Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season

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

Start[edit]

Time to start the article? Anttipng (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasted some stuff in from '09 + a few sourced lines. The results table, coloring for the standings, and other info for related competitions still needed.Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone familiar with the 2009 Major League Soccer season#Results table? The schedule comes out tomorrow so it is probably time to do it.Cptnono (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go. If you have any questions about how to populate it, let me know. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any update on whether the season is on course to go ahead? There was no point in adding "what ifs" a few months back, but with the expected start date edging nearer it becomes a more reasonable question. WFCforLife (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not looking good dude. The league and players have not reached an agreement. The collective bargaining agreement expired after being extended. The league has said that they will not lock out the players but the players union has not taken the strike option off the table.Cptnono (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that at least one major British news organisation suggested that we should go down "the American route", to ensure that teams are not removed from leagues mid-season, as happened to Chester City F.C.. On topic, if there is a genuine threat of the season not happening, it might be worth expanding upon. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like MLS has made huge efforts not to have either a Man United or a Leeds! It should be expanded. There has been tons of press lately so it should be easy enough (hopefully without going overboard). I'll add a few lines in if no one else gets to it.Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added clarified it, added a line, and a couple refs. This should be easy enough to break out of the lead and expand upon later as needed.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Wild Card playoff berths?[edit]

Does anyone know if MLS has announced what the Wild Card situation will be like this year? Will there be two or three automatic berths for each conference? Simultaneously this will answer the question of whether there are two or four Wild Card berths this year as well. Thanks to whoever knows. 173.88.172.69 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The top two from each conference are automatic bids, with the next four teams regardless of conference getting Wild Card berths. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standings and Playoff berths[edit]

I don't know if this is the best place to start this discussion, but here goes. The new MLS website says that this season the top two teams in each conference, as well as the top four teams regardless of conference, will recieve berths in the 2010 MLS Cup Playoffs. Since this has been confirmed on the MLS website, I see no harm in updating the standings with colors as such. Does anyone have a problem if I make such a change to the standings after every team has played Saturday night/Sunda morning? Thanks in advance. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to team season articles in the standings[edit]

Upfront: I realize that this is a controversial issue, but I hope we can at least discuss it. I will not be making any changes absent a clear consensus to that effect.

My contention is that linking to team season articles in the standings violates WP:EASTEREGG. A link from the team name should link to the team's article. The team's current season article will be available from the infobox at the top of that article. That being said, I realize that there are certain North American sports league articles that have occasionally linked to team season articles from the standings, so I propose the following compromise based on what the NFL season articles do:

Seattle Sounders FC (season)

Is there any way we can format the standings like this? I guess we could also create another column in the table for all of the season articles like they do for the NFL standings. A third idea would be to link the standings back to the team articles and link the season results chart to the respective team season articles, since that chart shows how each team's season has progressed. Either way, thanks for even entertaining the idea. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I've mocked up as a possible solution. We can go back to the parentheticals I spoke of above, or we can try the column approach I've tried here. The column could go in a couple of places, it seems to me. Obviously, if you guys agreed, it would also go on the two conference templates as well. Thanks again for considering. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table was deleted to save space.

