Talk:2009 Major League Soccer season

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

MLS 2009 Season Attendance[edit]

I understand that MLS is not the most reliable in terms of it's attendance but removing my addition without discussion might be a bit far reaching- Those stats came directly from MLS and their website, as do most all the other information included within the article, should we remove it all at a whim? Should we go remove all attendance data from MLS team articles under the same thinking? I think I will revert it back into being included- This is in response to Grant removing my attendance addition to the infobox. Morry32 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be familiar with the WP:BRD cycle on Wikipedia, which is quite a common way of going about things. I could just as easily argued that you should have discussed before adding, but whatever, the bottom line is that I didn't do anything out of line. Now that we're discussing this, I think you should know about this, this, and this with regard to MLS attendances. As you can see, there is legitimate doubt coming from third party sources that MLS attendances are valid, whether there are even as many seats in some stadiums as MLS claims to sell, and what constitutes attendance in the first place. For these reasons, which I raised on the main MLS article when average attendance was included in the table of teams, I think especially for MLS attendance is a hard thing to trust. And for the record, I wouldn't have a problem with removing attendance figures from the team articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Grant- My argument has nothing to with nor is it concerned with how many people showed up the game- it has nothing to do with proving MLS incorrect- nor does it have anything to do with arguing who is correct. Instead it has everything to do with providing information, MLS has listed their attendance and I am, I believe rightfully so, displaying it in the appropriate manner. If someone were to come on Wikipedia looking for the data in hopes of finding it to dispute MLS, then so be it- either way it is information that we include everywhere else on Wikipedia. In clubs pages, in match reports, on season pages- why not on the league season page where it can be put together clearly and cleanly for the entire league? I would also support the making of a section on the MLS article outlining some of the claims against their "Attendance Numbers" but I am not as up to date on the subject to be the author of suck a section. Morry32 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is legitimate question as to the validity of the information you're adding. What does MLS consider attendance, anyway? The articles I linked for you point out that there are all sorts of standards, even within the league. Does it only include paying customers, or do people who are given free tickets so there won't be empty seats for a TV game count as well? Often times the Galaxy claim a sell out crowd of 27,000, to the point (as one article notes) of being a joke, and there is even question as to whether there are even 27,000 seats in The Home Depot Center. There is simply no way of knowing the validity of this information. Until you can better articulate why the article can't do without potentially garbage information, I think it should remain out of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your links- first attendance who is Kenn? Why is he credible? "I’m a 43-year old guy who moved last year from the Chicago area to Arizona, where I work in marketing and edit a business magazine." The second and third links are directly linked to this "KENN" and his information gathered therein. Ken now admits he is no longer in the business and says "I didn’t keep tabs on things as closely in 2007 as I had before. I didn’t update the analysis, which had been a staple of my website for a long time. I found I had less and less patience for the weekly bitchfests about attendance on Bigsoccer.com". Your second link this is from an article written in Sept 2006. Third this again is from the same writter as link two but was published even early in May of 2006, the majority of the article speaks of all leagues "attendance practices". I see a lot of numbers from Mark Zeigler but very few sources in his work but I do see this quote, "“(Teams) aren't faking the numbers,” MLS President Mark Abbott says. “We know this from the reports we get from the tickets distributed. It's not happening ... We haven't historically tracked turnstile attendance (for all teams), so it's not a number we have. But we feel confident our 'official attendance' is a fair representation of the number of people who are coming and paying attention to the sport." So those are your links- They seem outdated and not anymore creditable than the league its self- I don't understand why there is a fighting happening against the MLS and not other leagues as well. I honestly do not like the position you have put me in, I don't like fighting in behave of the league I am just simply making the case that it isn't our place to verify their stats to put them up- If we question their ability to count heads why aren't we also removing all the other stats we get from the league? I believe the information should be included- if you have problems with it then make a section on the league article highlighting your concerns about their accuracy. And also I looked up the archive you presented to be a "discussion"- in reality it was you making a point on the talk page and no one else disagreeing with you. Morry32 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kenn Tomasch is a soccer broadcaster that has done games on Fox Soccer Channel for the MISL and the Big Ten men's soccer tournament. He was widely considered the best 3rd party analyst of MLS attendance, but has since stopped doing so after the conflicts on BigSoccer you mentioned. The fact remains that there is legitimate 3rd party questions as to the number of seats in some stadiums, as well as questions about what the league constitutes attendance. Does "coming and paying attention to the sport" constitute actually paying money for the tickets, or does it include free tickets that are given away because they won't sell, and the team doesn't want to be embarassed on nationally televised games? That's what the definition is in sports, but we don't know about MLS. Furthermore, forgive me for questioning the motivation of MLS when talking about attendance. It's not like they don't have a vested interest in inflating their attendance numbers, as those numbers correlate to sponsorship, advertising, etc. As for this calling into question all other stats reported by MLS, we have video of goals scored and saves made. I can't use the tape of MLS games to determine exactly how many people were at the game, or even whether those people at the game were paying customers, etc. etc. They are totally different things. My point is, what does the article lose by not having this information in the article? I would argue there is little to no benefit to this information being included, and it comes at the expense of the article's credibility. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just wrote a new definition of Sports attendance no where in that article do I see anything concerning who paid and who didn't. Your information is nonetheless three years old. I made an announcement on the MLS page as you requested, we will wait and see what others have to say on the subject. Morry32 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my two cents, but the attendance figures are a stat released by MLS. Yes, there are questions about whether they are accurate. However, there are questions from almost every professional sports league about whether their attendance numbers are accurate. If Wikipedia includes attendance numbers on other professional sports leagues that are reported by those sports leagues, then the numbers should also be included in MLS articles. KitHutch (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Correct or not, valid or not, controversial or not, they are the official statistics that are on record. If someone personally disagrees with the figures, that's fine. But they are official statistics and official information and should be treated as such on Wikipedia. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long should this process take? Should we take this to a higher power? Thanks Morry32 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't a time limit on discussions, but seeing how Grant is the only one that is opposed to including the info I don't see a problem with you adding the info. MLS may inflate their numbers, but its the best numbers we have available to us. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with providing the official MLS numbers either. While I likewise agree they are highly suspect, if this is what MLS officially tells us then this is the number that is in the record books for all time. Like KitHutch said, every single professional league fudges number; this soccer league is not unique. These stats are a unique and interesting part of each season and are worth noting. I support their inclusion. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's not that official...where are you adding the attendance anyway...just as a summary statistic I hope. Nlsanand (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations in Statistics and Standings[edit]

