Talk:2012 Major League Soccer season

The results table feels a bit large

It seems a bit too tall. Comments? Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be best to go to the kind of results table used in the most recent unbalanced season article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_2009#Results_table -- Fifty7 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That would be a better choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in support of creating what was done before the two balanced seasons as well. The currently implemented table is not what I would call ideal. It's done in such a way that it isn't obvious at first glance whether there's a rhyme or reason, or if it's just a coding error. I'd go back to listing each team's opponent by week like we did pre 2010. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks aweful. If there is a good reason to keep it {and I can't think of one}, it should be at least hidden with a 'show' button for those who want to see it... 148.134.37.3 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Until we have a replacement, the only reason to keep it is to represent the data. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Single Table Obsolete

Does this make any sense to have a single table. A lot has changed in the league from last year:

• No wildcard spots, so no real playoff implications.
• No US Open Cup spots awarded as all teams now qualify

The only thing the single table determines:

• Supporters shield (which could easily be seen by looking at the table side).
• Secondary CCL spots
• Home field in the final only.

I would say these minor points are hardly worth a separate table. These could be identified through a note below the two tables or a different shade of colouring.

Also, it could falsely give the impression that MLS has a single table that has any meaning byond the above. The other American leagues with similar strucutures do not include league wide tables. The fact is Toronto really doesn't care how many points San Jose has. Nlsanand (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are no cross-over possibilities, then the single table makes no sense. The only reason I can see for having one is that other leagues do, but they don't have conferences either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Supporters' Shield is a major trophy awarded on single table, and if teams win multiple CONCACAF Champions League berths, the Supporters' Shield standings are used to give the other berths away. We need a single table. In addition, it's a feature of literally every other soccer league's season article in the encyclopedia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Supporters Shield can be address in other ways. List the current Shield winner in a single line for instance, or list the teams who have the top three total points.

As to every other league (football included), I don't know if that's the case. There is the W-League which has multiple conferences and the winner of each conference plays in a championship final series. Perhaps you're discussing leagues where there's an interlocking schedule as is commonly use in most football leagues. The MLS doesn't have one and so to compare fifth place of by one team in the East to sixth place by one team in the West may not be fair. In fact, it's probably misleading.

In short we don't need a single table, but it a nice piece of eye candy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean I get what you're saying, but there are a bunch of reasons to include it. First, MLS still awards the Supporters' Shield and counts it as a major trophy. It also awards CCL berths based on it. I also don't think the fact that (okay I guess it's my fault for using absolutist language) almost every other league in the world uses it in their season articles is a big part of unifying the way footy is presented in the encyclopedia. And the fact that you had to go to a defunct format in a women's league from almost a decade ago as your evidence that not every league uses it sort of proves that point. I doubt there are regular editors to those articles, and I don't think the W-League had a Supporters' Shield equivalent (if they did, then I'll take back that small point), but otherwise I don't think there's a compelling reason to abandon it. I also forgot that MLS Cup will be determined by the Supporters' Shield standings, so that's another reason to use it. I get that it's a much bigger table than it was a few years ago, but there are legitimate reasons to include it and we're not limited on space. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The W-League is not defunct.

There are reasons to include the leaders, but not a full table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We need the single table. It is better to see and it is important. And where are the Top Scorers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirEdimon (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Important for what? It's already been explained that its not important, but perhaps you could indicate what's important about it in an unbalanced schedule.

