLS may make a case for having a lower standard, that still strikes me as way too low. For comparison purposes, the NHL list for GAA requires a minimum of 250 games played (three full seasons, essentially) and the MLB ERA list only includes players with at least 1000 innings (roughly 4-5 seasons for a starting pitcher).

I think the minimum minutes or appearance threshold should be increased to something more in line with other sports that would actually show a broad representatives of players rather than just guys who happened to play in the lowest-scoring era for a couple of seasons. Perhaps 100 games (three full years' of starts, or similar to the NHL)?

Skcwz (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's too short, but I think "one season" would be a good first step.

Also, season length has not been the same over the existence of the league. There was a shortened season in 2001 due to 9/11: 26 or 27 games played, 28 in 2002, 30 in 2003-4 and 2007-10, 32 games 1996-2000 and 2005-6 and finally 34 games starting in 2011, Since the games per season has changed over time, perhaps 30 games (approx 2700 min) would be a good cut-off, but I wouldn't complain if it were increased to 50 (4500 min) or even an round 5000 min (more than 55 games). 100 games (9000 min) would leave only 19 eligible keepers according to http://www.mlssoccer.com/stats/alltime?group=GOALKEEPING&op=Search&form_id=mls_stats_alltime_form . Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

MLS itself uses 4500 minutes in its all-time goalkeeping stats so why not go with that? KitHutch (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Where's that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

http://pressbox.mlssoccer.com/sites/mlsdigitalpr.drupalgardens.com/files/201308/08-12-13_Stats_Standings.pdf#overlay-context=

Go to the bottom page KitHutch (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Skcwz that measuring Goals Against Average for 1,500 minutes is not the best way to rank MLS goalkeepers. I don't think most commentators would rank Clint Irwin as one of the best MLS goalkeepers of all time, yet there he is. Another alternative to debating how many games/minutes should be the cutoff for GAA would be instead to use a statistic that measures totals instead of averages. For example, total number of career MLS shutouts, or number of career MLS wins. Using one of these statistics would not require a choice about what cutoff to use. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

MLS has already made the choice for us. For their records, 4500 minutes is what is needed to qualify for all-time goalkeeping stats like GAA and save percentage. Just check out the link above and scroll down to the last page. KitHutch (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

4500, at the very least, makes sense then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Shutouts might not be a bad option, but it basically tracks in line with goalkeeper starts (if you look at the stat PDF provided. Save percentage would probably be the 2nd-best option, but I think GAA is more straightforward (even if it has a slightly more complex calculation).

I threw out 100 games as a starter recognizing that it was a bit high (the 19 eligible is a good point), but I figured that gave us an upper and lower bound to discuss. If MLS uses 4500 minutes though, I think this list probably should as well. It will be interesting to see if MLS sticks with that threshold over time. That could prove low in 10-15 years as more keepers qualify. Skcwz (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

CSA has nothing to do with MLS?

If the Canadian Soccer Association has nothing to do with MLS, then why is this statement on their website:

"All referees in MLS are either USSF (United States Soccer Federation) or CSA (Canadian Soccer Association) National Referees. All MLS games played in the United States will be assigned by USSF and all games played in Canada will be assigned by CSA."

http://www.mlssoccer.com/about/faqs

Sounds like the CSA is involved in sanctioning MLS in someway to me. KitHutch (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If MLS is sanctioned as the D1 soccer League by the CSA, why can't teams qualify to the CCL through it? Achowat (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Walter was just exaggerating to make a point when he said CSA has nothing to do with MLS. It is commonly known CSA officials ref games on Canadian soil since Toronto entered the league. Without USSF sanctioning, MLS/NASL/etc. would not even exist so where are you getting your info saying MLS needs the CSA approval? The statement about refs doesn't really amount to much from your personal interpretation. --Blackbox77 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes. I meant specifically in relation to sanctioning the league. I do recognize that referees are sanctioned by the CSA in Canada and matches played in Canada are reffed by Canadian referees. The MLS has a much closer reliance on the sanctioning bodies for referees than other league do. Compare the situation in MLS to the way that NHL Hockey refs are selected. That league has its own pool of referees and a ref could be in Canada one game and the US for the next two. That would not happen in MLS because of the way they gather their refs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to note, I was watching the New England/Sporting Kansas game tonight, and was officiated by CSA officials. Achowat (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As was the 2012 MLS Cup Wordscot (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This made me curious, so I went looking for clarification. I found a reference to CSA sanction in a quote by the general manager of the US National Soccer Team Players Association (http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/2013/08/mls-celebrates-itself.html), the MLS Reserve League Handbook states that each game must be played in accordance with CSA rules (http://pressbox.mlssoccer.com/content/2012-major-league-soccer-reserve-league-handbook)(NB I could not locate an equivalent for the MLS per se), and a stylized org chart (FIFA > CONCACAF > CSA > MLS) in the CSA Annual Report (http://www.canadasoccer.com/files/CanadaSoccer_2012_Annual_Report.pdf) which seems to imply that CSA sanctions the Canadian MLS teams. I was unable, curiously, to find any more concrete reference to MLS sanction by the USSF. Perhaps someone could provide a citation? Thanks. Wordscot (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

