Talk:Toronto FC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Toronto FC vs. FC Toronto

Should there be any mention of the fact that people in the soccer community repeatedly (incorrectly) refer to the team as FC Toronto. I would assume that this is largely due to the fact that there is a team in MLS called FC Dallas. The covor of the first issue of Major League Soccer Magazine and Allen Hopkins the sideline reporter for ESPN's broadcasts has called them FC Toronto. I'm not saying I endorse this, I'm just wondering if there should be any mention in the article. 71.36.181.218 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we should be including any mention of "FC Toronto" as it's an incorrect reference to the club and the whole point of this encyclopedia is to give users information that is accurate and relevant. Cashcleaner 06:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre TFC is now history

Can you move some pre TFC info to its history? (68.199.35.102 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

The North End Elite Support Group

I would like to have a new support group added to the list. It is called The North End Elite, and it was started by supporters in sections 127 and 126 who wished to organize the support in the north end of BMO Field. The website for the group is [www.thenorthendelite.com] . The group IS officially recognized. I have images of the section with a few of the banners during the last match.Northendelitist 03:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FC vs F.C.

I moved the page to "F.C." for consistency, because we have "D.C. United", "F.C. Dallas", "C.D. Chivas USA"; most soccer clubs throught the world have the dots in their Wikipedia articles. DR31 _(talk) 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not about consistency. You need to look at the official websites of these teams before you add periods because of your preference. Toronto FC and FC Dallas do not use periods. C.D. Chivas is not even the official name, as Club Deportivo Chivas USA, is. D.C. United has periods as the official name, as Washington, D.C. uses periods as it is the city's name. KnoxSGT 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the Dallas page should be moved. DR31 _(talk) 12:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The FC Dallas page has been moved to FC Dallas (MLS) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KnoxSGT (talk • contribs) .

Please don't create a new section when responding to comments; just reply in the same section by editing the page (rather than using the + button). Also, why was FC Dallas moved to FC Dallas (MLS) (it's since been moved back)? Is there some other FC Dallas that isn't in MLS? Powers 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This page needs sources. If we don't have a published second-party source for the name speculation, this article is unencyclopedic. Powers 14:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

US Open Cup table

i dont know how to do this, but can someone please remove US Open Cup from the table on the right hand side. It has already been determined that they will not compete in this tournament as they are not an american team (Soccer fan 23:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Looks like a permanent part of the MLSbox. I did the best I could by marking them "ineligible". Powers 23:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a MLS Canada template so it will not show the US Open Cup. SFrank85 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Less than ideal, don't you think? What if the MLS box changes? Powers 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Should US Open Cup be removed from the MLS box? It's not an MLS competition. --Elliskev 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting. The Rochester Raging Rhinos don't get it listed in their infobox, nor do the many teams that won it before the MLS existed. It is important information, though, equal in stature to a league championship. I guess I'm undecided. Powers 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It might aswell stay now. SFrank85 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at any other soccer team from around the world, none of their boxes include any sort of wins, championships, ect... I looked at teams from Europe, Africa, Asia and South America even the USL First Division where the Raging Rhinos play. I think the MLS box should be changed to conform with the rest of the world's soccer boxes. Soccer fan 13:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, change the boxes. --J3wishVulcan 13:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasons, but you may want to post these opinions on the Major League Soccer board before you change anything. Remember that others monitor the page too. Here is something else to keep in mind; say Cracovia Kraków wins the UEFA Champions League, I think Cracovia fans would want to see that posted on the team's featured page. Even though the Polish Ekstraklasa supports UEFA competitions as it is a member, the UEFA is not technically the Ekstraklasa. Now apply that to the USA, if an MLS team wins an Open Cup, sponsored by US Soccer. Even though the Open Cup is not an MLS competition, it is a US Soccer Federation one. I am not saying you're wrong, but do consider this. KnoxSGT 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but can't it be handled in an Honors section? --Elliskev 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. KnoxSGT 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Since my input was asked for: I am against changing the boxes to the Euro standard; it just doesn't fit the American game, from lack of chairmen to the different ways nicknames are handled, to English vs Americanisms (manager vs coach, "colours", "ground", etc). The differences DO matter. I don't see why the boxes have to be like the rest of the world; the structure of the game in the US is vastly different than elsewhere. There are different boxes for NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB; I don't see why MLS can't have it's own format. In fact, I designed this one based on the soccer national team templates before the club templates became standard. Now, as for the US Open Cup thing, it's easy enough to make it parametrized, which I just did, so Toronto can now use the regular template. DR31 _(talk) 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Supporter's Groups Websites

I'm going to be removing the following from the Supporter's Groups section because they appear to be completely inactive:

• Toronto FC Fans Page - hasn't been updated since July
• Toronto FC Fans Forum and News - site since May, forum since July. Up to date information ... - since July
• TFC Talks - since July
• Fan site for supporters - half finished, says it's under construction, no "news" just pictures taken from other sources
• Toronto Sports Fever - just one old (July) link to the official site

Is this cool with everyone? i think it would clean up the page and direct traffic to the sites which are actually keeping up with the team, if the forums/people on these sites begin using them again then they'd be fit for inclusion again. AgainstSteve 05:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering ?? I have been a faithful blogger throughout this first season. I have many other MLS team bloggers that link to my blog (New York, DC, KC). The Right To Play folks were happy to provide me with their icon so that I could give them a prominent link. I have watched many of the above blogs fall to the wayside. Although I enjoy reading the RPB and Usector forums and have registered with both as Still Kicking, I am a solo blogger with no connection to any supporter group or the team other than my season tickets. Could the wiki page include my blog ?? Am I fit for inclusion ?? http://torontofcfan-mistakebythelake.blogspot.com/ 70.49.7.84 14:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really state that these supporters groups are endorsed by MLSE and generally act as the corporations mouth pieces. Where most Ultras in Europe aren't endorsed by their clubs- which makes them free.