Welcome back Grant! You certainly didn't waste too much time before picking up this old thread. For starters, let me say I'm glad that the real slim shadey Grant Alpaugh is who's commenting now. Much better. Now, regarding the concern. I don't agree that this is even close to a violation of WP:EASTEREGG. The links go to an article about the team. The text of the link is the team name. It would be an "easter egg" if it went somewhere less obvious from the context or relevant like maybe a link to an article about the club supporters groups or something like that. I looked at the examples provided in WP:EASTEREGG. I can't honestly say that this is even in the same ballpark as them. Furthermore, this topic has been discussed previously (here, here, here, and here) and the consensus was pretty clear in favor of how it appears now. In the earlier discussions, there season articles for every team in the league had not yet been created and for that reason alone, I agreed that it was confusing to have some of the links in the table go to club articles and some go to club season articles. Since then several editors have taken it upon themselves to create the articles and keep them up to date. With that progress, I believe that since all the links in the table consistently link to club season articles, there is no ambiguity. The context of the links is within the MLS season article for a given year. That same context (the year) is maintained in the link while not visibly repeating the year for each row of the table. So in summary, when this issue was first raised, I agreed that there was confusion caused by the links. However since then, my concerns have been addressed by the efforts of several editors, and consensus is what's currently represented in the templates/articles. Given that, these suggestions, while well intended, should not be necessary. --SkotyWATC 05:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SkotyWA, thanks for responding, but I have to say that I disagree because there is a lot of ambiguity within the article. Everywhere else, from the results table to the statistical leaders to the infoboxes that will fill up after the season is over, links directly to the team article, not the team season article. Why should Columbus Crew in one place in the article link to one article, but in a different place in the article it links to a different article? This is not only markedly different from the way it is done in other soccer league season articles, but it is also markedly different from the way it is done in the vast majority of North American sports league season articles. Because of the kerfuffle about this last year, I was unable to point it out effectively, but the samples selected from other North American sports league season articles were very carefully selected to support linking to team season articles. The NFL season articles provide links to both, which is why I modeled my table above on those articles. To me that would be an acceptable compromise. When given the choice to provide one or the other or both, I don't see a reason why not to provide both. But the point is that the NFL articles only do this for the last 5 seasons. There are articles on every season going back to 1920, but the "Details" link is only for 2005 and on. This is the reason for not simply replacing the links in the standings table, but adding a new column instead: it is bad in a series of articles to go from linking the standings table to the team articles to linking the standings tables to the team season articles without any notice. It is exceedingly unlikely that people are going to go back and create team season articles for the first 13 or 14 seasons of MLS, and while the Kansas City Wizards are an exception, I don't think they should dictate what the rule is going forward. The NBA season articles link directly to the team article from the standings as well. Major League Baseball links directly to the team season articles, but only for the last two seasons. Finally, the NHL does it as well, but only for the last three seasons. All of this would probably be enough to swing in favor of linking to the team season articles from last year forward, but MLS isn't just another North American sports league, it is also a soccer league, and the article should try to follow the format of most other soccer leagues around the world. In the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Fußball-Bundesliga, Ligue 1, and all other major leagues including the Primera División de México, Brasilierão, and Primera División de Argentina the standard practice is to link to the team article from the standings table. It isn't because these teams don't have team season articles either. Every Premier League team has a season article, as do the majority of the clubs in the leagues I mentioned. Another reason not to do this for the league article is that in soccer, teams are involved in many different competitions. Are we going to link the CONCACAF Champions League tables or brackets to the team season articles? What about the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup or MLS Cup Playoff articles? These teams don't just play league games, and all of these other competitions are just as much a part of a team's season as the league games they play. That is why the way to link to team season articles should be from the team's article. Again, I'm not advocating against creating, completing, and maintaining these team season articles, I'm just arguing against linking them directly to the league standings. While I don't think there's any reason to include a link to the team season articles from the standings at all, I'm willing to compromise by linking both articles. I think that's more than reasonable given all of the information I mentioned. All the best. By the by, I'm going to post something on WT:FOOTY to get some more contributions from the wider footy community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point about all the other links to the club articles is an interesting one. My long term goal with any article I watch or contribute to is to help it along it's way to WP:GA and WP:FA. Multiple links to the same place within an article is considered overlinking and should be removed. One link per article should be sufficient. Exceptions might be legitimate in tables or match reports, but that would depend on the GA or FA reviewers I think. In the end, I don't think that's relevant to this discussion. It's also interesting that this "standard" has only been true for recent years of the season articles and not for all previous years. First, I'd say it's way more likely for season articles to be created for all MLS teams than it is for most other leagues. MLS is by far the youngest league we're talking about here. Furthermore, the discrepancies between recent MLS season articles and the older articles run much deeper than just these links. If the only discrepancy was the links in the league table, then you'd have a legitimate point here, but as it stands, the older articles are different in a miriad of other ways. The rest of your points are a decent summary of the last 1.5 years worth of discussion on the topic. Consensus has been to stick with the style used most often in American sports team/league articles. I've already stated that I agree with that consensus. You disagree and make some decent points on why you disagree. I welcome the opinions of others and expect for more than just our opinions are necessary to drive a new consensus. --SkotyWATC 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've only been involved in these MLS season articles for the last year as far as I know, I think it's highly possible that you might have missed the discussion on Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season, the consensus of which is that MLS is different from pretty much every other North American sports league. This is because it is a soccer league, which has a much more established tradition internationally than the other major North American sports. Sure baseball, basketball, and ice hockey have other important leagues besides the ones in North America, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the world's best players in each of those sports ply their trade in North America. This is quite clearly not the case with MLS. Because of that, we need to take care to align MLS within the accepted practices of both North American sports and international soccer articles within this encyclopedia. The discussion I'm referring to above centered around whether to list the standings as W-L-T as in North American sports or W-D-L as in international soccer, as well as whether to list results in Away-Home format as is done in North America or whether to use the Home-Away format used abroad. Concensus there centered around the fact that MLS consistently used the North American formats on their website, press releases, etc. (something which appears to have changed with the launch of the new MLSsoccer.com, but that's a whole different discussion). I think the same should apply for the standings table, but I'm willing to support a compromise as has been outlined above, particularly because this has been such a contentious issue. There were other issues as well, such as the creation of "American=yes" for the MLS team infoboxes, which allowed the MLS teams to display major trophies won in their infoboxes in compliance with standard North American tradition, but in conflict with standard international soccer tradition on the encyclopedia. So there have been compromises reached to allow the North American tradition to shine through, and I hope you will support something that allows both traditions to coexist. As for your overlinking concerns, the MLS articles are surely not the place to start this discussion, if it is in fact something you wish to pursue. You're talking about a dramatic overhaul of pretty much every other sports competition in the encyclopedia if linking to teams in the standings, infoboxes, and statistical leaders tables is to be considered "overlinking." Surely the place to start that discussion would be on WT:FOOTY or WT:SPORTS. Nevertheless, I hope that we can reach a conclusion here that will go back to the 2009 season articles, and that can be carried forward into the future seasons on this and the other issues you outlined on my talk page. All the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the rhetoric. I mentioned overlinking because you raised concern about user confusion if many "Columbus Crew" links went to the club article while the one in this table went to the club season article. Your concern is based on overlinking and therefore is irrelevant. I'm not bringing it up as "a dramatic overhaul" to rid the encyclopedia of overlinking, nor do I need to be pointed at WT:FOOTY. Thanks for the thought though. Assuming article quality matters to editors, these things end up getting addressed in GA and FA reviews. Also, since you've been gone from the encyclopedia for 6 months, I think it's highly possible that you might have forgotten conversations both of us participated in where W-L-T and American-European standards were discussed ad nauseum here, here, here, and here. Furthermore, your "American=yes" infobox comment is dated as well (see this conversation). The things I brought up on your talk page were a suggestion of a redesign in case other editors didn't chime in. Since they are, the points are moot and we can proceed with consensus on this lone issue. The other issues are irrelevant to this specific discussion. All the best. --SkotyWATC 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as counterproductive that you were willing to work on improvements to the standings tables before, but are unwilling to now, based on the results of a discussion about how to pipe the team names in the standings. Surely the two issues aren't mutually exclusive, and I really hope that we don't have to take those other improvements off the table because consensus on one thing didn't go your way. Anyway, I'm going to impliment the changes supported by consensus on this and the 2009 articles so that we're as close to consistent as possible. Hopefully we can tackle the other issues in the future. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about my unwillingness? The topic of links in the table has been discussed and agreed upon. If you have other changes you'd like to pursue, by all means, propose them. I grew tired of this conversation when rhetoric on a "dramatic overhaul" and my newness to the area came up (neither of which were relevant to the topic). I'm perfectly willing to discuss any changes that are proposed. However, my desire to be proactive has been diminished. All the best. --SkotyWATC 06:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give my 2c, I think it's pretty clear that the table should link directly to the club article, not the season. This is what I would imagine the vast majority of readers will expect to get when they click on a link of the team's name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Furthermore, Grant's suggested solution is an excellent compromise. I've made some changes which make it more accessible and less hackish. Can we get this rolled out to all of the applicable season articles and drive a stake through this at last, please? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm with Chris and Grant here. Team links to the team, details links to the team's season. Unambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to continue the current practice of linking season tables to season articles- The attempted table above is simply too clanky and awkward for my taste.Morry32 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not simply a vote. As has been pointed out repeatedly and in several different discussions across a period of several years, the practice of linking to team season articles from sports league standings tables is exceedingly rare in North American sports articles on Wikipedia, and it is entirely unknown in soccer articles on Wikipedia. Added to this, the fact that MLS is not the only competition in a team's season, that it is misleading to pipe a team's name but not link to the team's article, and the fact that both links are provided in this table (which more or less copies the format of the NFL season articles from the last few years, by the way), and I think this is by far the most accomodating proposal that has been suggested. I'm truly sorry that you find it clanky and awkward, but as of the moment, it is supported by consensus and should remain in place. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you picked up right where you left off, Grant. I think you are exaggerating here about how common it is to link to season articles in standings. In looking at the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL season articles, the standings link to season articles in the MLB and NHL standings, but link to the teams in the NFL and NBA standings. 50/50 in the 4 major leagues in the US/Canada is hardly exceedingly rare. The NFL standings have a link to a details similar to what you're proposing here, but it just looks clunky to me. Additionally, there is nothing easter eggy about linking to a 2010 article about a team in the 2010 standings template. The most appropriate link for the 2010 standings would be the 2010 season article because that is the article that covers the 2010 season. The main article isn't going to cover the 2010 season to the detail that the 2010 season articles are and the information in the main article is going to become increasingly inaccurate as the years go by. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant that it was exceedingly rare, I meant there are NFL season articles back to 1920, but only the last five seasons provide "Details links." It's only been 2 and 3 years for the NHL and the MLB articles. Meanwhile all of the other season articles for those leagues, along with every soccer season article, has links from the standings tables to the team articles. I think that makes the handful of North American sports articles linking to team season articles exceedingly rare. These articles are all part of categories or series, and people reading those articles have the right to expect some consistency from article to article. The change to linking to team season articles comes without any notice, and it leaves the reader not knowing what to expect from a link to "Los Angeles Galaxy" because in different places from article to article, and even within these articles, that text links to different things. It also gives the reader the impression that if the 2009 season standings links "Kansas City Wizards" to "2009 Kansas City Wizards season" but the 2005 article links it to the main Kansas City Wizards article, there is no 2005 Kansas City Wizards season article, which Morry can tell you is absolutely not the case.
That issue aside, I can't help but notice a recurring point of difference between us in these discussions that until now we have been passing over. Unfortunately, I think it's actually a pretty important elephant in the room. We can't treat MLS like just another North American sports league, because it's not just another North American sports league. MLS teams don't just compete in the MLS league season. They also compete in the U.S. Open Cup, the Canadian Championship, the CONCACAF Champions League, and the SuperLiga. So the standings need to help indicate which teams are in contention for these competitions, not just the playoffs like other North American sports leagues. This is also why it is incorrect to link just the MLS season standings to team season articles. These other competitions are part of an MLS team's season, not just the MLS league, so why would we link to an MLS team's season article from the MLS standings but not from the SuperLiga standings? That doesn't make sense to me. They don't link to the 2009-10 Arsenal F.C. season from the Premier League standings because they don't do it for the UEFA Champions League, the FA Cup, or the Carling Cup. There is no analogue to this in the other North American sports. Nothing even close. Now, I can appreciate that you all might not be fans of European soccer like I am, and that's fine, but to act like there aren't established practices in the rest of the soccer articles so we should just follow the North American sports practices is wrong. To be fair, the opposite on my part would be just as wrong, which is why I presented this middle road of a compromise, rather than insisting, as I did before, that we just do it the way it was done for the other soccer articles. That's why I modeled my design on the one the NFL articles use. If it's good enough for them, why can't it be good enough for MLS? Anyway, I appreciate your point of view, but I respectfully disagree. Hopefully that can be the case while we're working on improving not just this article, but all of the American soccer articles on the encyclopedia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary reason why the articles for earlier MLS seasons aren't linked is because, in most cases, there aren't season articles for those teams. KC and Toronto are one of the few teams that have season articles prior to last year and for consistency purposes they are linked to the main article instead of a non-existent link. If you'd prefer, the other MLS season articles can be linked to the season articles for the teams, they'd just appear as red links. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but there's a reason for you. The same thing is true for other competitions for MLS teams participate in. If you stroll through the USOC, SuperLiga, and Canadian Championship standings, you'd find that there aren't season articles for the non-MLS teams. CCL is a completely different bird because the competition crosses seasons, so linking to a specific season really is an Easter egg because if you click on a link and it sends you to the 2009 article when in actuality it was the 2010 team that played in the game, you've got an issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the reason, the bottom line is that when linking to a team name in other competitions, we link to the team article not the team's season article. I don't see why there is a reason to then break that convention for league competitions. As for redlinking to mostly nonexistent team season articles, even though you were surely being facetious, this practice isn't even followed in the MLB and NHL season articles for the first 100 or so seasons, so I don't understand what standard practice would be served by doing that. That aside, you've yet to answer my arguments about the inconsistency between and within articles linking to team season articles from the standings would create. You've also yet to answer how 2 of 4 North American sports leagues following one practice trumps the other 2 (as well as every single soccer competition article) following a different tract. You've also failed to provide any concrete reasons why linking to both articles is inferior, besides of course failing to please your particular aesthetic tastes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't being facetious about red linking to season articles in other year's standings. There is literally nothing wrong with creating red links, but there are some editors that feel they should not be used unless an article will be created in the near future. For MLS, that more than likely wouldn't happen as the pool of editors isn't large enough to draw the core of dedicated editors that would be required to create season articles for every team. I do, however, find it amusing that you ask for explanations as to why things are a certain way, but then, as per usual, dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit your preferred opinion. I've already provided you with a non-aesthetic reason for why linking to a team's season article should be used and not a link to the team's main article. That reason being the standings are for a specific season, while a team's main article is intended to cover all the season that team is in existence. Linking to the team's main article is a classic case of overlinking because, in the context of the team's rank in a specific season, a link to the main article serves no purpose. The link does not provide a reader with any understanding of that specific season and if the link does not provide any understanding for the specific season, then there is no reason to link to it. This is especially true when you consider that in most season articles, every team's main articles are linked multiple times while the only time the season article is linked to is in the standings. I also never said that that the linking of the season articles in the 2 of 4 North American sports league trumps the other 2, I just noted that you had exaggerated in your claim that it was rarely done that way.