Talk:Montreal Impact (1992–2011)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Stadium[edit]

I know it is stated in some places in the article, but we should have a section just for the Saputo Stadium, and previous stadiums. androo123(not signed in) aka 24.203.182.78 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Season Page[edit]

Should there be a Montreal Impact 2008 season page similar to Toronto FC 2008? It was quite a historic year in terms of number of matches played and advancing to the CCL quarter-finals. --Coppercanuck (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


MLS[edit]

The team never rescinded its bid. That should be corrected in a proper way. MLS dropped Montreal, not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.149.226 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Copa Sudamericana?[edit]

Any word on if CONMEBOL will follow their own precedent and thus invite Montreal to the Copa Sudamericana 2009? Though not officially announced, the practice has been to invite the highest placed non-mexican (Mexican teams have their own means of qualifying) CONCACAF team that does not get entry to the following seasons CONCACAF championship. For 2009 that would be Montreal. Gecko G (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

well, there's the answer- CONCACAF Is pulling all it's teams out of the copa sudamericana. (http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4793) so no to Montreal. Gecko G (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue uniform at home[edit]

In the last two home games (23/08/09 and 30/08/09), the impact have worn their blue kit at home, is this going to be happening for the rest of the season? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.237.156 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gazette reports on MLS again[edit]

Full story found on page B9 of The Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, January 26, 2010. Titled "Impact on MLS fast track" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The UM02 should have their own wiki entry[edit]

I think it should be important to have an entry for the UM02 since they have supported the Impact for 8 years now. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.225.168 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can their notability be established via third party sources? If so, give it a shot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
They need some third party sourcing in this very article. I'm not sure how the paragraph would be relevant otherwise. Who decided they were one of the most vocal support groups?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed a cite is needed here as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
http://rhinoszone.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=1794#post_32319 Longtime rivals acknowledging the support enough? I can't find the videoclip of the UM02 on CBC's "The National", or the gazette/league articles. I could find more fans of other teams in the league talking about Montreal, which I think matters more. Who knows north american support better, north american supporters or talking heads/clueless journalists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.78 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see wp:rs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So I have to look for what, Encyclopedia Britannica noting the support of a soccer team? http://www.rds.ca/zv2/# put ambiance in the search, and on what is currently the 8th page, there's a RDS reporter talking about the group, and an interview with a player talking about the ambiance. On what is currently the 10th page is video from the Santos Laguna game. If anyone has a gazette membership, they can see the UM02 on the cover of the paper for the date of february 26th(27th?) of 2009. http://www.rds.ca/impact/chroniques/270053.html RDS article. If anyone cares to dig through the large FIFA/CONCACAF archives, there's photos of the group on the dates of Fev.26/27. http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-ca&tab=s36&vid=168d255d-f1d3-406b-9af8-b91555b533b9 that is the link to the video of the National, but it is currently down.

Enough third party sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.78 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of pictures and one mention by a reporter is pretty thin as far as notability goes. You might try working something up on your talk page or sandbox, then have some people take a look. If the article was created right now with those sources it would probably go to AFD pretty quickly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, for the USSF D-2, that's extremely notable. Is there not a way we can use a sliding scale of notability? We have to recognise that a supporters group of the second division won't have weekly mentions in local news. But to say "a couple of pictures and one mention by a reporter" is putting it lightly. UM02 were mentioned on FIFA.com, CBC's the national, regularly feature on SRC/RDS as well as once being the cover photo of the Montreal Gazette. That's better than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Riders_%28MLS_supporters_association%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoops_Nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.78 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hoops nation one is pretty thin, note the notability template at the top. If you have fifa.com and cbc.com that is excellent I think. You should register an account, and work something up maybe here or on your talk page. I can give you a hand with some formatting stuff, referencing etc if you have not done it before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a lot of talk about the UM02 (Ultras Montreal) in the local media for the last week! lookout RDS.ca, CKAC.com, radio-canada.ca [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I think it's time to re-create the page.*Support both moves. Bouncenick 14:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable Nickname for the team?[edit]