Could someone add information on the meaning of the abbreviations in the Statistics and Standings sections? Many aren't obvious from context, at least not to us Americans. What is SHTS (if SVS+GA doesn't seem to equal SHTS), for example? It's not clear on other websites; anything I guess add would just be a guess. Bennetto (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point, but these abbreviations are used by MLS, so that's why we use them. I can't honestly tell you what the exact criteria set by MLS is, but I can tell you that SHTS can be either "total shots" or "total shots on goal". A shot is any time a team tries to score a goal, and these are actually often called "goal attempts." Shots on goal are shots that would go into the goal if they weren't deflected, and while this would suggest that shots on goal wouldn't include shots that hit the goal frame and don't go in, sometimes they are included. It should also be noted that it doesn't have to be the goalkeeper who deflects a shot on goal, as often defenders clear balls off of the goal line. So depending on whether the definition used by MLS included shots that hit the goal frame and didn't go in, or whether a goalkeeper's teammates cleared shots off the goal line themselves, the SVS and GA columns might not add up to equal SHTS. I hope that helps. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MLS season article naming convention[edit]

I was perusing the MLS articles and noticed that there really wasn't a convention on how the season articles should be named, so I started a discussion on the USA/Canada Footy Wikiproject. If you with to join in the discussion, you may do so here. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links in headers[edit]

are bad. The link should be in the prose, and in most cases they already are. Grsz11 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fix it, then use the {{main|}} template to fix them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need it. They're all linked in the first sentence or so. Template seems pointless considering each section is just a few lines. Grsz11 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Grz11 said. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standings Template[edit]