--Bobblehead (rants) 08:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when I said that it was rarely done, I was speaking of the totality of North American sports league season articles. The bottom line is that both interests have been served. People who want the main team article can get there and people who want the team season article can get there as well. This is what's known as a compromise. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Said Bobblehead.Morry32 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my main point would be that both sides should be pleased by this NFL-style compromise, but another reason not to link directly to season articles is that the vast majority of team season articles don't exist now and have an infintesimally small chance of being created. I mean, if we're perfectly honest, a lot of the stats for leagues like the old Football League don't exist for teams to have worthwhile team season articles (more than just a list of results, but player appearances, etc.). So since that's the case, I think it makes far more sense to link to the team articles from the team name and the team season articles from a secondary link like the "Details" link we have now. Otherwise, without any sort of notice, you go from linking to one thing and then linking to another. That should not be the case in a series of articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, you can't use the historical seasons standings to determine consistency, you have to use the current seasons. One of the unfortunate things about Wikipedia is that when new consensuses are reached, they rarely go back to old articles and update those articles to match the new consensus unless there are other reasons to edit the article, or if the article is up for some sort of review. For the articles that most of the readers coming to MLS are used (NA sports pages) to there is currently a 50/50 split on whether the team name is linked to the specific season article, or to the main article. That basically means there isn't any consistency. As far as both sides being pleased, you are the only person on the link the team name to the main article in the standings side. We've already had this discussion multiple times and each time it was only you and your sockpuppets that saw a problem with linking the team names to the season articles.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to accuse the editors with huge edit histories who commented above of being my socks, you are free to do so, but you will certainly be made to look like quite a fool. Secondly, this isn't majority rule, whether I win or I don't. Arguments matter much more than numbers, and consistency with the majority of Wikipedia matters more than any percieved aesthetic problems (which have recently been addressed, hopefully). I strongly take issue with the idea that the vast majority of users of this or any other MLS articles are coming from a North American sports background. The profile of soccer in general is small within the mainstream North American sports community, and it is infintesimal with regard to MLS and American soccer. I think a lot more people come to these articles from the international soccer community, of which MLS is but one part. Soccer fans in general have much more interest in how David Beckham et al. are doing in MLS, for instance, whereas the majority of North American sports fans could care less. Even if fans are coming from North American sports articles, the NFL (you know, the largest and most popular North American sports league) article uses a format very, very similar to the one being used now. Either way, there are 4 other North American soccer leagues, whereas there are dozens (hundreds?) of soccer leagues, which people could be coming from, which means there is a larger body of work to be compared with as a soccer article than as a North American sports article. I just don't understand why you're so hell bent on undermining a compromise that is supported by consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I just don't understand why you're so hell bent on undermining a compromise that is supported by consensus." This is a joke right? It was you who immediately upon being reinstated took up this cause that had been reached as a consensus. You wear people down with you illogical circular arguments. Morry32 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a pretty important word, Morry. The word is compromise. I would rather there not be a "Details" link, too. I, however, recognized that there are other editors who want different things, and I suggested a compromise that really shouldn't bother anyone. By the way, consensus can and does change. They're not set in stone. And for another thing, there were just as many editors commenting on WT:FOOTY in favor of linking to team articles from the standings as there were commenting on the 2009 talk page that we should link to team season articles. I've noticed that since taking over editing the 2009 article, there are a small group of editors who seem intent on taking the same ownership of the MLS season articles as I did when I was being run out on a rail last year. I wasn't just banned for edit warring, it was my attitude that was disruptive as well. I've recognized that, and I hope you all will as well. Otherwise, you'll wear people down with your blatant hypocrisy. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Grant, the problem is that there is no consensus for this change. Just because you get a few editors to agree with your preferred linking does not mean that there is consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy and the fact that you think it is concerns me considering how important getting consensus is here. The first issue that I see with your "consensus" is that you only allowed two days of discussion before determining your preferred version had a consensus and run off to make the updates. That's not nearly enough time on Wikipedia. The second problem I'm seeing is that you've failed to address any of the concerns addressed by the opposed group, namely the overlinking issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which differs from how George, Grsz11, and other editors which haven't been seen since parachuted into last year's discussion how exactly? There were at least as many editors challenging the change to season articles as there were support it it here (I count 6 to 3), which wasn't on any of the MLS talk pages, but was at WT:FOOTY and wasn't started by me. Just because they didn't join in the (ridiculously?) fragmented discussion on the MLS talk pages last year doesn't mean they didn't make reasonable points about the change. As I've said, a small group of editors took over this article last year and drove out any dissent by quickly implimenting their changes and starting an edit war. The excuse then as it is now is that majority rules, and completely ignoring the host of arguments I've made. I've addressed the overlinking argument by point out that there's not just the standings tables that contain links to team articles. There's the results table, statistical leaders, awards, etc. If you want to unlink those as well, you should bring it up to WT:FOOTY or WT:SPORTS, as the MLS articles are hardly the lone "offenders" here. You, however, have completely failed to recognized that MLS isn't simply another North American sports article with no major parallels elsewhere on the encyclopedia, like would be the case for the NFL or NHL, but that it is also a soccer article which has dozens of other points of reference. Two North American leagues doing something one way doesn't trump 200 other soccer leagues and the other 2 North American leagues doing it another way. You might not be a soccer fan, but you should recognize standards around Wikipedia when they are brought up a dozen times in a discussion that has now spanned a year. I think the bottom line is that you just want things your way, and won't recognize a compromise that should please anyone that can step back and think rationally about this issue. Why can't this be solved by a compromise? Answer that for me, because I'm dumbfounded. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize how fragmented this discussion has gotten and in an attempt to keep this out of the Request For Comment section I am going to make my point here. I've noticed that the side who is in favor of linking to the club instead of the season seem to keep using the words "standings" and "tables", although it seems like semantics, in this case what we are really discussing is a template that is used on 17 different articles all of which are season specific. Let me repeat that, this template will Only be shown on pages that already season specific. In addition to the current template's club link each of the 16 team season pages already contains no fewer than two links to each others club article, example here plus any links that might appear in the prose or USOC match results sections. The lone remaining article where the template is on display is 2010 Major League Soccer season and after counting the total number of club article links 82 currently not counting the additional 32 from the current template I see no need to link to the club articles at all.