First ref: "and the two countries claiming MLS as their sanctioned first division". That's not the CSA, just the country.

Second ref: "Each MLS Reserve Team Game shall be played according to the rules of FIFA, the United States Soccer Federation, the Canadian Soccer Association". We know that FIFA doesn't sanction the league either, but it does follow their rules and I'm not sure that playing by the CSA's rules means that they have sanctioned the teams.

Third ref, page four: because a team is an association member doesn't mean that the association sanctions the league. The fact that the Canadian Championship is organized by the CSA also doesn't mean that it sanctions the league, it is played-for by member clubs. NASL is also not sanctioned by CSA, which was surprising to me since Vancouver and Montreal were vital in the formation of that league. It was sanctioned by USSF and it permits Canadian teams to play in the league. It's the same thing with MLS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, Walter, that none of these refs are conclusive. My point is that a) I have not seen anything conclusive that says that the CSA does NOT sanction the MLS, and b) I have not seen anything conclusive that says that USSF does. Do you not agree that the "standard of proof" for both statements should be equivalent? At the very least, I feel that a citation would be required for the USSF/MLS link. Wordscot (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but the fact is USSF does sanction it and CSA is watching from the sidelines. http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/ussf-voting/ and http://www.soccerbyives.net/2010/11/nasl-submits-final-bid-to-ussf-for-second-division-sanction.html are proof of the original refusal to sanction the NASL. Since I can't find links that support that the FA sanctions the Premier League and that the DFB sanctions the Bundesliga we might be onto a conspiracy! Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. Can you support the claim that USSF sanctions MSL? I am unable to find any conclusive evidence that MSL is sanctioned by either CSA or USSF - yet we should allow one statement and disallow the other? The above links are fine but irrelevant - we are not discussing the NASL. Wordscot (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Your point is only that we don't have a reference that USSF sanctions MLS. And I agree that it would be good to find a reference for that. My point extended yours (reductio ad absurdum) and stated there are no references that any national league is sanctioned by their federation. So if we intend to tag this article, we'll have to tag a lot of articles.

And yes, since CSA doesn't sanction the league we can have that statement as it stands. There are facts and there are references. Don't confuse them. Not all facts need to be referenced and not all references support the facts.

If one of the three Canadian teams finishes in fist place, they don't get the USSF's berth in the champions league. Why? Because only US teams can represent USSF and it's their league so they make finishing first worth something. Similarly for those who win the playoffs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not confused anything, Walter, let alone facts and references. I merely ask for substantiation of your repeated assertions. Reiteration that "CSA doesn't sanction the league" does not make it a fact, nor does repeating "USSF sanctions MLS" make that a fact. As far as the champions league goes, determination of berths by the respective national associations has much to to with politics and respective size and is at best a tangential argument. Both choose to award one berth through a purposed competition - if the USSF has additional berths to award and chooses to use MLS as a vehicle that has nothing to do with CSA sanction or lack thereof. I have no idea why you would assume that a Canadian team would wish to represent USSF. Wordscot (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that USSF sanctioning the league needs a reference.