• Except that saying that is grossly inaccurate. Don't know what your beef is with the success of the Toronto Supporters groups, but all of them (with the possible exception of Tribal Rythm Nation) operate independently of the club and it's parent company. If anything the opposite is true. We have made several demands to the club on behalf of our members and the club has followed through on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.233.33 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Uniforms

Maybe they should change their name to "the Riddlers", with that question mark on the front of their jersey. If nobody knows what their uniform looks like yet, maybe that should just be put there instead rather than have people out looking for soccer jerseys with question marks on them.Yankee Rajput 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Only absolutely thick bastards would think that was their actual shirts. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, would have to agree. SFrank85 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Is there any documented (English-language) nickname for the team? SFrank thinks it's The Red and Whites, JewishVulcan thinks it's the Reds. As per the article, the team wants a nickname to come organically though La Corriere calls them the "white-and-reds" in Italian. I think any sort of colour based nickname will have to wait until the team's jersey actually comes out (but I don't plan on removing either "the reds" or "the red and whites" or "the white and reds"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgainstSteve (talk • contribs)

I haven't been following the team super-closely, but they're are covered on the news a fair amount (I live just outside toronto). I have never once heard a nickname for the team yet. perhaps when the unis come out and the team actually has more than one player...maybe. SnaX 02:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On message boards people refer to them as simply the 'Reds'. That is my source. And what better source is there for a nickname than the fans themselves.--J3wishVulcan 02:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On the message boards that i have been visting, they are referred to as TFC; they are not referred to as the reds on any of the major boards like usector, rpb, or big soccer Soccer fan 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think all the "i biancorossi" stuff, and the other info on Italian nicknames in the History section, is relevant because it was all conjecture -- added before the jersey was released. Now that we see the team colours are red and grey, I think it makes sense to delete all that stuff. James17930 3:54, 24 December 2006, (EST)

The Italian paper (Corriere) is continuing to use "i biancorossi" e.g. January 13, 2007, even though the team's colours are red, white, grey. I will modify the article to include that as a nickname.Oldtimer6 10:09, 17 January, 2007, (EST)

Is biancorossi really a "nickname"? Italian papers around the world call any team that has red and white biancorossi, but not all teams might consider that a nickname per se. If the Corriere has an article about a game against Red Bull New York and calls them biancorossi as well, does that become a RBNY nickname? Bigdottawa 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are being unreasonable. Of course it is a nickname! Just because it might be applied to other teams does not invalidate it. For example, FC Dallas is nicknamed the "Hoops" (after the kit design). That appears in the Wikipedia article on FC Dallas, and has been used regularly on the mls website. This nickname has been used for a lot longer for Celtic FC of Glasgow, Scotland, but that doesn't invalidate it as a nickname for FC Dallas, as it is clearly being used as such!!! Oldtimer6 15:45, 5 February, 2007, (EST)

If Toronto fans begin calling the team biancorossi, it's a nickname, just like Hoops became a Dallas nickname because people call them that. A newspaper calling them biancorossi hardly makes it a nickname. Bigdottawa 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now deleted all reference to "ethnic names." It's unimportant, as it has become clear that the team is simply called "TFC" by just about everyone. (Also it is unimportant in the English wiki what the team is called in other languages). Oldtimer6 9:37, 8 May, 2007, (EST)

'The REDS' is used by the Red Patch Boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean the team's nickname is The REDS. The Reds is used by the RPB for obvious self interests. The team is still truly looking for a nickname. The Reds lacks any orginality.

Reds is used in several chants, some easily viewable on TFC's website: "Come on you Reds." "When the Reds go marching in." etc. Unoriginal, yes. Actually used, yes. Like it or not, it's there.

Also used on a Sept 4, 2007 TFC article on MLSNET

As stated above these chants are RPB's using 'reds for obvious self interest. First thing to come to mind is Liverpool when REDS is said, and this ain't Liverpool. Red beavers, Red Hawks, something more Canadian and or identifiable with T.O. is better rather than a simple reference to a colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.174.242 (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people need to research the team and it's history more if you think TFC Supporters use the nickname Reds simply because of self-interest on the part of the Red Patch Boys. All of the recognized supporter groups and many unaffiliated fans use the term Reds to describe the team. Several Toronto newpaper articles, television broadcasts, and radio news spots have been quoted using the term Reds for the team. Cashcleaner 06:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dichio was very complimentary towards the efforts of the Reds' coaching and training staff to keep him fit and as rested as possible throughout the season." http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20070904&content_id=115387&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp

Oldtimer6 11:21, 5 Sept, 2007, (EST)

I'm not sure why some IPs are edit warring to remove the "Reds" nickname. Simply put, it appears in news reports - including articles on the the MLS web site. Regardless of whether or not you like the term, you can't delete it if it is actually being used. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• And again, it should be noted that the club itself and players have all used the nickname "Reds" for the team. If that doesn't create legitimacy, than I don't know what does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.233.33 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the forums bigsoccer and by RPB the team is ofter referred to as Redcoats, to avoid using the generic name Reds as discussed earlier, what right does anyone have to argue with a good percentage of fans (according to two polls 25-35% of the most active fans, aka the ones on forums refer to the team as Redcoats). 76.68.118.41 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Vitakan S

It's very simple how to deal with the "Redcoats" nickname. Come up with a credible source. Once this happens, it can be added to the article. Kingjeff (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Term used in a promotion for 2008 home opener by RPB. http://www.redpatchboys.ca/stage/images/DC345x162%5B1%5D.jpg

It has been used on a variety of forums. On football 365 the post match thread title included the "Redcoats" term Re: The OFFICIAL Toronto FC Thread! Watch out Columbus March 29 - the Redcoats are coming!!! http://forum.football365.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=9455&

A poll taken on Bigsoccer demonstrated that around 30% of people were familiar with the term http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=678528

A poll taken at an Red Patch Boys forum (an official Supporters group) demonstrated that around 25% used the term http://s3.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=2561&threadid=357722

Often used in the Mistake by Lake Blog: http://torontofcfan-mistakebythelake.blogspot.com/2007/10/toronto-fc-2-new-england-revolution-2.html

Term is used in one of the away chants by Toronto Supporters:

the Redcoats sail Can't hear <team> sing Call up the T-F-Ceeee We'll sing you our song Sing you our song Don't wanna go home Don't wanna go hooooome This is the best trip I've ever been on Do_Do_Do, Do_Do_Do, Do_Do

76.68.118.41 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Vitakan S

Pay close attention because I'm not saying it twice, Vita. Redcoats has been used as a nickname for TFC fans on tour (notably the RPBs) - Not the team itself. Also, I have yet to hear a chant that incorporates the name Redcoats in it. It is a misrepresentation when you cite these articles in a such a manner. 99.252.168.104 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't ****ing talk down to me, whats you real name? Your a member of RPB76.68.115.96 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Vitakan S

Hi, Jloome here from the RPB and big soccer forums requesting the removal of "redcoats" as a "nickname"preferred by a minority of fans. There is nothign here to support it within the framework of Wiki's acceptance of common usage; in fact, nearly all online links to this nickname direct to posts by the same small minority of people trying to force this nickname upon TFC fans and the club. At least four separate on line polls on big soccer demonstrate a vast majority of fans will never use or accept this nickname -- they are misrepresented in the above argument as showing people are "familiar" with the term, when in fact the question they're askign is whether the term shoudl be used.

Wikipedia should not be used as a forum for propaganda. However, when a small minority is attempting to impose its will on the rest of the group the page represents, that is exactly what is taking place. Please remove both the references to "redcoats" as a nickname for Toronto FC and the term "Red Squirrels", an obvious attempt at showing how easy it can be to subvert information via public postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyloome (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerseys

See http://adamjameshutchings.spaces.live.com/ AgainstSteve 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Does someone's online space count as a source Soccer fan 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It does if he's a local sports store worker with access to the Adidas Canada merch catalogue. :D Cashcleaner 06:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I probably wouldn't quote text from it but these drawings are the same as the standard Adidas sketches that come out before new jerseys are released. And the VP/GM has confirmed to a supporter's group basically all of the features which these sketches contain. Heresay I know, and if you're gonna revert it to the question marks I won't interfere, but still these are legit AgainstSteve 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ROSTER?