I think the discussion should maybe be do we remove all linking from the template or do we link to the club seasons because I personally do not like the look of the current template, using the word Details 17 times never helped the look of anything, and it has only muddied the updating process doubling the chance for mistakes. I look forward to real discussion on this topic if you plan on getting so mad or obsessed that you might spit on your screen while replying, I urge you to go for a walk. Morry32 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that linking the standings makes them much more user-friendly. I also think that the current format works rather well, and as the one doing most of the updating, I don't think it is that much of a problem. I don't say that to own the article, I just say it from an experience standpoint. I don't understand why this is such a problem for you guys. You're getting what you want, i.e. a link to the season articles you've all worked so hard to create and update. <sarcasm>This of course ignores the fact that they were mostly created to plausibly justify linking to the Sounders and Wizards season articles, but the articles exist and so congratulations.</sarcasm> Just because you're not getting exactly what you want doesn't mean you're losing. It just means you're compromising, which is the point of working in a collaborative process like Wikipedia. Can we all just agree to disagree and move forward with a workable (but not perfect) compromise? -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking my silence on this... I don't care whether that's sarcasm or not. You're out of line. You clearly have thought about this or you wouldn't have written it. I find it preposterous that you'd suggest the only reason these articles were created was so that a few editors could link to their pet projects. You may not realize it, but some of the pet projects these editors work on have become good or featured articles. The concern of this being an easter egg has been explained. The "what about x" arguments you keep bringing up have no merit. There are many things done in this table not done anywhere/everywhere else (colors, templating, footnotes, "(E1)" notation, tooltips, etc.). Nobody's arguing about those abnormalities. Can we stop worrying about what's done everywhere else and start worrying about what makes sense for the articles this table is included in? Furthermore, the claim that the season article links were originally implemented without consensus is false. In the year since they were implemented, no one (other than you and your socks) has attempted to undo it. Surely if this was against consensus someone would have spoken up. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Just because you keep browbeating this issue doesn't mean consensus was not reached. Finally, many comments have been made already stating that the "Details" link looks sloppy and is unnecessary. That's why the "compromise" doesn't fly with these editors. The question you still have not answered is this: Why is the general information about the team important to their standings in a specific year? Provide an answer to that question please. I'm going to revert the change as suggested by Gsrz11 since there was no consensus for it in the first place. --SkotyWATC 06:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly did mean it tounge-in-cheek, but I find it interesting that you didn't refute my point. You just argued that they were extremely good pet projects. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grant's behavior aside, Skotywa poses an valid question. At the same time, I ask this: what makes it clear that when a reader/user clicking on a team name in the standings, regardless of year, isn't looking for general information on the team (i.e., the team's main article, not the season one)? I mean, if I click on a team's name in another league's or competition's table, I would be taken to the team's main article. I would expect the MLS tables to be the same. But here instead, I am taken to a season article that I wasn't expect or trying to reach. It lacks consistency, even among the existing MLS articles.
Grant's idea is not new or far-fetched. The NFL has been doing it in their season articles from 2006 onwards (go look). It provides a link to both the main article and the season article without leaving any one out and it works better than fine. Digirami (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL comparison is wrong. The templates (example) that show up on the majority of pages link only to the season. The only table that has both is final results, which appears solely on XXXX NFL season. Therefore, the table with only a season link appears on at least four pages, while the other method is just once. Grsz11 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the NFL doesn't do it consistently themselves. The fact still remains that in the vast majority of tables across the world in various football leagues and competition, the team's name links to the team's main article, not a season article. For the sake of consistency across the board in football related articles, it would be better to have the team's name in these tables link to the main article and a separate link (in the table or elsewhere in the league season article) for the team's season article. Digirami (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Home team first[edit]