Since CSA doesn't sanction the league, there's no way to reference it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this is going nowhere. I'd suggest WP:3, I think another opinion may be helpful rather than simply reiterating beliefs as facts. I'll re-state:

There is evidence (see above) that CSA sanctions MLS (in particular the CSA Annual Report). There is no direct evidence that USSF sanctions MLS. However, the leading paragraph of the article states (without attribution) that MLS is sanctioned by USSF. I would propose that either the sanction statement is removed, or that the proposed wording of revision 574381069 be adopted (with tags for both statements if necessary). Wordscot (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right it is going nowhere, which is where it should stay. And your evidence is that the teams are supported by the CSA, not the league. I'll bring this up at the football project, but feel free to tag this article if you tag ever other first division article on Wikipedia that contains similar statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad we could come to a compromise, Walter. I'll resubmit the changes, and you let me know which other transnational league articles require editing. Wordscot (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion that you plan to "resubmit the changes" won't fly. What I said was that USSF needs to be tagged but CSA only sanctions the teams, not the league. And if you tag this article tag any other league article that makes a similar statement without proof. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Active player stats?

Just saw this edit. I checked Football records in England and Bundesliga#Records. Neither focuses only on active players. Football records in Spain has an active player section for one statistic, but that article is a mess. I get the feeling this new section is a bit of Wikipedia:Recentism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Walter. The least experienced MLS player on the list of all time stats for active players is Carlos Ruiz, who has logged over 14,000 minutes and played over 180 games in MLS, so I don't think the WP:RECENTISM characterization fits at all. Putting aside for the moment any arguments over characterizations, the question in my mind is whether MLS readers are interested in learning about the accomplishments of top MLS players who are still playing in MLS. Or to phrase the question differently, are readers more interested in learning about players active in MLS today than they are in learning about players of the past. I think the answer to those questions is yes, which is why the table on records for active players belongs. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. By recentism I mean, it only features active players as opposed to the list immediately above that lists all players who have played in the league. The table above features both active and inactive players. I think it's not necessary and draws attention to current players when no other league article does this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Orlando City

I plan on pulling the trigger at 5 pm EST tonight and adding Orlando City Soccer Club to the teams section, since the team is announcing their expansion into the league tonight. If anyone else is planning on pulling the trigger then, put it here, so that we don't get edit conflicts. Elisfkc (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Size / Split

Folks — The MLS article is long and keeps getting longer, from 75kb a year ago, to over 90kb today. I propose to create a History of Major League Soccer article where I would paste the entire history section from the MLS article into the new article. I would then work on shortening the History section within the main MLS article, probably to about half its current length. This type of WP:SPLIT happens frequently with long articles, and has happened before with this article (see MLS Expansion), but I wanted to at least give adequate advance notice before I significantly trim the history section. I'll hold off on making the change right now, to give a chance to folks who might want to weigh in on this. Thoughts? Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just something to note.

• Premier League is at 130,941 bytes
• Bundesliga is at 56,223 bytes
• La Liga is at 51,782 bytes
• Ligue 1 is at 38,539 bytes
• This article is at 94,236 bytes

Perhaps this article just needs to be heavily edited, and not only in the history section, to reduce its size. Not everything that happens is important. MLS Expansion definitely needs to be edited hard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Two other sections come to mind. First, the Commissioners section is basically a repeat of the History section, and could probably be eliminated entirely as duplicative. Second, the table in the Rivalry Cups section could be cut out, as many of these "rivalries" are manufactured, and the table could be moved to the linked page. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Two tables

There are two tables in the History section. Both indicate more-or-less the same thing — the teams that have won the Cup or the Shield — so I don't think we need both of them here. And both tables are repeated in the History of Major League Soccer article. I propose we keep only one of these tables in the main MLS article. Thoughts? Barryjjoyce (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have thought that this should be done several times, but have not done it. Go for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Teams section - Gillette Stadium

The footnote for Gillette Stadium says that it's shared and not soccer-specific. However, when Gillette Stadium was built in Foxboro, it was mentioned—I believe on NESN during a Revolution game—that it was intended as a soccer venue first and football second. I don't have any references but if someone wants to do some digging around, that's probably what you'll find. David7581 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That is blatantly incorrect. It was built specifically for the New England Patriots, to prevent them from moving to Hartford. It may be that the design kept its use for soccer in mind, but it is not a soccer-specific stadium by any stretch of the term. oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)