Hi guys, should we start putting up the players for the team or should we wait to see which players Mo will trade away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.168.64 (talk • contribs)

Let's put 'em up as they come. Bill Oaf 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sounds good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.168.64 (talk • contribs)

Removed Dyachenko, he was traded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.212.7 (talk • contribs)

Removed Kotschau, they dropped him, heard on the FAN 590 from MO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.212.7 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed ROberts, reports he signed with Sparta Rotterdam from a Dutch newspaper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.212.7 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Two questions about the roster, which is the 18-man roster, and which is the 10-man developmental squad? And secondly, why is Mo Johnston's statement about how many Canadians he will field still written as if it is an event yet to come? I don't know whether to delete or to change the statement to something about how it did not happen. Ironfistofanarchy 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Xavier Balc was drafted yesterday 2nd overall in the 2008 Supplemental Draft and I have tried adding him to the roster like the others we have drafted in the Superdraft yet someone keeps removing him without giving an explanation. I'm all open to being wrong for some reason (maybe players picked in the Supplemental Draft have a different status or something) but there is just no explanation. What's going on?

2. Savo Milosevic was recently added to the roster. He had a trial with TFC near the end of the 2007 season but I had heard no official news that he was signed. This link was provided (http://www.transfermarkt.at/de/spieler/7896/savomilosevic/profil.html). Moreover, for those who don't know German, if you click on the other tab (Transferdaten) it gives a list of his transfer history. According to it, he came to TFC in November 2007 after being released from Osasuna ("Vereinlos" literally means "without club"). However, this is (more or less) the same date as his free trial. Can anyone find other evidence to support his joining TFC?

Lucky Strike (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

Abbe Ibrahim

I've removed him from the roster for now. He may well sign, but until then, all Mo and TFC own are his MLS rights. That is to say, if he returns to the league, he's Toronto's - but he could still sign elsewhere. I assume that Ibrahim will end up with TFC, but he's not signed yet. Bill Oaf 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

TV rights?

The official site is usless. 198.161.51.39 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Score, Rogers Sportsnet and CBC are them as far as I know from what I've seen on the website. Kingjeff 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy Welsh is Scottish, not English

Earlier I took the liberty of changing the flag next to Andy Welsh's name to the Scottish flag in place of the English flag. When I looked back I saw somebody had changed it back to the English flag. I am once again going to change it back to the Scottish and I ask whoever is changing it back to please stop. MLSnet.com clearly states that "Welsh, 24, is a midfielder born in Manchester, England, but his nationality is Scottish." Clearly, the Scottish flag is correct and putting the English flag next to his name is misleading and inaccurate. If you are a citizen of a particular nation then it is that nation's flag that goes next to your name. Just because he was born in England does not inevitably make him English. I was born in Landstuhl, Germany, but I am a natural born American citizen. Please consider such things before making these edits. brentman87 07:23, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

• Only an idiot would put a Welsh flag. Yes, he was born in Manchester, but his nationality is Scottish. 99.247.137.108 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TorontoFC.PNG

Image:TorontoFC.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance

I put the importance of the article with the Football (er...soccer) WikiProject as HIGH, because TFC is one of the premier teams in the MLS. Yes, they may be a new team, but we have the best fans in the MLS! Ebuz610 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Football v. Soccer on a N. American article

I think it is more reasonable to use "football (soccer)" as opposed to "football" or "soccer" for a couple of reasons:

1. While this is an article based on a North American team, the bottom line is that the official team name incorporates FC in its name. Whether or not this is an attempt to be trendy, the fact of the matter is that FC stands for Football Club. The term soccer is directly taken from association football so as to discern between it and (most notably in the UK) rugby football. If the team didn't have the FC attached to it, it would be a different story in that respect.

2. This article falls under the jurisdiction of WikiProject Football, and as such, needs to adhere to certain naming conventions. The game is called football by a good 95% of the world's population, and while this is a North American based article, viewable by everyone, it should, to be fair, adhere to the same conventions that the rest of the Wikipedia's world football articles adhere to -- and soccer can appear in parentheses as it does in the actual article about the game. Ryecatcher773 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that the variety of English used should be in line with the origin of the subject. Canadian English should be used, and in Canada, football means Gridiron. Therefore, soccer should be used. All the English speaking world knows what soccer means anyway, so there is no ambiguity. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Except that the club isn't called Toronto SC, it's Toronto FC. Ryecatcher773 06:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is called "Toronto FC" (football) in all likelihood for the sense of tradition, and for the association with the international game. However, in North America the sport is most commonly known as "soccer", the team plays in "Major League Soccer", and "football" (when used in association with a North American club) is very probably going to be confused with the Canadian or American game. That aside, it is fine to include "football" as you did. Would it be better to say "(association football)"? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You talk of a need Ryecatcher, but there isn't a need. Soccer is 100% ambiguity free. And according to the club owner, the F in FC stands for Futbol anyway. Like us to write "...is a Canadian soccer (football/futbol) team"? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC).

Booth, it's confusing to see that an Englishman of all people is arguing for the use of 'soccer' when you clearly know that in this context (a universal encyclopedia) it isn't unreasonable to write it 'soccer (football)'. So far as the owner goes, he obviously knows more about hockey and basketball than he does about football (real football, not the kind the Dallas Cowboys play) or Spanish. Besides the game being an English invention, and English being the co-official language of Canada, using the Spanish spelling exposes a grammatical error: If it is in fact, 'Futbol' (which is silly in the first place), then the correct syntax in Spanish is to place the 'FC' before, not after the name 'Toronto'. Futbol and Football are the same thing -- it's a matter of spelling. Last I checked, Canada has two languages, and Spanish isn't one of them. In French and English it's Football. The owner is ignorant. Why perpetuate it? You know it's football, I know it's football, and the rest of the English speaking world knows that it's football. If we were talking about Chivas USA (a club with direct ties to a Mexican club, that plays in a town with a major Spanish speaking population) the argument might make sense. But, it doesn't. Do what you want, I don't care. But don't tell me, as an English speaker, that you don't see the ludicrousness of the owner's statement -- as well as that of your own argument. It's football. Socer (football), Football (soccer), however you want to put it -- it's Canada and the two official languages of that country spell it football, not futbol. Ryecatcher773 07:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's called soccer in North American countries, regardless of what the rest of the world says. And WP states that the English used in an article should match the English predominantly in that area. Therefore, we use Canadian English, which calls association football soccer. On UK articles, do we write "Manchester United are a football (soccer) team in England"? No. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

Notable Former Players List

This list seems to change daily so I'm hoping we can find something to agree on.