Top scorers: here Since all but four players have 1 goal so far this season... --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have not heard any argument that is compelling for having single table. As Walter points out, the only value it has is to determine who of the two conference leaders will host the cup and get a Champions League berth. Both are easily determined by looking at the two conference leaders and don't need a huge table to show that. Grant, you argue that almost every other league page has a single table. That's all well and good, but how many of those leagues have unbalanced schedules and playoffs to determine their champion? MLS is a different league. If anything that argument works against your claim because we need to eliminate the single table to avoid confusing the MLS league structure with that of most other leagues. I am going to delete the table as was originally the case unless there is a consensus to bring it back.Sixkick (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"I mean I get what you're saying, but there are a bunch of reasons to include it. First, MLS still awards the Supporters' Shield and counts it as a major trophy. It also awards CCL berths based on it. I also don't think the fact that (okay I guess it's my fault for using absolutist language) almost every other league in the world uses it in their season articles is a big part of unifying the way footy is presented in the encyclopedia. And the fact that you had to go to a defunct format in a women's league from almost a decade ago as your evidence that not every league uses it sort of proves that point. I doubt there are regular editors to those articles, and I don't think the W-League had a Supporters' Shield equivalent (if they did, then I'll take back that small point), but otherwise I don't think there's a compelling reason to abandon it. I also forgot that MLS Cup will be determined by the Supporters' Shield standings, so that's another reason to use it. I get that it's a much bigger table than it was a few years ago, but there are legitimate reasons to include it and we're not limited on space. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)" If you don't find that argument compelling, then you're thick. Che84 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were going to say that if you find that argument compelling, you're thick. Silly me.

Not only is it wrong, it's wrong on so many fronts.

The W-League is not defunct. So your thick about that fact.

Also the CCL berths are not based solely on the overall league standings. Canadian teams have their own entry into the tournament and it's always been an issue that if one of the tree Canadian teams are in the top, they're excluded. Since you have to make an exception for that, you might as well do it in the divided tables. Also the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup winner is the fourth spot so it's another exception. The only really important things to list are the overall winner (Supporter's Shield) and that doesn't require the whole table. Imagine Vancouver and Toronto finishing first and second and then Seattle finishing third with Portland winning Lamar Hunt with Montreal winning the Canadian championship but finishing 17th and 18th overall. There are your five births. No need for the full table. Just the names of the winners. How simple is that?

And almost every other league in the world uses a single table because every other league in the world uses promotion and relegation. Finishing in the top of the table means moving up and finishing in the bottom means moving down. If you finish last in the MLS nothing happens except you get a better draft pick. That means the table is misleading to someone who believes the bottom of the table are going to be demoted. As stated, it's closer to NFL, NBA, and NHL standings than world football tables for that reason alone. Do those North American leagues use a combined table? I guess they're thick based on your flawed and incomplete logic.

So in short unless you have a good argument, find something else to discuss. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Revival of discussion in May

There are three in favour and three against including the single table here. No consensus so far. I would argue that it ought to be included for the Supporters' Shield and the CONCACAF Champions League qualification. Other American sports leagues with conferences do not have qualifications for international tournaments based on the league standings. The NHL and NFL both have full league tables on their websites anyway. With the MLS being a soccer league, the Supporters' Shield a recognized major trophy and qualification for an international tournament there is certainly a strong case for including the overall table here. From what I see, this discussion was begun by a disgruntled Toronto FC fan. Walter Görlitz argues that the entire table is not needed, but I don't see why the bottom half should be excluded since it shows how close a team is to possibly qualifying. You would need at least seven teams listed since it is theoretically possible for the seventh-place team to qualify for the CCL (if the top three are Canadian, and the 4th, 5th and 6th teams qualify through the MLS Cup or U.S. Open Cup). I am going to re-insert the single table and it should remain unless someone wants to build a new template that cuts off the bottom half of the league table and argue that the remaining teams need not be shown. Inquisitor84 —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

My mistake. I thought we had achieved consensus which is why it was removed and was out for the whole month of April. I would argue that doing so without objection made it the new consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But that is moot now since it was added. I undid your reversion; clearly, there is no consensus, and claiming such is not a satisfactory edit summary. At that point, a new consensus should be reached through discussion, or no change made. I mean no disrespect, but I will undo your reversion again (as per 3RR) and we can solicit third party opinions or seek a compromise. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not moot. Here's the point. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and summarize the Reaching consensus through editing section for us. I'm not getting into an edit war over this, but I am lodging my objection now so that you fully understand that your edit is not acceptable. If you don't self-revert, I will do it for you. I don't believe you mean any disrespect, but I also believe that you're wrong. And WP:3RR is not a policy on which you can rely in regards to your imposition of consensus. And please do bring third-parties into this discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read and understood Wikipedia's policies on consensus and editing. When I saw your revert I made an argument here and undid your reversion. Consensus had been lost. Further reversions are unjustified until a new consensus is reached, preferably through discussion. See WP:CONSENSUS under the No consensus section.