I was wondering how people might feel about a template like this one Template:2009_AL_Central_standings for our current season? It could easily be placed on each club's season page and require that only it be edited/updated rather than each page. I personally don't know much about making these sort of things but I would like to see one made, if no one else steps up I would probably just find one to alter.Morry32 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does every team need a copy of the standings in their article? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would highlight the team's position in the standings much like this that and this. I don't know that it is necessary so much as a slick cool way to handle it for each club. Morry32 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that not including the whole standings accomplishes that better. This is also not done for any of the European teams, and we should try to make all of those articles as similar as possible. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we should try to make all of those articles as similar as possible" but you are saying on the naming convention to make those less like European articles? Maybe the Europeans aren't aware of the ease of making a template like the one I am suggesting? Like I said, I'm not sure it is necessary at all but I also can't think of a good reason not to do it. It is interesting and dynamic and does provide information currently not found on the pages. Let me ask you this- if we were going to include a table on each clubs season page, could you think of a better way of handling it?Morry32 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the template- it has a lot of mistakes I am sure but it was my first attempt at a template. You can see how it looks on here KCW or look at the screwed up template page here Template:2009_major_league_soccer_season_table. It doesn't have to stay on any pages, maybe someone will chime in on what they think it could become or where it might be best suited. Morry32 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this even needs to exist. I understand your desire to improve articles, and your passion for your team, but what does this improve? There are no continental qualification scenarios, etc. I guess I don't understand what this accomplishes that a link to the main article with information about all teams doesn't. I personally think this should be deleted. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you failed to answer my questions above- So it is your feeling that club season pages have no space for where the club is sitting in the table? If it included "continental qualification scenarios" you would feel differently? I presented you EPL clubs above who have tables (be it only a selective portion) that do not include any of that information- I want to know what would make it better. I honestly think this is a tool some people would like to see and for most people it wouldn't bother them a bit one way or another. I don't understand your argument and I would love to know why it doesn't belong now, or what can happen to make it so in your opinion. On a personal note- since you included one- I know you approach wiki with a zest that we can all appreciate but I think you come off as being a touch assertive, derisive, and subversive. Can we just accept that our vision of things won't always be fully accepted? Can we just try to be constructive? Morry32 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking this way too personally. I don't think there is any need to include a template of the standings that provides less information than is found in the main article, when a link to the main article would suffice. The last thing we need is more poorly formatted, under-used templates on Wikipedia. I think that the format (across the whole article) currently used on the Seattle Sounders FC season article is much better than the over-templated, frankly ugly, and hodgepodge look found throughout the Kansas City Wizards season articles. Don't get me wrong, I was shocked to learn that someone went back through the years and created all of those articles, but they should really be cleaned up. I'm busy over the next few days, but later this month I'm going to have my hand at a few of them, and you can see whether you agree or disagree with my assessment. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think that the format (across the whole article) currently used on the Seattle Sounders FC season article is much better than the over-templated, frankly ugly, and hodgepodge look found throughout the Kansas City Wizards season articles." I'll give you the chance now to change your opinion on the comparisons of the two articles. :) goodluck with your edit wars over there, even if I don't completely agree with your position. Morry32 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is because I'm used to editing baseball and football season articles, but I don't see a problem with include standing templates on the season articles. Although perhaps it should be conference standing rather than league standings? Although, considering how little value MLS places on conference standings in determining playoffs (NYRB were the Western Conference representatives in the MLS Cup last year after all), I can understand why conference standings are not being used in the team articles. Just to make my comment more confusing, how another alternative would be to include both? If the MLB or NFL standings templates are any indicator, maintenance of the templates certainly won't be an issue and the info does seem to be rather useful. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of research into this template business since making it- First I want to say the template I made is incredibly simple and does need some work done to it by someone with more impressive skills than I possession. It appears to me that all of the Major American leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB,and NHL) embraced the standings templates on their club season pages. Along the lines of Grant's argument against it is the refusal of the EPL to include one, it has been brought up many times and shot down over and over again. My theory and I believe it to be a fairly sound one is that the EPL is larger than any club within the league, it maybe important for the Wiki EPL people to keep it that way afterall with them having promotion and regulation it creates an entirely different beast than we know. I know we have very few clubs who have 2009 season pages in MLS this time around, (Houston and Chicago season people disappeared?) but I'm not letting that detour me from trying to push this space forward. Morry32 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on creating a template for each conference and also a league standing template? Basically, recreate the Standings section as three separate templates so the team season articles could have the standings for their conference and the overall standings. It would cut down on the need to maintain multiple tables... I also don't see a problem with the template you've created. Maybe make the table sortable, but other than that, it seems to work fairly well. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying to do both conferences and the single table all on the same template? That would certainly work- it would be cool if it were color coded and you were able to plug in each club like the way it is now. If anyone else wants to take a stab at it, I won't have the free time to look into it for a while.Morry32 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grant's praise for the 2009 Sounders FC season article is just patting himself on the back since he's pretty much bulldozed through cleaned up the work others were doing there. Anyway, I'm a proponent of three templates being created: 1 for each conference and one for overall standings. A given team's season article could include the template for the conference they belong is as well as the overall standings template. I think this will be a much more effective way of representing playoff positioning (and USOC, Champions League, and SuperLiga) than the color coding scheme Grant's got going on in the round-by-round table on the 2009 Sounders FC season page. --SkotywaTalk 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table such that it looks mostly like the one included in this page. Does anyone have a problem if we swap out the one on this page to use the template now? Most readers won't notice any difference. --SkotywaTalk 08:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, I say switch them.Morry32 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made the switch. I'm sure more feedback is on the way now ;) When it's reverted (not if, but when) it's really important that everyone watching shares their opinion on this (and that we invite others to join the conversation). I'm not trying to do something evil here. Morry32, Bobblehead and a few others think that making these tables available for reuse on team season pages is a good thing. I tend to agree with that and had a little time to follow through on it. I'll get started on the two conference templates later tonight probably. --SkotywaTalk 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of having conference tables in season pages. I also like having the overall standings mentioned and think the Liverpool and Manchester United versions mentioned above (shows their position and the teams above and below) is a good way to summarize it if it looks like too much data for a season page.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that there should be three templates. One called Template:2009 Eastern Conference standings, another called Template:Western Conference standings and the third the Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table. That way for the teams in the Eastern Conference they could have the Eastern Conference and MLS standings and those in the Western Conference and MLS standings. Argh. I really need to look at the edit history of the article before I comment on the talk page. Looks like it's already been done. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the use of the standings template, and would approve of it for each set of standings. Even if it isn't transcluded anywhere but this article, as there aren't team season articles like in other sports, it keeps the large amounts of edits off this page, and definitely helps. Grsz11 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly, strongly disagree. We had these set up as templates three years ago until everyone agreed that it was counterproductive. Templating makes errors harder to catch, because people see them in the main article, but don't know how to go to the template and edit them. To do an update to the article after games, rather than editing the whole article all at once, you have to go to four or five seperate pages to update the results table, conference and overall standings, and stats. It is a lot more work than is necessary. I don't think the main MLS season article should be made to suffer just to accomodate the hanging of every possible trinket on the Christmas tree that is the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Consensus here is that a template should be used. Grsz11 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the 2007 Major League Soccer article we had templates for the Results table, the Conference Standings, and the Overall Standings. To update results, you had to edit 5 articles to do it correctly. Additionally, mistakes in updates were much harder to fix, because random IP editors who saw a mistake, but didn't know how to get to the template article to correct them, couldn't correct them. The main MLS article has existed in the same form for three seasons now, and it will take more than three people to change that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a consensus from the editors of this article to use templates, like everybody else does. And if it's really that hard to click the view or edit button on the template, I'm not sure they had much constructive to do in the first place. Grsz11 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just one article it is a member of a series of articles. I have been involved in this series of articles for several seasons. Your edits have also deleted information from the article, and have ruined the consistent, professional look of the article. For what? So that the Seattle Sounders FC article can be special, including redundant information (a pet peave of yours) three times in the article. There is simply no reason for that article to have a full standings listing. None whatsoever. Your team is not special, and it is not deserving of its own format for its article. Stop. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I live nowhere near Seattle, have never been to Seattle, and have nothing to do with Seattle. This isn't your article, and you cannot go against consensus develop here because you "have been involved". I don't care how many articles you've edited, you are not higher than the consensus of others. Your block log indicates you have a serious issue with ownership and getting your way. Cut it out, now. Grsz11 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus absolutely does matter in a series of articles. We use American format in American sports articles, regardless of the consensus on a particular article, for example. Consistency is what matters. You are taking the context of the above conversation completely out of context. This is not a democracy, voting doesn't matter. The arguments I have made have not been answered. You don't have unilateral control over the article either. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't need to use templates before because there weren't many (if any) season club articles. There are a few now, and templates makes it easier to update it in all of those articles. Grsz11 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the full standings are not needed in any of those articles. A team-relevant summary is all that is required. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository of every piece of information about a subject. There is already an adequate summation within the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now confused as why the Template isn't being used on the article now? I've seen the corrections being made to the article's current wording but no explanation why the template hasn't be put back up since Grant removed it. Isn't it simple enough to use the new wording on the template and put it back up? I saw where Grant had said that we decided to include it on clubs' season pages but not on the league season page- that just seems silly as this discussion began here and it was always my intent for it to eventually end up on the league's season page if it were found to bring the same information as the current page. Morry32 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to pass WP:3RR by changing it again, but consensus here is to use the templates. You're more than welcome to place them. Grsz11 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This suggestion to change to standings was brought up on April 9th and was implemented on April 15th. That is nowhere near enough time to rationally discuss a change to something that had no objections for the year+ that it was in place. I just don't understand why 2 of the 15 teams should hold this article hostage because they want to have redundant information on their season articles. KC and Sounders fans, look at Toronto FC's 2009 season page. They are able to get by with only a points summary for their team and then have a link to this article underneath if someone wanted to look at the entire table. You 2 teams are also making it harder to update the standings by forcing a person to have to go to 4 separate articles to fully update after each week (Both conference standings, the overall table, and the results table and goalscorers list). That is completely unfair, especially since none of you calling for change are actually planing on updating everything. You just want everything to be beamed to your season articles. Also, regardless of whether we change the standings or not, these current templates look like poop. Plain and simple. There is no reason why the overall standings template needs to be sortable. The eastern and western conference templates also look like poop because if I was looking at them for the first time, I would simply think that the person who made these templates didn't have a clue what he was doing and bolded the second line by mistake. The colors that are present on the overall standings are needed because the MLS playoff qualification process can be confusing, especially to the uninitiated. These current templates are simply confusing and must improve if we are ever going to use them. To conclude, this change should not be rammed through and I would hope that you would all agree to revert to the system that was used for over a year with no complaints until this has been discussed for more than a week and by more than 3 or 4 people. Spydy13 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the half dozen users who regular edit, you're the only one who has objected. That's called consensus. Grsz11 02:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, by your logic, there should be no season articles since 12 of the 15 teams don't have them. Secondly, looking back though the history, SIXXKICK and Grant Alpaugh seem to be the only ones who have been updating the tables on a regular basis since last year. And looking through this debate, Grant Alpaugh has clearly objected to the change to templates. Finally, I have no plans on being an updater, just as you don't. My point is that a minority group should not make things harder for people who take the time out of their weekends to make sure that the rest of us can have accurate information on this site. Again, I am trying to simply have a discussion about this, since it wasn't given enough time in the first place. There is no need to get contentious. So please, let's have a civil discussion before we make drastic changes to the site. Spydy13 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out that only two individuals have been updating but Grant says the template is too complex for normal editors and makes it too hard for him to find errors in others work? I personally would have been updating on the standings myself previously but it never seemed to be needed, the editors had done a fantastic job. Being one the "2 teams" you mentioned I feel as though I should quote you "You 2 teams are also making it harder to update the standings by forcing a person to have to go to 4 separate articles to fully update after each week (Both conference standings, the overall table, and the results table and goalscorers list)" unless I am incorrect you had to click four edit buttons before (conference, overall, results, goalscorers) now you must click on five (western, eastern conferences)- you click the edit button and are on the edit page. Just so it is clear in 2008 we had four MLS season pages, we lost Houston and Chicago, in 2009 we picked up Seattle. Maybe it is too soon to worry about a growing MLS community but I personally think we can make these pages more transparent and approachable. I would also love to know why you call the templates "poop" when we went through every effort to make them look just like the table we were replacing to appease the detractors who were worried it would be too complex and overwhelming. Sorry I forgot to sign? Morry32 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Are we seriously creating new accounts to fight this? You need to examine your priorities.[reply]
So Grant and now Spydy13 have both stated that if we use templates for the standings and those templates are reused in season articles that this makes it harder to update them. They both seem to indicate that using a template means that to make an update they have to go to 3-4 articles and make the change in each. I think I'm misunderstanding something since I thought that by using a template, we would actually be simplifying the edit process as there would only need to be one edit to each template and all transcluders of the template are updated. What am I missing here? Also, Grant brought up a very relevant point that an attempt was used a few seasons ago to put these tables in templates and I guess it didn't work out well (haven't looked up the history yet). My response to this is "just because it didn't work then doesn't mean it can never work." I know I'm a newcomer to editing these MLS related articles (as many of us appear to be), but as Wikipedia editors, all of our opinions have the same weight, new and old. While some of us our new to editing MLS articles, most of us are not new to Wikipedia. --SkotywaTalk 17:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Game[edit]