1. Do we mean notable in general (like O'Brien, Pinto, etc...), or notable/important player for TFC (here, players like Stamatopoulos and Eskandarian would fit in)?
2. We need to come up with a minimum requirement for a player to be considered notable. By statistics (in this case which ones) or reputation as a good player (which might be difficult since it's subjective).
3. We need to make sure that whatever consensus comes out, we stick to it!

Let me know what you think!

Lucky Strike (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

I think we should be much more careful in who gets added to the list. One could make a strong argument against everyone currently on the list being there. I suggest that, as a rule of thumb, the list should not contain more names than the number of years the team has existed. That way we'd be forced to think about whether Eskandarian, for example, really deserves to be a notable player when he did nothing noteworthy for TFC and has a resume that includes scoring goals at a rate of only four or five per season with a single USMNT appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.54.164 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Coaching record

I've just created a coaching record table. How does it look? Kingjeff (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, nicely done! Lucky Strike (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

Protected

Due to recent edit warring, this page has been protected for 3 days. Please use this time to come to a consensus on what the page should look like. If you come to a consensus before the protection expires, feel free to leave me a message or ask at WP:RFPP for the protection to be removed.

Please also use proper edit summaries when editing this page. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert squirrel edit

{{editprotected}} I realise there is an edit war going on regarding what nickname (Reds versus Redcoats, etc.) should be used by the fans. However one of the final edits before page protection was clearly a joke. Please revert this edit - there's no record of this being used - it's a joke based on an incident last season when a squirrel ran onto the pitch during play. Nfitz (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done If this were indef protection I might have researched further to determine the validity of this request, but as the protection expires tomorrow, I'll just direct you to meta:The Wrong Version :D Happy‑melon 10:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Pictures

Should the pictures of the uniforms be updated? (here and on the 2008 season page) They are playing in red jerseys and red shorts now instead of the white shorts. 206.223.166.206 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Toronto FC vs. Toronto Football Club

User:216.249.50.52 is claiming Toronto FC's full name is Toronto Football Club.It contradicts the section that says The "FC" in the team's name is the conventional initialism for Football Club, but in official media and documents the team has only been referred to as Toronto FC, never Toronto Football Club. Larry Tannenbaum, chairman of MLSE, stated at the team name's unveiling that "I think the way we spell it is 'futbol'." In the following sentence where it says, "In a Q&A posted on the MLSnet website, it was made clear that "FC" stood for "Football Club."" is not true. I went to that paticular source and it didn't have that question. Kingjeff (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Toronto FC Uniforms

All the other articles of the MLS clubs have removed their picutre and reverted back to the original uniform template. I think this is so because their uniforms had changed. Toronto FC's kit had changed this season as well, the shorts are no longer white, but red (the whole kit is red now). Can we discuss changing the uniform in the infobox back to the kit template with the correct colours? thanks.... --Muppeteer (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Add new player information

{{editprotected}} Add MF Amado Guevara #20 - Honduran Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now - all additions to protected pages need to be reliably sourced. Happy‑melon 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

No lack of sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Not even sure why this page is fully-protected. There has never been an issue in the past, and much of the warring was by IP number. Surely a semi-protect would be more appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done. Page is not protected anymore. You can now boldly go and add señior Guevara yourself. --David Göthberg (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Larry Tanenbaum "futbol"

Is this comment really relevant anymore (Tanenbaum saying "I think the way we spell it is futbol"? Surely it's sort of unspoken knowledge that "FC" is "football club" (in the vein of Chelsea FC, Liverpool FC, etc), and that Mr. Tanenbaum was just stating his own misconception/understanding of the need to separate gridiron football and soccer in the collective lexicon. The mere fact that he says "I think the way we spell it" shows that he wasn't sure anyways, and it hardly seems appropriate to use that off-hand comment as a reference to what "FC" stands for. Seems better unsaid than to use his comment, imo. - Themodelcitizen (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Other matches" vs. "Canadian Championship

Two points need to be brought up regarding the coaches record table.

1. "Other matches" should be called "Canadian Championship". Other matches implies that the total is everything that is not MLS Regular season and MLS Playoffs which is not the case. If "Other matches" is used, then all pre-season matches, all tournaments matches and every other match that is not MLS Regular season and MLS Playoffs must be added.
2. Mo Johnston should not have numbers in the Canadian Championship line. Have numbers zeros implies that the club participated in this competition without Mo Johnston as coach. But this competition had not been created yet. Therefore — are the only option for this line. 76.71.2.214 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• In my talk page, I believed that "Other matches" involved any TFC game that is not against another MLS team, but you told me otherwise. I believe that the term "Other Matches" should be specified to Canadian Championship as one category and non-MLS and non-Canadian matches as another category. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be two cvategories specifically for MLS Regular Season and Canadian Championship. If TFC qualifies for the playoffs, then that should be a specific category and "other matches" should be Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League. Kingjeff (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What about pre-season tournaments and the exhibition matches against Pachuca and Independiente? Although they are exhibition matches, first team players played in all of them and surely cannot be omitted if we are tracking the coaching records. Also, is it even necessary to divide coaching records by competition? It just makes the page longer. Other football team articles do not divide coaching records in such a way. That's just my two cents. Jimemos (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the ambiguity of "other matches." But I think all tournaments can be added to other matches. Kingjeff (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi all, Kingjeff has kindly made me aware of the broader discussion here apart from our back an forth on our private talk pages. I was the guy who originally created the setup of the current table (with regular season, playoff, and other matches).

Here is what I was thinking when I made the table:

- "Regular Season" is pretty obvious.

- "Playoffs" is so likewise.

- "Other matches" was intended to mean all competitive matches outside of the regular season and playoffs. More precisely, the Canadian Championship, Superliga and the CONCACAF Champions League.

- Friendlies/pre-season matches were not included because such matches often don't reflect the true capability of the coach/manager when B-teams are used. Or, one team might use an A-team but the other, a B. This gives skewed results. Moreover, the fact the the # of subs is unlimited also changes results. In a competitive (ie. non-friendly) match, using your subs wisely is very important; not so in friendlies. These are the two main reasons I had for excluding such matches.

- Johnston's stats for playoffs gets zeroes across the board because playoffs existed but TFC didn't qualify.

- Johnston also gets zeroes (rather than dashes) across the board for "other matches". It is true that the Canadian Championship didn't exist but Superliga did, as well as the old CONCACAF Champions Cup.

- The same process applies for Carver's stats.

- My personal preference is (obviously) for the table as I described above. Failing that, it seems logical for accurate record-keeping that there be FIVE distinct categories: regular season, MLS playoffs, Canadian Championship, CONCACAF Champions League and SuperLiga. For Johnston's stats, the Canadian Championship would be omitted (as it didn't exist) and the Champions League would rather be Champions Cup (it was replaced for 2008 with the Champions League).