From this discussion at this point it time it seems that majority opinion here is in favour of keeping the overall table for this article. Again, with all due respect, your second revert was unjustified as consensus had been lost and in that case, no further change should be made. Please don't make another revert until we've discussed this further. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand. Allow me to explain why your reading of WP:CONSENSUS is flawed.

The single table was removed 2011-12-05T22:52:16 No one contested its removal then. It took until March before anyone even noticed it was gone. That means that it had achieved consensus. It is now on the backs of those who wish to change consensus to show that a new consensus exists, not impose it through contested edits. It is your responsibility to self-revert until a new consensus is achieved.

You first wrote "There are three in favour and three against including the single table here. No consensus so far." and now you write "majority opinion here is in favour of keeping". Which of your statements should we accept? All I know is that you're not editing in good faith and if you don't self-revert to the consensus position, I will seek outside opinions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:Assume good faith At the time I added my argument to this discussion there were three in favour and three against, but including me makes four in favour. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I also feel that the single table is not obsolete. Single tables can be found for the NFL and NHL on their official websites, additionally ESPN does single tables for NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB. Winning the league is more important in the MLS (Supporter's Shield) then it is in the other 4 major sports, so this serves to show that a single table is more important for the MLS, yet there is evidence that there is interest in seeing the overall standings in the other major sports. Add in the fact that the CCL qualifications uses the overall standings, it is much easier to determine overall standing with a single table than it is with flipping back and forth between two tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belegorn (talk • contribs) 06:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC) --Forgot to sign-- Belegorn (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me the single table on the MLS site. I'll help you. It's not there.

Show me where our articles for those North American sports you listed have single tables. I'll do that legwork for you there too: 2011 NFL season, 2012 Major League Baseball season, 2011–12 NHL season, 2011–12 NBA season It doesn't exist in any other North American sport season article on Wikipedia.

Your argument is flawed on both points. It's not on the other four major sports here, and that's part of the argument against. It's not on the MLS site so even if it were on the other four sports, the MLS doesn't support it.

As for "much easier to determine overall standing": Top in the east has x points. Top in the west has y points. Which is greater. They're first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Other American sports leagues do not base qualification for an international tournament on the overall league standings, but the MLS does. The NHL and NFL do in fact include the overall table on their websites, so the Wikipedia articles are not indicative of league policy. The mlssoccer.com website does not currently include it but that doesn't mean "the MLS doesn't support it"; the league does in fact recognize the Supporters' Shield and its CCL qualification as well as home field advantage for the MLS Cup, all based on the overall table. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot include additional important information. Whatever the consensus may have been the opinion of this discussion is to include the overall table in the article. I understand that you are care about this topic, but please do not impose your opinion and claim consensus. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're mistaken. Placement in the NHL final is based on the team's overall placement. Please don't put forward arguments when you don't have all the facts.

"The NHL and NFL do in fact" I gave you the courtesy of showing you links to the league season articles and showed that the single table is not included. So unless you can show me the league season table where it does happen I'll have to assume that once again you're making things up. The top placement as shown above is easy to determine and single table is not required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Presidents' Tropy? They get home ice advantage, but that only becomes a major factor if a series goes seven games. A single game final makes home advantage more weighty for the MLS. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Home ice advantage is based on the points of the final pairing and it's more than the final game, not just the Presidents Trophy winner. It's where the series starts. It's no more weighty for MLS. Home ice vs home field advantage. It's an invalid argument overall. No single table in the NHL season articles. Are you suggesting that NHL fans are more intelligent than MLS fans? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Further, if a Canadian team (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) finishes first, they do not get a champions league birth. (see this edit of last year's table).