Twice now I have removed the line about Real Madrid- Twice people have put it back, I brought a reference to the table that MLS has been looking to Villarreal and now that has failed. I think it is obvious we should remove the entire speculation of who the opponent will be since no one knows and the reference being used to outdated. Morry32 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. It is accurate regarding the intentions of Real Salt Lake and the league. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I provided an out dated reference that claimed that Red Bull Arena was going to be opened in the summer of 2009 I wouldn't then include it in the article now, I don't see how or why we even consider to do the same in this case. Not only is it speculative in nature but it has clearly been updated to prove it incorrect. Adding the line "the likes of" does excuse that Real Madrid will not be coming over for the match.Morry32 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standings Template (part 2)[edit]

What a lively discussion! Given the disparate nature of the previous thread (laced with accusations and some personal attacks) I thought it might be nice to start fresh with this discussion. Unfortunately, a participant in the discussion has been banned for 1 month as has his sockpuppet relative. Regardless, I'll try to summarize all points made and see if we can't come to a semi-official consensus on the matter and avoid further reverts at some later date:

Proposed reasons in favor of using 3 standings templates

  • Reduces article history clutter.
Why is this a concern? -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can be reused in team season articles providing the following benefits:
    • Provides context about the teams position in the standings without requiring the reader to go to the MLS season page.
Is more intrusive than in other American sports articles because of the size of the tables relative to the smaller MLB division standings templates. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes updates to tables appearing in those articles automatic.
Doesn't justify their use in the main MLS article. I think you just want to have others' work benefit your article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ensures that all season articles share a standard formatting of standings tables.
No problem with this, and it actually goes to making my point about the (fully developed) MLS season articles (2007 forward). -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other American sports articles make similar use of standings templates.
See above point about the relative size of those templates. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reasons against the use of 3 standings templates