I hope I've clearly explained what I was thinking in setting up the table and I'll be glad to answer any questions and continue the discussion. Cheers! Lucky Strike (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

First of all, I made the table. End of story there. All lines should be used when they are in that competition. MLS Regular Season, MLS Playoffs and Canadian Championship should have there own lines. "Other matches" should include only CONCACAF Champions League and Superliga matches and this should only be used when they actually qualify for those tournaments. Kingjeff (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

^It's no wonder many people say they quit editing here! Honestly Kingjeff, you're one of the easiest persons to work with here on Wikipedia but I can't seem to get my point across/get a constructive dialogue going on this particular subject. It's not a I'm-mad-and-I'm-taking-my-ball-home kind of thing, but I'll leave it to you guys and I'm sure you'll come up with a good solution (genuinely not sarcasm). I don't take it personally and hope you don't as well.

P.S. Genuine thanks for keeping our discussion civil; it's far better than I've known elsewhere. Lucky Strike (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

You're trying to lump the Canadian Championship into a category with the Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League making it look like it's something similar. This is claerly not the case. The Canadian Championship is essentially the Canadian First Division just like Major League Soccer is the American First Division and the Bundesliga is the German First Division. Yes, I do know the Canadian Soccer League is the FIFA-designated Canadian First Division. But considering the whole point of the Canadian Championship, it should have it's own independent line. In contrast to the Canadian Championship, the Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League a essentially the same thing. The only difference is that the Superliga is for 2 leagues while CONCACAF Champions League are for the entire confederation which justifies lumping these two into "other matches". Kingjeff (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Supporters groups

I suggest that we have the supporters groups section of the infobox to agree with the supporters groups officially recognized by TFC (as listed on the official site here). This would avoid the constant addition/removal of supporters groups. Jimemos (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Normally I would agree, but their list online was created a year or two ago and hasn't been updated at all lately. I've spoken to people at the club about adding Ultras 114 and keeping it up to date but it seems like they've got other priorities right now. Themodelcitizen (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthem

Since when do we have an OFFICIAL anthem. I've never heard of this TFC song by the Barenaked Ladies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.20.36 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no official anthem for the club. The song by the BNL was actually part of a promotion by Adidas. "My Town" by Alan Frew of Glass Tiger is an unofficial anthem, I suppose.

Games Coached by Carver

Does he get credit for 29 or 30 games coached? Was he not suspened for a game? 76.68.73.233 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well technically he was still manager/head coach of the club at the time, I would consider it Carver's game. If Cummins hadn't stepped up as full-time interim coach we wouldn't even be having this discussion, it would just be assumed as Carver's surely. - themodelcitizen (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

References/footnotes

At some point we should really combine these. I'm not as good with footnotes which is why I've used references, any preference? With refs, you can still add the date of publication, date of access, etc - themodelcitizen (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely references, no one seems to use footnotes from what I call tell. Use two columns, LA Galaxy page for eg. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I merged all the footnotes into references yesterday, it's nice and peeeeerdy now. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Competitions

Should the Competitions section be expanded a bit? Should there be an section on the various exhibition type cups i.e. Carlsberg Cup? --Coppercanuck (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Team Affiliations

I just stumbled across an article in the Bermuda Sun suggesting the Toronto FC has agreements with Bagatelle FC of Barbados Premier Division and will soon sign with Bermuda Hogges. I don't remember seeing anything about it. --Coppercanuck (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Change in roster format

There was a discussion about the new roster format and we have had a trial at both the Timbers and Whitecaps articles and recently Cascadia Cup rival Sounders have converted. The idea is to move all club articles on Wikipedia to the new format as is discussed in the original discussion and more recently at the football project.

My suggestion is to complete the MLS team articles first, so if you could respond at this discussion, that would be ideal. In short, the new layout is slightly taller and less wide, but it correctly impliments WP:MOSFLAG and is better for visually impared users of Wikipedia and others who use readers. I plan to implement the change to this article by the weekend of January 20-22, however other editors could make the change sooner. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing a few complaints about the new roster design on tfc fan boards. I got to agree...you can no longer look at the full roster on 1 screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizby (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Moving forward with the new format on MLS articles not here and be prepared to offer the screen resolution that the fans who are complaining can't view the roster at because at 1600 x 1200 I can see it. In fact, the roster displays when the "viewport" is at 710 pixels high. That means a desktop resolution of about 1024x768 with no extra tool bars or ribbons should be able to display the roster. But in the end, the real issue is that blind viewers could not read the old roster intelligibly while they can now. We could reduce the cell padding to allow for adequate display on lower resolutions, but that will have to be addressed at the footy project. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

i am finding the necessity of this overhaul rather dubious, how exactly does this help a severely visually impaired person, considering the text size remains the same? --Cloak87 —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Dubious? The discussion isn't to be carried here, but since you have asked here, I will respond. Visually impaired readers will often use what's known as a screen reader to convert the words on the screen (and alt text behind images) to speech so that they can tell what's on the page. There were two issues with the old roster format:

1. It was in two columns and wouldn't have good results when read to the reader.
2. the national flag was not being spoken and represented nothing. To be able to tell what the nation was (assuming it wasn't a common one) you have to hover over the text. Try doing that with a touch device. The new format is compliant with WP:MOSFLAG.

In short, the old format is going. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

MLS Ownership

The MLS did not pay the expansion fee for any of the teams. The MLS simply own the contracts that players Of course the MLS would have a say in who the new owners were...just like the NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL do...doesnt mean that the NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA (except for New Orleans Hornets) teams are owned by the league. If the MLS owned the teams, wouldn't they have a say in things such as ticket prices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizby (talk • contribs) 2012-01-18 00:23:47‎

You obviously don't understand. MLS is the owner of every team. No team runs independently. Not one. They are not just like the NBA, NHL, MLB, or NFL. The league has a say in everything. Please read Major League Soccer#Ownership and then revert your changes. If you don't, I won't change it again, but I suspect that there about a dozen editors who will. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Single-entity ownership...actually studied that at school...if you do actually read the ownership page on the MLS wiki page, it might need some cleaning up than, to be consistent..."At one time AEG owned six clubs in MLS, and have since sold the Colorado Rapids, the MetroStars, D.C. United and the Chicago Fire to new owners." And in the single-entity ownership model its actually the other way around, the MLS doesn't own the teams, each team has an equal ownership in the MLS. Garber wasn't hired "per se" by the MLS, but he was hired by the teams in the MLS...(Now to figure out how to sign this :S)Prizby (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, no teams can do anything without the approval of the league and the reverse is also true. MLSE doesn't own TFC, they are franchisees and the league (including their opponents) own the team, and MLSE owns a portion of every other team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So when AEG sold DC United for $33 million...if they weren't selling their ownership stake in DC United, then what exactly were they selling? Prizby (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question. They weren't selling ownership. I suspect that they were selling the value of the team in the league. You may want to discuss this at the MLS article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I think the point is, it is incorrect to call MLSE just operators of Toronto FC...yesterday in Beckham's news conference, they talked about him potentially "owning" (not operating) a team after his new contract is done...I believe the correct variable would be part owners with the MLS? Prizby (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It does really matter. The point is they're just local operators for ticket sales. Who holds the player contracts? Not MLSE, MLS does. A real team would have the player contracts. What does it matter if reporters said that Beckham would own a team or not. They usually don't know what they're talking about when it comes to football in North America. It's likely that they were making reference to his salary rather than any legal standing anyhow.