In short, the single table does not convey any information that the two tables together and additional prose can't convey. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not included in the Wikipedia articles but they are on the official websites. So someone in those leagues thinks showing a single table is useful. Even if the other Wikipedia articles don't include the full table, that doesn't necessarily mean the MLS article should not have it either. The CONCACAF Champions League should be reason enough to include it, and it looks nicer than more footnotes to the Conference tables. As they say, "pity the poor reader." Make it as easy to understand as possible. Not only what team has the most overall points, but where the runners-up fall behind it. That can much more quickly be gauged on a single overall list. I would add that the complication of Canadian teams placing first makes including an overall table better to clear up that confusion should it arise. The Conference tables would get too cluttered. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is much easier for a reader to see how far a team was from the top of the table or how far a team was from missing a spot in the CONCACAF Champions League by reading a single table than it is by switching back and forth between two tables and reading additional prose. Additionally, it's interesting additional information, and the fact that mlssoccer.com does not have it makes it even more imperative that Wikipedia has it, simply to have a place that does document the overall standings, and does show where each team stood with respect to the Supporter's Shield and the CCL qualifying. --Belegorn (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But Champions League is only given to American team with the most points. No switching back and forth required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the Amercian teams with the 2nd, 3rd or 4th most points can also gain entrance to the Champions League under certain circumstances. Which means that MLS teams up to the 7th place can potentially qualify for the Champions League. For example, if the Supporter's Shield Winner and US Open cup winners makes it to the MLS playoff finals, then you need to look further than just 1st or 2nd in the Overall Standings to determine who qualifies for the Champions League.--Belegorn (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Also if a Canadian team finishes in first (or second, or third) it could be the fourth place team. So the table isn't needed to indicate which team is moving onto CL play and as in past years notes have been required to explain information. Better to just use prose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion does not constitute a consensus. --207.6.170.6 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're so right anon. The consensus was establish here. I am now opening a sock-puppet investigation. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to login. That wasn't malicious. You can go ahead and revert again if you want; but you are dictating consensus. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is accusing of malice, although I could. The concern is that you're using another account to circumvent WP:3RR. That anon address made an edit against consensus here (1). I reverted you restored (2). I reverted with wording from the policy and you reverted (3). I continued discussion. Showed guidelines. I tried to be reasonable and asked you to self-revert. I reverted (my third time, and only after discussion) and then you immediately reverted here (4). I won't report the violation of 3RR, but now that the SPI has been initiated, it is too late to remove it. One or the other must be reported.

As to dictating consensus, I am not doing so. The rules of consensus are plain and obvious. Feel free to read them WP:CONSENSUS. I asked you to revert in light of the policy and you did not do so which I took as a refusal to accept consensus. I indicated that I would revert it today if you failed to do so, and I did. How is that dictating consensus? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR actually, if you look carefully. My mistake that I failed to login; I'm not an experienced editor. Accusing me of sockpuppetry was rash. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I argued that consensus had been lost and from the discussion it is clear that the majority is in favour of the overall table. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You did violate 3RR actually. I gave the proof above Anon editor made two of the reverts based on the definition at WP:3RR: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." It's in a pullquote. However, the self-revert means that you are no longer in violation.

Your argument that consensus had been lost doesn't change the fact that consensus was removed in the first place. The article is presently at the consensus position and we can discuss why it should be changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well those anon edits were not intentional reversions, I thought they were additions. Anyway I think consensus has changed, as this discussion indicates. You've said that "more prose" should be added to the conference tables, but there are two editors currently who disagree with that here. An overall table is a better way to indicate the point leaders and CCL qualification. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Those anon edits were reverts by definition.

You've offered your opinion, which I've shown has no support in facts. An overall table will not show CCL qualification better than prose because qualification can be achieved by many different means and so it's actually better to use prose to indicate which teams have qualified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You can claim to have shown that my opinion has no support in facts, but that is just more of your own opinion. The only plain fact is that your opinion is not in the majority here. So please restore the overall table to this article, or at least make an attempt to add the missing information to the conference tables so a comparison can be made. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

When I give specific instances of where a single table is not used in North American sport, that's not opinion, it's objective information. When I show that the information isn't necessary and more importantly isn't necessarily clear that's closer to opinion, but it's presented as objectively as possible.