The new MLS website shows the home team first as opposed to previous seasons. Given that this is the international standard as well, can we join the rest of the world on this website.Nlsanand (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was the case when the site originally launched, but in the last few days they got back to the North American format (on the schedule at least). The main scoreboard does use the international format, so if the league did end up making the change uniformly and permanently, however, I would probably agree with you that we should make the change as well. I think we should hold off a bit until the new website settles on one way or the other. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a sidenote, I've asked the guy running the website redesign, Chris Schlosser, who has already addressed concerns I've raised to him and replied to my email to boot, to address the use of two formats, so hopefully we'll get a response sooner rather than later. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piping team names in standings tables[edit]

Though each side has claimed one, we can't seem to come to a consensus about whether to pipe team names (e.g. "Los Angeles Galaxy") in the MLS standings tables to main team articles (e.g. Los Angeles Galaxy), as is done in soccer articles, or team season articles (e.g. 2010 Los Angeles Galaxy season), as is done in recent MLB and NBA season articles. A compromise (similar to that used in recent NFL season articles) has been proposed and implemented, which links the team names to the main team articles with a seperate "Details" column included in the table that provides links to team season articles. However, both sides would prefer the table not to have a "Details" column. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No details section. I believe the standings belong to a season and the team names in those standings should be linked to the teams season. Morry32 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. For what reason is the specified compromise not the best solution to this argument? Linking to both in an unambiguous manner avoids both the "easter egg" problem and allows for a reasonable degree of parity with both the presentation of football results in every other nation on Earth and with the style most common in US sports articles. As for Bobblehead's "overlinking" argument in the section above, that could be resolved by linking unambiguously to only the season result; I'd been led to believe that this had been declared unacceptable in some previous but as yet unlinked discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you further explain your "linking unambiguously to only the season result" point? -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume user:thumperward Chris is referring to my comments above (though I'm not trying to trick him into agreeing with me, so Chris, politely correct me if I'm wrong). When first we had a debate on this (link to original conversation with Grant, then one of his socks below it), a season article did not exist for each of the clubs in the table. Since then several editors have worked hard to create and maintain each club season article for 2009 and 2010. So, before we started the conversation here and now, all of the links in the table went unambiguously to the appropriate club season article. For that reason, I support linking to club season articles rather than club articles in the table template (this template also appears in each club season article and causes the corresponding club season link to be bold and not linked in those articles). The term WP:EASTEREGG continues to be brought up. Please read the description provided by Wikipedia at that link. There is no way, in any universe, that this qualifies as an easter egg problem. Please, in the interest of someday ending this debate, stop trying to categorize this as an easter egg problem. If you think I'm missing something, please copy the exact text from WP:EASTEREGG that you think this violates. Lastly, Grant's "compromise" solution (which has already been implemented), while not my preference, is not horrible by any means. He continuously repeats a number of "what about x" justifications, which may or may not be valid here (they're not in AFD), but I think the proposal is better than no link to the season articles at all. Overall, I'm ready to live with either (though I prefer just linking directly to the season articles) in the interest of ending this petty debate. Grant clearly has no intention of ever letting this nit-pick go. I intend for this to be my last comment on the matter and fully expect Grant to again explain how my ignorance or background somehow invalidates my points which just adds to the pettiness of this whole thing. I've said what I like and why, but that I can live with either. I don't think a reviewer would care about either in a GA or FA review. --SkotyWATC 16:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an easter egg because it says "Los Angeles Galaxy" but doesn't take you to the article at the namespace "Los Angeles Galaxy." Why is that so hard to understand? It's especially misleading because at multiple other places within the article, there are places where it says "Los Angeles Galaxy" and you do get taken to the article at the "Los Angeles Galaxy" namespace. I take real issue with this being labeled as a "nit-pick" as well. This change was made last year without the appropriate discussion or consensus, but on the authority of "majority rules." My attempts to undo it, though undying, do not come from a petty place, but from a sincere desire for the MLS and American soccer articles to be as functional and user-friendly as possible. I honestly believe that everyone who disagrees with me has the same motives. Please give me the same credit. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, the problem is, no one is going to be surprised about going to an article about the LA Galaxy's 2010 season from an article that is about the 2010 season in a template that is solely about the 2010 season. An Easter egg is when the reader needs to have some previous knowledge of the subject, i.e. linking to Bombay Explosion (1944) from the words "earlier disaster", or when you are sent to a page that is completely unrelated to the linked word, i.e. linking to Pontiac's Rebellion#Origins from the word "confederation". --Bobblehead (rants) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I was going mental for a bit because I remember seeing something directly related to this, but didn't find it at WP:EASTEREGG, but here's a pertinent quote from WP:Easter egg:
Example: When you use a link such as [[Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics|Archery]] (which displays as Archery), the reader will expect this link to go to a general article on archery, rather than Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics. The exception is when it is clear from the context that links go to specific articles, as in template:2008 Summer Olympics Calendar, where all links go to the article about these specific games.
This clearly falls under the exception. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I disagree that this "clearly falls under the exception," because, as has been brought up literally a dozen times, nowhere else in soccer article standings does this linking to team season articles occur. Not in league articles, not in cup competitions (domestic or international), not anywhere. It just doesn't happen. That's the basis for the links being unexpected. If when I go to the 1999 MLS article's standings and one thing happens but when I go to the 2009 MLS article's standings another thing happens, that creates inconsistency and confusion. The same thing happens within the article from table to table.
Second, and more to the point, you've not given any reason why the compromise of providing both links is unsatisfactory. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between consistency and an Easter egg, Grant. The context for linking to the 2010 Los Angeles Galaxy season article from the words "Los Angeles Galaxy" is clear when that link is in a template about the 2010 MLS season, so there isn't an Easter egg. As for consistency, as has been pointed out to you a dozen times, the reason for the lack of links to a season article in other standings is because in a majority of cases the season articles for clubs in other leagues/seasons do not exist. MLS is one of the few leagues that has a season article for every team and even that is only for the last two seasons. EPL is the only other league where every team has an article this season. La Liga has 5 out of 20, Serie A has 10 out of 20, Ligue 1 has 4 out of 20, etc. Linking to season articles for those leagues would result in a large number of red links. Not that this is a bad thing, but some editors find this unappealing. As for why I don't find the compromise satisfactory, which I have said before, btw, the link to the team's main article from the standings serves no purpose. Linking to the Los Angeles Galaxy article does not give you a better understanding of the 2009 LA Galaxy because it only gets a single paragraph in the article, while the 2009 Los Angeles Galaxy season does give you a better understanding of the LA Galaxy in the 2009 season because that is all the article is about. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that providing a link to the main team article makes the article and table more user-friendly. Most people don't care about how many appearances every player has made or what formation has been more common during the season. We already have every team's schedule listed in the main league season article, so that information isn't particularly valuable for MLS teams like it would be for European teams. That's not to say this information isn't valuable, but I think people might also want to have access to more general information about the club and its history. This might be a matter of taste, but I doubt very seriously that I'm the only one. That's why there's simply no harm being done by keeping both options at people's fingertips. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even linking the club page at all? Looking at the 2010 MLS Season article each club is linked twice in the Results section (overkill)- the table template appears on each team's season page so there seems to me a risk of overlinking since each club's season page already links to the Club. Morry32 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) In soccer standings the table is linked to the team article.
2) The standings is what most people go to league season articles to look at, so that should be linked to to main team articles, because those articles provide the most general information about the team.
3) If you think that by linking the standings to the team article is overlinking, this is not the article to fight that fight with. Please take this to WT:FOOTY and WT:SPORTS to suggest a broad change in practice for all soccer or sports articles.
4) The main team article has a link to the team's season article, so, why are we providing a link to the team season article?
5) Please give a reason why this compromise is unacceptable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the general information about the team important to their standings in a specific year? In relation to the 2010 season, does it matter that the LA Galaxy were founded in 1996, that they've won the MLS Cup twice and appeared in it six times, or that they've had 8 managers? Grant, you've never explained why the main article is pertinent to the standings for a specific year and until you do linking to the main article is overlinking when the season article for that team is available. Also, just to point out, where's the link to 2009 Los Angeles Galaxy season on the main page? Only down at the bottom of the article in the year to year results section.. On the season article the main article is linked in the first sentence... --Bobblehead (rants) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to fight that fight, you're free to do so, but I don't understand why MLS has to be the venue. Please, go to Talk:2009–10 Premier League and suggest changing the standings table to link to the season articles for all of those teams. Surely if this is a great idea, then it should be implemented in the best footy league in the world's article. Get back to me when you've done that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, not the best way to stay unblocked I fear. Calm, please. Grsz11 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my question, Grant. We've answered all of your questions about why the season article should be linked and why it isn't an Easter egg, but you've failed to answer how linking to the main article is not overlinking or why the main article is integral to the understanding of a teams ranking in a specific season. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm. I apologize if my language is blunt (I've striken an unnecessarily pointed sentence), but I just don't understand why MLS articles should differ in this way from every other soccer competition in the world. I realize that it is not possible for all of the European soccer articles, but the Premier League teams all have 2009-10 season articles, so why shouldn't this change also be implemented for the 2009-10 Premier League article? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer your question, but first, please answer Chris's. Why is the compromise such a problem? Why can't there be both links? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question was "why is the compromise not acceptable". SkotyWA's comment suggests that he can live with it. Bobblehead, in the interests of compromise, can you live with it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just to pipe in quickly, it's not an easter egg, it's the whole purpose behind piped links in the first place. Grsz11 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this RFC section be blanked (with the possible exception of Grz's comments) and started again? The whole point of it has been ruined. This is for additional comment to the section above, so editors who had already commented (Morry32, SkotyWA Bobblehead, Chris) should not add more here - you've already had your say above. Instead we've ended up with another very long discussion from pre-involved editors, which will put off most people coming to make a quick comment. Although this seems to happen with virtually every RFC I've seen (thereby totally invalidating the whole point), it would be nice to see one work properly for once. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support Number57, haha. Might as well add more of my opinion. Consensus is needed to change something in an article. If there is no consensus, then the status quo should be maintained. Grant has some supporters, but it is clear there is no consensus to change to his new format. Because of this, the format should be changed back to how it was before. Grsz11 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's convenient that this point was ignored when I was making it last year, eh Grsz11? -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the only one against changing it was you and your three amigos (Now, that link would be an easter egg). Grsz11 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take a look at this conversation from WT:FOOTY. I think you'll find I wasn't the only one against it, and I didn't even start that thread. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Grant on this one. The original option, where the season article is piped through the team name in the standings, has one notable shortcoming: it assumes that the reader wants to be taken to the team's season article if they click on the team name, and not to the team's main article. Grant's solution (or as I like to call it, the NFL option since they did it first), lets you navigate to either the team article or the team's season article from the table, which is much better. Digirami (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is how the original option goes against WP:EASTEREGG. Digirami (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not an issue of EASTEREGG. This would be an easteregg. But piping a article that is still about the main topic, just more relevant to the context (ie, a season standings table) is exactly what piped links are for. Grsz11 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you assume that the team's name in the standings should be piped to the season article. No user should have to click a team's name to "understand what's going on." The intended destination of a link has to be clear. Having [[2010 Los Angeles Galaxy season|Los Angeles Galaxy]] is not as clear as you think. 1) A user may think the link is going the team's main article instead; 2) the tables across all season will lack consistency because the team's name in the standings do not all go to the same place; 3) no other league table in football related articles link to the season's article (MLS is the only one, so, in this case, you are breaking precedence). So to avoid any problems, the team's name should go to the team's article and a separate link should take them to the season article. Digirami (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcard playoff berths[edit]