If MLSE is the "owner" then the Whitecaps FC, who have a team in Vancouver, would own their team and then there's no need to have two separate articles since the ownership group was the same for the second division team and the MLS team. The same can be said for Montreal, where Joey Saputo is the financial interest, Portland and a few other teams. The primary reason that the MLS teams all have their own articles is because they're not their own companies and can't hire or fire a single person without the approval of the leagues and other teams. So it's what you believe is inconsequential. What's important is information that can be referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Best I got right now is a blog that has ownership of any team at 51% for the MLS, and 49% for the "operator" of the team...but one of these days, i will find something that can be referenced Prizby (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Team records

It's common to distinguish inactive players from active with bold text for the latter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Head coach stats

The table of coach stats is an eye sore. No other team has that from what I can tell. We might want to replace with a basic table like all other teams. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we add colour in the head coaches table. Where it says coach..etc. Put in the red colour please. Stanley2toronto (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is a CN controversial on César?

[12] Sure César is currently on the roster. How long is he going to be there? Five years from now, a ref will still be there, even if it's dead, but the roster will have changed a few times. It's a very, very uncontroversial request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

2015 playoff qualification has been mentioned in the article and is not necessarily relevant enough to put in the lead. It should have been discussed here to begin with. The achievement has to be put in context and not blown out of proportion by the futility of TFC. You would not see ‘qualified for playoffs x-times’ on other pages. The 4-time consecutive Canadian Championship run and Champions League semifinals are more definitive. Perhaps they need to advance in the playoffs? Vaselineeeeeeee, you have reverted a number of helpful edits to your preferred versions (which have contained poor grammar or syntax). I have also had to complete a number of your references on Toronto FC and Sebastian Giovinco. Please discuss or make proposals to the lead here before further changes.

Nonc01 (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonc01, poor grammar in my edit to the lead was not present. It was not a run on sentence, it was a list. A list can have 3 or more "things" stated in a consecutive fashion. Perfectly fine. Also, I agree that other pages would not list the team made the playoffs x-times, however when a team has made the playoffs fir the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, it is a strong achievement. if TFC makes the playoffs in years to come, it should not be added in the lead, however the first one is important. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems with your list is that it was missing an important comma, which made it read nonsensically. What makes the first playoff appearance more relevant than future appearances? That is what is being insinuated by mentioning it now, but not once they've done it again. I'm just trying to point out context, objectivity, relevance. Nonc01 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nonc01: Thanks for starting the discussion.

The punctuation was a minor problem. Nonc01's edit was an improvement when he turned the nine-year attempt to reach the post-season into a separate sentence rather than a clause in another sentence. The fact that the first few CC were against second-division teams, isn't really an achievement, particularly when the first was helped by Montreal.

So, can you explain why taking nine years to reach the playoffs is notable achievement at all?

Can you explain why it's worth edit warring over?

Can you explain why your wording is worth it's worth edit warring over? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, it is not the fact that they took 9 years to make the playoffs. It is the fact that it is their FIRST time. It could have been the first year they were founded when they made the playoffs, it would still be an achievement. It marks a ground breaking event that had never happened before, so yes it is an important achievement. And yes Nonc01, I realized I forgot to add in a comma, and I fixed it after you reverted my edit to make it make more sense, making the improvement. Sad to see you had to report us Walter before we had a chance to settle it like men here in a discussion. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't link to my user page. {{ping}} me instead, but this article is on my watchlist. I would have seen it.

If you want to say that it was their first year, it should be clearly stated that it took them nine seasons to do so, because that's the real story here, not that made the post-season. It took both Montreal and Vancouver many fewer seasons. In fact, I don't know of any MLS team who took that long to achieve the post-season.

As for reporting you, do not blame me for your inappropriate behaviour. It's out of my hands now.

So to recapitulate: you have the wrong perspective on this achievement and your own behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it took them 9 seasons to make the playoffs is not the main story. The main story is that it is the FIRST time in franchise history. As I have said it could have been when they were first founded, all I am saying is that it is the first. How ever many seasons it took is irreverent. I cannot force you to see things my way, just like you cannot force me to see yours. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Everyone has their own opinion. But if it is yours that should be on the article, so be it. Not fair, but that's how it goes I find around here... And I would much have discussed it on the talk page first, which is what I am doing now. I did not realize the amount of edits I made. But it is out of my hands as well. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it took them nine seasons to make it into the post-season is not the main story. It is mine that it is. It could not have been when they were first founded.

• 2007 7th East; 13th Overall
• 2008 7th East; 12th Overall
• 2009 5th East; 12th Overall
• 2010 5th East; 11th Overall
• 2011 8th East; 16th Overall
• 2012 10th East; 19th Overall
• 2013 9th East; 17th Overall
• 2014 7th East; 13th Overall

It took them nine seasons. No other MLS team has taken that long. Teams that joined after them and had to fight against larger fields of teams have made it to the post-season before them. That is the main story in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Walter, I agree it is an important fact that it took them nine years. I would not be opposed to the fact if that was included in the lead. Why not both? In some way or form, it should be included in the lead. I think that it is the first time in franchise history and the fact that you have gathered the info that no other team has taken that long, both make a great statement to be included in the lead, don't you think? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, I'm still not understanding why it is very important. You keep mentioning 'first time' and 'nine years', but that's not relevant to whether or not making the playoffs is a significant achievement, facts must stand on their own. Walter Görlitz isn't even totally sold on the Canadian Championships, which I can understand, but at least it was something they won four times (consecutively). If we all agree that Champions League is the biggest achievement, we could say as such, and simply mention the other two points subsequently without comparing them to that. Example:

The team's most significant achievement to date is reaching the semifinals of the 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League. They are four-time Canadian Champions and qualified to the MLS Cup Playoffs for the first time in 2015.

or simply (what I recommend)

The team's most significant achievement to date is reaching the semifinals of the 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League. Nonc01 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I also like