Exactly what information do you feel is currently missing? We don't know who's qualifying for champions league play and it's easy to see who the league leader is (San Jose Earthquakes at 22 points). What else was being represented in the single table that needs to be indicated at this point? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is now no mention of the Supporter's Shield in this article and who is currently the leader to win the trophy. As to your consensus argument, I submit that consensus by silence is not a valid argument for consensus: Silence is the weakest form of consensus and Silence means nothing --Belegorn (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is used in North American sport, here and here. And Belegorn above pointed out that ESPN makes single tables for other leagues as well.

The conference tables make it more difficult to tell the order of teams in the regular season competition for the Supporters' Shield, as well as which teams could possibly qualify for the CCL currently. Exceptions for Canadian teams are easier to add on the separate table without cluttering the conference tables. Looking at the two tables, it takes some calculating to figure out that D.C. United is in fifth place, but looking at the overall table I know that almost instantly. It is simply easier to compare all the teams on a single table. The argument is for ease of reading and the relative importance of the single table to MLS compared to other American leagues. I would further add that because the mlssoccer.com website does not currently include a page for a single table is all the more reason to include it here, as Wikipedia is often consulted for supplemental information. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think adding some prose before the single table would be helpful as well. Something to the effect: "Finishing atop the overall standings table at the end of the season determines the winner of the Supporter's Shield as well as qualification for the CONCACAF Champions League."--Belegorn (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing from consensus by silence. If you read what I wrote you will see that I am arguing from reaching consensus through editing. It was in place when the article was created. We discussed removing it and did. It was a pretty simple process actually. No one contested it and so it became consensus. Weak as that may be, it is the current consensus.

Your NHL example has already been offered and dismissed as irrelevant because 1) there's no equivalent table on the MLS site and 2) there's no equivalent single table the recent NHL season articles on Wikipedia. In short you're comparing apples and hockey pucks.

Why do we need to know the order of teams in the regular season? First place (Supporter's Shield) is easy. The table is still present and when we add prose to deal with all of the other awards, the presentation of the table in the article will just be a way to take-up space. Fifth place is just as irrelevant as 19th place.

Belegorn. prose was actually added to the single table and was changed as misunderstandings were explained. See last season's template about a month before the regular season ended. Also, finishing atop the overall standings doesn't determine qualification for the CONCACAF Champions League. If the Supporter's Shield winner is a Canadian team or is also the Lamar Hunt winner, oh never mind. Go read what's already been written about that too. This is far too much prose already for a simple issue that the individual table doesn't convey any useful information. We were actually discussing completely removing it and I'm sorry that I suggested that we should keep it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is a changing process, and continuing to unilaterally claim consensus while rejecting proposals from multiple editors is unacceptable.

The only one judging what is "dismissed as irrelevant" is you. Previous season articles in the MLS have an overall table and CCL qualification is still important enough to argue for consistency. There is no mention of the Supporters' Shield anywhere and it is difficult to tell the position of teams in that competition and its connection to the CCL. You are engaging in tendentious editing rather than consensus-building. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read it many times. I understand that consensus is a changing process, but what you don't understand is that editing against consensus is frowned-upon. We are attempting to discuss if a new consensus is necessary, but it has not yet been reached.

But your argument that because the NHL site has a single table that we should have one is like saying because the colour of street signs in Burnaby is green we should use green as the background colour here. Here's the equation.

NHL.com has a single table. MLS.com does not have a single table. NHL season article does not have a single table.

Are you somehow suggesting that we need to have one because some other completely unrelated web site has one that we must have one? Do you see how this makes no sense?

Previous MLS included the single table because it was necessary to show playoff positions. This season it's not.

The Supporters Shield is a simple thing. It can be represented in the East/West tables easily enough or it can be a single line in the article near the tables. We don't need 20 lines of a table (not counting the notes) to state that.