The Gulls/Les Goélands.

http://montreal.theoffside.com/team-news/gulls-tie-caps-clowns-win-ncc-title.html

http://impactsoccer.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9061&start=75#p119058

http://www.ultrasmontreal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7606&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (last sentence of the fourth paragraph)

http://dragonsandgulls.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.78 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One of those might be a WP:RS some guys blog, and forum postings generally are not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck, are you aware of the tradition of organic names in the sport? They don't tend to be verifiable by the team themselves. Also, in a North American context, it would nearly never happen, as the team already has it's "name" in the Impact, they'll most likely never stop referring to that brand for one that is in use amongst fans. 65.92.246.78 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of the need for reliable sources. I will, of course, go along with consensus. We have 2 editors, you and I, and nobody else has chimed in. I think we should wait a few days and see what happens. I would direct your attention to the Montreal Canadiens article, there is a reference there for the nickname 'habs' (which is such common knowledge that it frankly does not need a cite, the same is true with the name 'the Gunners' for Arsenal F.C.). It is trivial to find references to Arsenal as the Gunners. One need not wade through forums postings or some blog. When this becomes true, if it does, for the name 'gulls' then of course, post it. That is my opinion, as I said, let us see what others say Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Upon closer reading the Arsenal article does have a cite for the Gunners name, and Toronto FC does for the Reds nickname. Just find a better source I figure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
TFC and Arsenal use those because they do not otherwise have a "brand" in their name, like Montreal does. Given the fact no one really gives a shit about the USSF D-2, you won't be seeing nicknames surface in mainstream media, as they more often than not can't even spell the names of players properly. Do you follow the team?
As a default I cheer for all Montreal teams..... That said, the team is covered in the Montreal Gazette, for example. We still need a cite I think. One from a wp:rs. I would also like to hear what others' say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article moves[edit]

Since the 2011 NASL season is over, I suggest the following page moves:

  • This article should be at Montreal Impact (1992–2011).
  • The article for the MLS team should be at Montreal Impact.

This would be consistent with the practice for current MLS teams that share their names with past lower-level teams:

I'll link to this post on the talk page for the MLS team article and at WikiProject Football, and await comments. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Update: Looks like the process to post to WP:Football is a little more convoluted than I thought. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't think a separate article is required for either the Whitecaps or this team. Haven't seen anything at WP:FOOTY yet. Have you posted there? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I planned to post to WP:FOOTY, but you can't directly add a proposed page move to the project's article alerts. You apparently have to put the move(s) up for a formal AfD. As for the Whitecaps, I'm not suggesting any page moves. The only moves I'm suggesting deal with the Impact. I used the Timbers/Sounders/Whitecaps examples to show how the proposed moves are consistent with articles dealing with MLS teams that share the name of past teams in the same market. — Dale Arnett (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just figured out how to do it. Posting to WP:RM. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


}

– Because the 2011 U.S./Canada professional (outdoor) soccer season is now over, the NASL Impact will be replaced next season by a new MLS team sharing the same name. Four current MLS teams, not counting the Impact, share their names with those of past professional teams in the same city. In two cases, the unadorned page (i.e., no dates) is that of the MLS team; in two others, the unadorned page is a dab page because the MLS team officially appended "FC" to its name.

IMHO, the Impact-related moves would make the naming consistent with the practice for other MLS teams that share their names with past teams in that market. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Dale Arnett (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Merging them all would make the naming consistent as well and it makes more sense because the idea that just because these other teams have no consistency does not mean that Montreal's team doesn't. Vancouver's doesn't either and a few editors bullied that move and re-naming as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support moving this article to "-2011". Neutral on MLS move. The season has not started yet, so that would be premature. A disambiguation page may be created, and then replaced with the MLS article when the season starts. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Let's be consistent with the other MLS teams that are named after previous franchises. KitHutch (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: per Quakes Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Steam5 (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Spartan008 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Astroprc (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. --Kevin W./TalkCFB uniforms/Talk 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Bouncenick (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Montreal Impact (1992–2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)