As long as whoever is updating pays close attention it shouldn't cause problems, but the way the wildcard berths are handled in the conference tables could become confusing to the viewer. Looking at it, especially if one didn't first read 2010 Major League Soccer season#Competition format (and it's reasonable to assume they did not), you would assume the top two teams get berths, while #3 and #4 get wildcards. Perhaps it would be better off to only notate the top two get berths conference table, and only mark wildcard berths on the full league table? Especially since all season article use both tables, I don't think it would be an issue. Grsz11 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably a reasonable point. After all, we don't note the U.S. Open Cup or other berths on the conference standings, and the Wild Card berths do come from the overall table, not the conference tables. So yeah, if a few other people are okay with that, I have no problem with making that change. Good suggestion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought of this one. Good idea. Agreed that it would be less confusing to users and less prone to editor error. --SkotyWATC 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch Grsz11 and I agree Grant. Morry32 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result Table- Coloring[edit]

An editor has changed the coloring- That green is killing my eyes can we work this out here instead of on the article? Morry32 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just changed it to a lighter grey. Hopefully that will work. Other ideas I had: (1) just bold the home games with no background change, (2) an even lighter grey, (3) a "softer" color (maybe brown?). --SkotyWATC 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lighter grey is good. I support making the table more easy to read, but the lime green was a bit unnecessary. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The light grey's an improvement, the original was practically unreadable. Italics would be better for monochromatic and text-only browsers however. Knepflerle (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could go with bold or italics too. If grey works though, I'm for leaving it as is now. --SkotyWATC 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuperLiga and CONCACAF Champions League[edit]

I'm hesitent to bring this up, especially because I've not seen any concrete plans to have a 2010 SuperLiga, let alone a 2011 one, but hopefully we can build on this recent cooperative/collaborative tone of the last few hours. I know SkotyWA is I'm in favor of some sort of move toward a color for SuperLiga or other CONCACAF Champions League berths, so I was wondering what everyone's thoughts would be on that. We brought this up briefly last year, but I was banned shortly thereafter, so I don't know if we got to fully discuss it without the idea being poisoned by my behavior. Anyway, would anyone be in favor of indicating SuperLiga or additional CONCACAF Champions League berths on the overall standings table? -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me this would depend on execution- I don't see how this will work without causing confusion but am open to hearing ideas.Morry32 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not in favor of a color for SuperLiga. What we've got right now works for me with the footnotes. We've previously discussed this originally here and with Grant's sock here. One point that was brought up is how indicating SuperLiga qualification before the end of the season is guesswork (see WP:CRYSTAL). I'll also call your attention to my attempt to indicate SuperLiga last season after the season was done (and Grant's sock had been blocked). I ended up having to expand the system to 5 colors in order to make it work. My conclusion then (and still is) that using a color to indicate SuperLiga is fundamentally flawed. It worked in seasons previous to 2009 out of luck really. The outcome of the 2009 season proved that the system just doesn't work 100%. Please follow the links I provided and see for yourself. I'm open to other ideas, but yet another color to indicate SuperLiga berths just doesn't work. --SkotyWATC 04:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I must have misunderstood your earlier comments. Honest mistake. While personally, I don't think there's a problem with the colors fundamentally, I think SkotyWA's analysis is pretty spot on. I just wish there was a better way to indicate the CCL and SL than the footnotes. It can be confusing when everyone at the top of the table has one or the other and sometimes 2s look like 3s etc., etc. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally better to use superscripts than colours for accessibility. Users of monochrome browsers, text-only browsers, screen readers, low-contrast display and the colour-blind - all these can all use superscript characters where the colour information may be lost. To improve the distinction between 2 and 3, try using letters (uppercase are usually easy to distinguish even at small size, A, B, C), or other symbols that you would expect to find in all character sets: †, *, # etc. (these may not be read aloud by screen readers however, and are not as easy to distinguish as letters) If you can find a suitable colour scheme to convey the information use that as well, but it's best not to encode information using colour alone. Knepflerle (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good suggestion. Since there is already a note in the table as well (about Canadian teams), maybe we could continue to use numbers for the notes, and letters or symbols for the qualification markings. Accessibility had never occured to me as a problem here, but now that Knepflerle points it out, it's kind of an obvious shortcoming in any coloring system. --SkotyWATC 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mock-up?Morry32 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify table editing[edit]