As for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, I'm simply stating the obvious facts. I was initially against removal and then thought it through, listened to the arguments and now I realize that reinstating the single table in this season's article make no sense. And since I insist on having it in the European league articles I edit I think you're mistaken again. --22:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have lost the thread of the argument or are emotionally invested in winning for its own sake and are throwing out suggestive equivocations that have no basis in what was actually argued! We were comparing American sports leagues, and now you are saying they are completely unrelated. I've made my case and I don't think you've sufficiently addressed it, so I'll step away from this discussion for now as it seems impossible for you to concede the point and you've made no attempt to compromise; but that doesn't imply consensus. --Inquisitor84 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're mistaken yet again. I have the threads fully in hand. We have two discussions ongoing. The first is trying to explain to you how consensus works. Consensus was achieved last December (or more like January) and you think that you can change it without discussion and achieving a new consensus.

The second is trying to explain why the single table isn't needed in the article. You're the one using irrelevant arguments. We may be comparing American sports leagues but your comparison isn't valid. NHL.com has one. No argument there. MLS.com doesn't have one. Do you disagree? 2011–12 NHL season doesn't have one. Do you disagree? They even figured out which team had the most points and were able to display the Presidents Trophy winner without a single table. But you're stating that because NHL.com has a single table this article should have one. The two are not related. If 2011–12 NHL season had one, that would be an argument based on a relationship. If MLS.com had one, that would be a compelling argument to add one to this article based on a valid relationship. Since neither of the two related items do have a single table the argument is irrelevant. How can you not understand that?

It's not impossible for me to concede a valid point, but you have yet to make one. I can show you several articles where I was actually swayed to change my opinion by a valid argument, but yours isn't one and I haven't seen one in the discussion of the past 24 hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support adding the single table to the article. It helps viewing season standings in perspective. Treat it as a supplementary table that enhances the article. — Khvmty (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What sort of perspective is necessary? No promotion or relegation. This year, playoffs are not determined by overall points but only by placement in each conference. Not even CL qualification is relevant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Walter, you argued that a consensus was reached because there was no objection when the single table was removed. You wrote: "I would argue that [removing the table] without objection made it the new consensus." This sounds like consensus by silence; no objection = silence. Consensus by silence is a very weak argument.

As for perspective, it's nice to see how far away each team is from either winning the Supporter's Shield or Qualifying for the champions league (should the Supporter's Shield Winner or US Open Cup winner reach the MLS playoff finals).--Belegorn (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Walter, you are the only one on this thread so far who is against the single table. The majority is to keep the table in. The table gives the reader a comparison of team performances. There is nothing wrong with having a supplemental table in the article. When there will be more people speaking against the table, then we can reopen the discussion. As for now, the consensus has been reached, the table should be kept in the article. — Khvmty (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

True. But has anyone of the former editors been alerted? I haven't. Has it be mentioned at the footy project? Not by me. Shall I alert now? I would really hate to notify them all when no reasonable argument for inclusion can be made. What's wrong with its inclusion is that it's a huge imposition of space and it offers no useful information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So far, you are the only one opposing. If there will be more, we will revisit this discussion. We reached consensus in this thread to keep the table. Until then playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy is strictly forbidden per Wikipedia:Gaming the system. — Khvmty (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

After one day of discussion. No, the discussion has just begun and you don't really have a good argument. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Notices have been posted. Hope you come up with a good argument soon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has been indefinitely banned before for edit warring on American soccer articles, I'm honestly astonished by how much hostility and aggression takes place in these edit wars. Don Garber would give his left nut to have this much passion and excitement about the league demonstrated in several stadiums across the country...

That aside, I'd like to reiterate my belief that the single table standings should be included in the article for a number of reasons. First, it's part of what someone would expect to see in coming to a soccer season article. Second, it's part of determining U.S. berths in the CONCACAF Champions League in the (fairly common) event that one team qualifies for several berths. Third, the single table also determines draft order and (I'm pretty sure) allocation order (at least at first) for the following season. It's an important part of soccer articles, MLS and U.S. Soccer, and one of only two major trophies awarded by MLS, the Supporters' Shield. It should be part of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not part of determining U.S. berths in the CONCACAF Champions League.