  • Updating this article after a game is completed requires edits to this page as well as edits to each of the 3 templates.
Having to go to multiple places creates the possibility for error not present when using the full-article approach.
  • It was decided in previous season articles that they should not be used. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already dealt with the difficulty of editing the different templates last year. I see no reason to make the same set of obstacles present so that we can prove their existance to a new set of users. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates would not contain all of the data found in the main MLS season article. Templates would not preserve formatting/coloring of data found in the main MLS season article (mitigated now by replacing the tables in MLS article with template).
The current templates deviate in format from the creation of the article in meaningful ways that remove information from the article and cause accessability problems. These templates were unilaterally edited by Grsz11, largely due to his misunderstanding of MLS rules. This misunderstanding is evidenced by his attempts to edit the intro to the Standings section. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are few team season pages (2 currently) that would benefit from these templates. This low need does not justify the change.
In fact, as was brought up before, there are now fewer articles using the templates than there were when we originally made the change. Nobody objected last time, either. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People don't know how to edit the templates.
Every now and then there are typos made that are caught by random IP users who just come to the article for information (largely because sometimes even MLSnet.com doesn't understand its own tiebreakers). They are easily able to fix them, like they would any other typo, and the template makes it harder for people to get to the raw data. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some European team season articles only use a partial standings table relevant to the teams positioning, we should do the same.
I would object to doing partial templates. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New The information is already presented in the article via the summary template.
There is no reason we couldn't provide a link to the main MLS season article as is currently done in the Toronto FC article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's about it for the summary of all the points made. All arguments in the first group appear to be the consensus between Morry32, Bobblehead, Grsz11, and myself. All arguments in the second group (against) came from Grant and his relative. However, remember that this is not a vote, but does not require all to be 100% in agreement. Please comment... --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that this discussion is starting over. The first point I would like to make, is that regardless of whether we switch to templates or stay with the old tables, the information should stay the same as it was before this whole discussion was started in the first place. That includes the summary of the tables at the top of the standings section, the inclusion of colors on both Conference standings to indicate what teams have qualified for what competition, and keeping the overall standing un-sortable. The original discussion called for none of the previously listed changes and was only making the suggestion that the standings be switched to templates so that the standings would always be up to date on any team-specific season articles that wanted to include them. I would hope that someone else would come into agreement on my point and make these changes because neither I nor Grant (MY BROTHER) want to make these changes in fear of being accused of edit-waring. I think these changes are necessary to make in order for this discussion to be solely about the whether or not we should use templates. Thank you and I hope that all personal attacks will end with the creation of this new discussion. Spydy13 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that has changed it there is no color on the conference tables. If you add color you need a key to explain it. Why not use the same space to just explain how the playoffs are seeded and not have to change colors when the standings change? Grsz11 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More has changed though and ALL of those changes are addressed in my previous post (the summary of the tables at the top of the standings section, the inclusion of colors on both Conference standings to indicate what teams have qualified for what competition, and keeping the overall standing un-sortable). And with regards to writing a new summary of the standings, it is clear to anyone who goes back through the history of the page that you tried to explain the qualification process in words. However, the sentence became more and more confusing and you just decided to delete the summary out of frustration. The colors may add an extra step when editing, but provides clarity to the uninitiated. People shouldn't have to read some long, confusing sentence when it can be explained visually. We are also dealing with an entirely different animal here. MLS teams can comepete for more yearly comepetitions that most American sports. In MLB, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL, teams are only competing to play in the playoffs at the end of the year. Therefore, it is much easier for any person to follow what is going on in the standinns, even if that person has never really followed those leagues. Part of the fun of being a soccer fan is the various yearly competitions and we should not be denying fans the ability to understand why their team qualified for a tournament in a clear and concise way. Finally, I will again point out that no one was calling for that change when this discussion started, and that you were the only one who felt that this change needed to be made. Spydy13 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get what you are complaining about. The full league table still has all the color with all the competitions, where it always was in the first place. They only thing the Conference tables showed was MLS playoffs, and they still do. Grsz11 04:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does consistency equal redundancy? Listen, I wish MLS used a single table, but they don't. Therefore, if we are going to display all three standings, then they should all look the same. What if someone only wanted to put either of the conference template on their team specific season article? No one would know if their team was in position to qualify for the various yearly club competetions because the explation in the overall standings would not be present. I will again point out that this, and the other changes I have listed were never brought up in the original suggestion to change to templates. I will cease comment on this specific matter in this template discussion so that the discussion is not cluttered with things that weren't originally brought up. Since you are the only one who wanted to make these changes, I suggest that you start a new discussion topic so that we can see if anyone agrees with your changes. Spydy13 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they just put the conference table on an article, it would be impossible to tell the standings for those competitions anyway, since the conference standings don't determine them. Still, your point is off, because the conference tables never said anything about US Open, CONCAAF, etc. It was always with the full leauge table, and still is. Nothing has changed from the original, except the complete text isn't on this page, but the template page instead. And exactly what change did I want to make that nobody else did? Grsz11 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to commend Skotywa for attempting to reboot the discussion in an evenhanded way. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now with the inline editing you've done, all further contextual discussion is messed up. Why don't you list your arguments again in a numbered list so that we can clearly see what it is you're worried about. I'm not going to try to reply to each of your inline comments above. It would make a mess. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to determine which arguments people were really intent on using, and keep discussion on the merits of the arguments. Writing a long paragraph gives you more chance to bloviate and make ad hominem attacks, don't you think? The fact that no one else followed suit is regretable, but oh well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should look to resolve the matter at hand before we talk about any other changes that may or may not be needed for this article. The original point of this whole discussion was to talk about changing to templates, NOT to change a bunch of things in the article. I would hope that those in favor of the change to templates would be willing to leave the rest of the things as they were if the templates are installed. You would still be winning in this scenario because you would have got your change that allows information to be sent to your team articles, even if you are not involved in the update process. I guess I just don't understand why we have to screw with something that had no complaints. I think that this is the civil way to solve this manner and move forward without further edit-warring. Spydy13 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I said in my last post, let me lay out what I think should be done.