I just updated the league tables for the week and while doing so I had to go back and make sure I had all the right colors and plus/minus sign on the goal differential. I had an idea that could possibly make this task easier. I created a template that would be used once per row of the table. It would abstract away all of the colors as well as many other things. Please review this edit where I tested it out on {{2010 Major League Soccer Western Conference table}}. I've only done this to the one table, so if others think that this is not an improvement, we can just revert my changes and move on. It was just an idea to hopefully make this task easier (having just experienced it myself for the first time since last season). Thoughts? --SkotyWATC 09:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Association Football competitions[edit]

Everyone is invited to join WikiProject Association Football competitions. Kingjeff (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save of the Week[edit]

Has anyone found results for the save of the week? I would be happy to add them to the article if only the results could be found. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really notable enough for inclusion? Knepflerle (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering about this too, specifically because the article includes the goal of the week, but not the save. If the former is notable enough, why not the latter? I'm relatively new here, so I won't say whether the solution would be to add the SOTW or eliminate the GOTW. Weren't both included in last season's article? MostlyRevs (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the notability of the Goal of the Week should be made too. If there is a consensus for keeping it, this should be conditional on its being sourced and the use of flags in the table being brought in line with WP:MOSFLAG with country names. Knepflerle (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope others will weigh in on this (including Morry) so we can build some kind of consensus. My opinion is that neither GOTW nor SOTW are notable enough for their own articles, but that notability, according to WP:NNC doesn't govern article content, just article creation. They're awards given out by the league, not unlike player of the week/month, and for that reason relevant enough to merit inclusion (again, in my opinion).MostlyRevs (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they warrant notability but without a decent consistent source what can an editor but leave them out of the article? I've used them in the season articles for both league and clubs in the past seasons and would like to do it this season. I would ask the question of notability if we include them in the articles for league and club should we add GoTW or SoTH to the players article under "honors"? ;) Morry32 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these are sourced, I have no problem keeping them in this article, provided that they are awards given out by the MLS itself, not by some independent media body. – PeeJay 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not a big fan of trivia like this, if it's appropriately sourced and can be seen to have had significant coverage by secondary sources then I suppose it's acceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking into adding the Save of the Week in a double column running right next to the Goal of the Week standings. Does anyone object to this? I am currently getting all of the winners lined up. Let me know if it is a go or not. Thanks Birdy (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been looking deep into articles for who won the SoTW from week 1 thru 4...not finding much. Does anyone know if the Save of the Week 5 was the initial award? Birdy (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are using this as a reference? I believe there was no SoTW for weeks 1-4 as their was no sponsor for the award thus MLS did not even bother putting together the nominees, also remember what a headache the new website was like that first month.... Morry32 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I found that article as a reference. Searched for an hour or so looking for the 1-4 winners with no luck. If I have everyone's go ahead I will create a table to the right of the GoTW that will look the same and will start at week 5. If not no big deal.Birdy (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Golden Boot[edit]

Whoever seperated the goalscorers and assistant leaderboard clearly doesn't understand that the MLS Golden Boot breaks ties in goals scored by using assists. To properly show the Golden Boot standings, the two tables must be combined. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goals and assists are no longer equal in determining the MLS Golden Boot Winner, ever since the 2005 season. Because of that, the winner is the individual who has the most goals, leaving assists out of the equation. In the event that two or more players are tied for the lead with goals, assists will be used as the tiebreaker. Anytime there is a tie for first place in the race, I believe we should display the assist tally for the players concerned. But to display all the top goalscorer's assists gives undue weight to assists. Joshoholic21 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highest scoring games[edit]

5 goals have been scored in a game 13 times so far this season... meaning that one statistic took up about half of the infobox. Rather than listing each of the 13 occurrences I edited it so it just lists the number of times 5 goals has been achieved. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff standings[edit]

The MLS website currently lists Seattle 7th and San Jose 8th in the standings, however we have it the other way around. We should probably be consistent with MLS. I'm guessing Seattle is on top of SJ because the former has scored more goals (they are equal on points at 36). So let's put Seattle in 7th, at least until the next round of games. Pavlovscat567 (September 22)

Date format[edit]

Seeing as this article involves soccer in the US, all the date formats within the article (references, too) should be reverted to the American format, i.e. May 5, 2010, not 5 May 2010. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia union and panasonic[edit]

Where in the Union shirt do you see Panasonic logo? Makes no sence to me. Anttipng (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positions by Round[edit]

This is not the most exciting template in the first place, but in MLS article it doesn't have sense at all. You guys don't have "rounds", the games are unevenly distributed through weeks so I don't understand the point of keeping it here. —WiJG? 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I enjoy reading the positions by round table. I think it gives a clearer position of how teams progressed throughout the season. I was rather disappointed to see it disappear from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.131.161 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PPL Park.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:PPL Park.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Major League Soccer season. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2010 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


  • 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) 10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 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) 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 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:2010_Major_League_Soccer_season&oldid=1196569743"