If a Canadian team (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) finishes first, they do not get a champions league birth. (see this edit of last year's table). Amercian teams with the 2nd, 3rd or 4th most points can also gain entrance to the Champions League under certain circumstances. We 'always have to add a note to indicate that in the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Supporters Shield winner or the U.S. Open Cup winner gets to MLS Cup, then a berth will be given to the team finishing next in the Supporters' Shield standings that didn't qualify already. If the Supporters' Shield winner plays the U.S. Open Cup winner in MLS Cup (or a team wins both trophies and makes it to the final) then two berths will be awarded in that fashion. So it does play into the awarding of the Champions League berths. And just because we have to use a note to indicate the Canadian clubs' situation doesn't mean it negates the importance of the single table. In fact, it re-emphasizes it. There are now three teams who, if they advance to MLS Cup or win the Supporters' Shield, will pass a berth on to the U.S.-based clubs based on Supporters' Shield standings. That increases the odds that it will happen. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

But why does this information need to be subsumed in a table? Can't it just be kept as stand-alone prose as was added a few hours ago? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's simply the best way to convey this information. A single table provides the draft, allocation, home field advantage, and Champions League info in a way that text will not provide anywhere near as easily. We're not short on space, and it's been a feature of the articles for several seasons now. There are really no good reasons to eliminate it, particularly since it still provides relevant information. All of your reasons not to include it boil down to wanting to save space, when in actuality you're removing valuable information. People shouldn't have to collate the two tables together just because your aesthetic sensibilities are at stake. And there are now 4 people giving legitimate reasons why the table should be included. You're the only one opposed. It doesn't have to be unanimous. This isn't a vote, either, but there's clear consensus around keeping the table in the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft allocation has was not indicated last season.

My reasons do not boil down to saving space. They boil down to the table does not convey any information that can't be conveyed in prose. Those 4 people are not giving legitimate reasons since even the table requires prose to explain CCL qualifications, etc. It's a nightmare.

And consensus is not to keep the table, it's to return it. I will walk away from the template if you screw it up by restoring the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you've got some serious WP:OWNership isses, my friend. I should know because I've been there myself. Just a suggestion, but when you resort to "I'll take my ball and go home" arguments, you're cause is lost. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Positions by Round

Is anyone interested in creating or adding Positions by Round tables like last year? Anyone is opposed to it? Where else can one find the breakdown by round online? Khvmty (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It was an attempt at making the MLS look more like a league where play is balanced. In other words, every team played on the same weekend. They don't do it in other North American sports such as NBA, MLB, NHL, so I'm not sure why we need to do it here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A separate Positions by Round table makes it easier to monitor and keep track of the actual standings that are otherwise skewed by uneven number of games played (f.e. some teams played 12 matches and appear higher in the standings, other played 9 or 10 and may appear lower than should have been). If we decide not to do it here, apart from keeping a separate spreadsheet per round, is there any other place online this info can be found for reference? I see other teams' 2012 season pages (f.e. Seattle, New York, KC) are calculating it somehow. Khvmty (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The actual standings are represented by the current standings table. What you're describing is a fiction. Again, it's something to make it appear more European, where football leagues commonly feature this. I too see individual team season articles calculating it, but suspect that it's going to be inaccurate shortly. I would like to see those dropped as well. Remember, this is not done in other North American sports articles because it's not necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also against adding position by round. There are some leagues (like Serie A, for instance) where great care is taken to have everyone play games on the same day, and there are hardly any postponements. There are also leagues (like the Premier League) where there are many postponements and teams playing odd numbers of games at any point in the season. MLS, for a number of reasons, falls into the later category, making it hard for such a table to be accurate or meaningful. The very fact that there are an odd number of teams this year necessitates that not every team will play every weekend. It just can't physically happen that everyone is on the same games played at any point in the season. So, I'm against adding such a chart for those reasons. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)