1. Switch to templates for both Eastern and Western Conferences and the Overall Table. Allow for in-line coloring, but exclude linking to season-specific articles until that matter can be discussed further.

2.Revert the summary of the standings to what they were before Grsz11 began to screw with them. No objections had been made previously.

3.Keep coloring and explanations on the Eastern and Western Conference tables until further discussion can be had. No objections had been made previously.

I hope that these things can be agreed to quickly so that tensions can be resolved. This is the fair way to do this. Trying to change the other things before they have been discussed is just as bad as what Grant has done in the past. Spydy13 (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #2, I removed the blurb from the other articles where it was being used, as I think its redundancy is well taken. The information is summarized in its entirety elsewhere in the article, and any further discussion can only confuse. #3 has already been done. The only issue currently of contention is linking to season articles. Since that was a) not discussed, and b) not done anywhere else in the encyclopedia, if that change was undone, I would be willing to drop my opposition to templates for a month or so to see if any organic discussion of their costs/benefits develops by random editors. Would that be a possible resolution? -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! So we're down to exactly one sticking point. Excellent. Let's continue the discussion of the season specific article linking over here and put this template discussion (part 2) to bed. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring of schedules on season articles[edit]

What is everyone's thoughts on coloring the schedules on the team articles for wins, losses, and ties? As an example, I've created a copy of the D.C. United schedule in my sandbox for you to see what it looks like. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the color at all.Morry32 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, because we've already colorized them. heh. Thanks for the input though. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish different colors would be used. Green for a win, yellow for a draw, and red for a loss like on that DC United page. The colors that are being used right now are too close together and hard to differentiate between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.111.194 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standings templates pt. 3[edit]

What is wrong with the "+" symbol for positive goal difference? 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiJG? (talk • contribs)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2009 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on 2009 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Major_League_Soccer_season&oldid=1196546711"