Toronto FC are four-time Canadian Champions. The team's most significant achievement to date is reaching the semifinals of the 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League. Nonc01 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I like this last one the best as well. In principle, the chances of winning the Canadian Championship today is one in five. In theory, with the two NASL teams involved, it's one in three. The times they one it though it was one in three, and they were playing USL teams! Winning them was a foregone conclusion. Making it to the semis in 2012 was a much greater feat. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, they sound fine to me. I guess we'll wait and see how far TFC progress into playoffs before anything is added to the lead about that. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Very good, thank you both for your contributions. I think this section will be useful in the future to discuss playoff accomplishments, or an expansion of the lead to summarize more points from the article. Nonc01 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just put the achievement of the franchise's first ever playoff berth in. History already. It's no argument. It is an official achievement. More than their Canadian Championships at the moment due to the fact that, this is from MLS, not a domestic championship with the other Canadian based MLS team and a Canadian NASL team. Bluhaze777 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Active Teams

Deleting Active Teams box, following the seemingly end of discussion on Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1#Infobox. If you have objections, please take it up there, so as to keep everything in one place. Elisfkc (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto FC. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070318232003/http://web.mlsnet.com:80/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060920&content_id=73273&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp to http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060920&content_id=73273&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto FC. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116020403/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wfield20/BNStory/Front/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wfield20/BNStory/Front/home

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations 5 and 6

In the first part of the history section, one doesn't work, the other links to a report of Liverpool vs Swansea City! Govvy (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Team name

I'm just curious about how we have the team name listed. While it's true the team was initially called "Toronto FC" and not "Toronto Football Club", recent team branding on the practice facility, and various videos put out by the team, have listed the name as "Toronto Football Club". Should this be changed in the first line of the article, as well as in the info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison401 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Branding is one thing. If reliable sources use one name more frequently than the other, then so should we. In other words if CBC, TSN, SportsNet, The Globe & Mail, and US media outlets line-up on "Football Club", then so should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the name "Football Club" needs to be frequently mentioned in sources in order to be included in this page. Take the football club Chelsea, for example. Both fans and media refer to the club simply as "Chelsea". The full and official name of the club, however, is "Chelsea Football Club", which is included on the page for the club. Rarely, if ever, will you see a headline say something along the lines of "Chelsea Football Club wins against Team X". My point is, even if most fans refer to the club as "Toronto FC" or simply "TFC", that doesn't take away from the fact that the team does embrace the name "Football Club". Just because someone goes by a nickname, it doesn't change what's on their birth certificate. I think this should at the very least be addressed in the "full name" section of the info box, and in the first line of the article as well. After all, we can look for reliable secondary sources all we want. Does the name on the side of the team owned practice facility really hold less weight than what TSN or CBC report? Harrison401 (talk)

I'm sorry you disagree, but no one calls it Toronto Football Club so that's not their name. See WP:COMMONNAME Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME simply refers to the title of the page. For example, the title of the Bill Clinton article is rightly "Bill Clinton", but his full legal name, William Jefferson Clinton, is indeed included in both the first line of the article and in it's info box. By your logic, the fact that no one refers to him as William Jefferson Clinton means that it shouldn't be included in the first line of the article or the info box. I'm simply suggesting we change the "Full Name" section of the info box to "Toronto Football Club", and include this name in the first line of the article, while acknowledging that the team is more commonly referred to as TFC or Toronto FC. Harrison401 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not my logic. Feel free to raise it at the talk page of WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well here is a link to a picture of the practice facility, with "Toronto Football Club" written on the building. The picture is from the Toronto Sun. http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/blogs-prod-photos/5/2/2/6/4/52264950d965984031fbc63c7837b417.jpg?stmp=1338334153 . How is this not enough to change the "Full Name" section of the info box? Harrison401 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And here are the more than 243,000 news entries for Toronto FC: https://www.google.ca/search?q=Toronto+FC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=4qPPV_2LI8i4jwPmpJ2gCg#safe=off&tbm=nws&q=%22Toronto+FC%22

And here are the 238 news entries for "Toronto Football Club" https://www.google.ca/search?q=Toronto+FC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=4qPPV_2LI8i4jwPmpJ2gCg#safe=off&tbm=nws&q=%22Toronto+Football+club%22

The order of magnitude is obvious. When they start to get close, please reopen the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting we change the name of the article. I'm saying we include the full name of the team within the article. Jimi Hendrix's birth name was Johnny Allen Hendrix. Next to no one google's that name. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article. The title of the article is still Jimi Hendrix, but Johnny Allen Hendrix is included in the info box and in the first line. Why is this case any different? Just because Toronto Football Club isn't the name commonly used by fans or media, doesn't mean it's not the full name of the team. Harrison401 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Harrison401. The picture he shared above is enough to prove that the club's full name is Toronto Football Club. I also agree that just because it is Googled less doesn't mean it isn't worth including. It should be included in the full name parameter and the opening line. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and changed it. Harrison401 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted it as vandalism. Don't be a idiot! Just because two editors think it's their common name doesn't make it the common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Under "Full name" it should be Toronto Football Club, and there's no harm saying "Toronto Football Club, known commonly as Toronto FC" or similar as the first sentence (it also immediately clarifies what the 'FC' actual refers to). The common name of the club is "Toronto FC" because US sports media differentiate it that way from other Toronto teams by such things, the club uses it as their brand name, and fans likely use it to some extent, but the common name does not preclude actually referring to the actual legal title. The obvious example here is Inter Milan. According to your demonstration here Walter, you are asking that article to only have COMMON applied to every single naming convention, which is not how it works. Koncorde (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The harm is that it's not their full name. It's not used in media. It's not used on their website. It's not used save for on their clubhouse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

They do actually refer to themselves as such on their own website.[13][14][15][16][17] Number 57 07:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Most articles use the full, expanded name of the club initially in the intro before using the common name. I see nothing wrong with it, as it is just the formal name for clarification for those who might not know. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if it's not used in the media often?? When is Juventus Football Club often used or Associazione Calcio Milan? Not often, but it is their full name. It shouldn't be the article title per common name, but it should be listed in the full name parameter and the opening line. And now more editors have spoken up in favour of it and more sources showing it's use. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the lead paragraph, start with Toronto Football Club that does seem the standard format with UK F.C. Teams, why not here? Govvy (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No! You have one example of it being used by the club when there are no other examples. Not on their website. Not in their programmes. Not in their media releases. Not in anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The other reason is that you'll notice that it's not a football club, it's a soccer club. That's because the variation of the sport in Canada is soccer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but your first paragraph in the history section clearly states FC is the initials for Football Club, if Toronto Football Club is the full team name that should clarified in the leading paragraph at the top of the page. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no examples on their website? What about the numerous links Number 57 provided? Clearly 'FC' stands for football club, regardless of what word is used in Canada. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the examples. But there are more examples on the site that never mention it.

I just saw the Inter Milan argument, their intro is referenced to an org chart. The roster, staff page, management team and MLSE board page do not mention it, so I would be hard pressed to accept the term as primary, but there is clearly evidence that it is occasionally used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

For example New York City FC name convention for the article is fine as it what is most popular, but the lead section clearly uses the full name of the club New York City Football Club This is how I see the Toronto page should be. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So we have six editors here, and five agree on adding "Toronto Football Club" to the article. Not to mention the numerous links provided. I really don't see how my edits were classified as "disruptive". I'm simply acknowledging what the vast majority of us here in the discussion section have agreed on. Harrison401 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article here with comments by their brand manager [18] which covers general registration of club has commonly been Toronto FC but that Toronto Football Club also an expressed trademark (along with the additional supporting branded logos). This would suggest that Toronto FC and Toronto Football Club are interchangeable, in the same way West Ham Utd, West Ham United F.C. and West Ham United Football Club are, with the final option being the "Full Name". There is no suggestion that the full name need be a legal entity or anything like that. Full name only allows expansion on what are condensed, hyphenated, Anglicised or abbreviated club names. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The club's full name is Toronto Football Club. The common name is Toronto FC. I don't see what the issue is here. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted his reversion of my edits. There is a consensus in this discussion section. Seven of the eight participants agree to add "Toronto Football Club" as the full name. Any reversion of these edits will be considered disruptive and will be dealt with accordingly. Harrison401 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I perceive that as an unnecessary threat. The reason I warned you on your page was that the change was made before consensus was achieved. I see that a bunch of people who have very little proof believe that's the franchise's name. OK. I'll go along with consensus, but threats are not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Walter, you are the one that accused someone else of vandalism first in a response on this very page at 06:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC). I think you are equally as guilty, however your accusation was actually particularly egregious at that time of the discussion. Koncorde (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that opinion. When a discussion is ongoing, it's incorrect to apply changes until consensus is reached. Your opinion is not inline with Wikipedia practice. While I hit the revert vandal button, I only warned as disruptive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Walter, you continue to be wrong. Which is really worrying because I have otherwise never considered you to be anything other than a good contributer to WP:FOOT. I don't know if you a specific issue at hand here, but you have first fought an argument based on illogical premise that a "full name" is a legal name and / or the common name (neither are mutually exclusive, but are often entirely different premises) and then when two other users both disagree with you, you accused them of vandalism and insulted them. I quote your words on this very matter: And I reverted it as vandalism. Don't be a idiot! Just because two editors think it's their common name doesn't make it the common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC). Now you have decided that I am also wrong, and are backing into wiki-lawyering to defend your gibberish position. Please cease making me think less of you. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm wrong. Let's look at the timeline. Two TFC fanboyz want to change the team's name to make the team seem more important than they actually are: to elevate the team to the same level as European and British clubs. If you check the article history, you'll see that this has been a longstanding problem and required a hidden note. They applied a change with little discussion. I reverted the edit as vandalism and warned the editor as disruptive as there was no consensus yet. The discussion here then reached consensus and one of the fanboyz reverted my edit, which was appropriate based on the consensus, and then placed a warning on my talk page for being disruptive. That is the problem. So I don't think you're wrong, I know you're wrong in that when a discussion is ongoing, in other words: before consensus is actually reached, it's disruptive to make a change to an article and to then warn an editor for a legitimate edit is simply wrong. So instead of wiki-lawyering yourself, think about what is being said and respond appropriately.

So just to be clear, whether it's the club's legal name or not, it doesn't matter any longer, there are editors here who want to call it that. So I'm OK with that, but a source should be supplied to the place where that name is applied so that edit like this don't continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case. I've never known you to be so uncivil, and to hide behind what are patent lies based on your own edit summaries and actual quoted contribution on this page. No, making a change while in "discussion" isn't wrong, it might be considered unwanted or premature but it certainly isn't vandalism as you accused them and more insulting referred to them as "idiot". It is rather obvious that your venomous opinion of two other users is colouring any hope of your impartiality.

A. saying "football club" is not a significant switch of importance. That's your interpretation of their motive so entirely your POV.

B. they are exactly at the same level as any other team (be they British, European or otherwise) so I have no idea why you want to make them lesser than those, again this is your POV?

C. a hidden note is no significant evidence to anything.

D. no, a source is not required in the lede for something that is un-controversial.

I have no idea why mentioning "Canada" is such a problem in that edit summary fwiw, or what that has to do with the issue of the team name? Koncorde (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument about being on the same level as British, European or other clubs is flawed. Those clubs play in a nation where "football" is the name of the sport. TFC does not.

It is controversial and I have laid-out my argument, and WP:V requires it, and it is needed in the article.

Mentioning Canada is not a problem. I'm not sure why you're addressing that comment to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is proof Toronto Football Club is its official name: TFC Academy; just take a look at the logo. Here is the reference: http://www.theaircanadacentre.com/assets/default/2013-TFC-MediaGuide.pdf Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So now we have proof that the academy's name is Toronto Football Club Academy. We still have no proof that this team's name is Toronto Football Club. I tagged the reference in the article accordingly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence for the full name is given, so i do not know why it is a discussion. Commonname as the article name and the fullname in the infobox at the fullname parameter. Kante4 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It has not been given, and that's my point. We have consensus and brief mentions, but no source that officially links the name to the team other than occasional mentions in posts. The problem is that similar posts mention Toronto FC more often. Toronto FC: 6,130 hits on the site Toronto Football Club: 31 hits on the site]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

None of your requirements are requirements for 'Full Name'. There is no burden of evidence that the "full name" of the team must be the most popular use of the name on the internet. You are creating your own definitions, measures, and barriers for otherwise commonly established parameters. If you can demonstrate that FC does not mean "football club", and that "Football Club" is never intended as a meaning of FC through any literature issued by Toronto (several links provided above say otherwise) then you may have some kind of point. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that. I'm trying to point out that those who believe it's the team's name are wrong. Sorry I'm not being clear. If you want to know what FC stands for when the Vancouver Southsiders use it in full, I'd be glad to have you come to the south endzone any time TFC is playing at BC Place. When it started, all that TFC had was a name, not a club. So what did it mean when they entered the league? It was just a name to try to convince fans that they were like a European team, not unlike Real Salt Lake have done with their name. Now TFC is actually a club. The Sounders and Whitecaps had a full club when they entered the league, but their fans don't try promote that on Wikipedia so I suppose the children here who are trying to be self-aggrandizing will have to rule the roost on this article, except when other editors of MLS articles revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Walter, what are you talking about? The term "club" is a term used to describe sports teams across all sports. The Minnesota Twins are a baseball club. The Utah Jazz are a basketball club. It has nothing to do with supporters groups or the fanbase. "Club" is just another way of saying "sports team". Some teams use the word "club" in their official name (ie. the Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club), and others do not. It has nothing to do with making the team seem more prestigious or something. This isn't about making Toronto FC seem "grander" than they actually are. It's about common sense. FC is the universal acronym in association football to denote "football club". The term "football club" is on the exterior of TFC facilities. You're overthinking this way too much. If the name of the team isn't "Toronto Football Club", why is it written on their practice facility?Harrison401 (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A club and a team are different. When it joined the league, TFC was just a team.

You'd have to ask MLSE why they started using "football club" on their practice facility. I'm as flummoxed as you are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are they a club now, according to your definition? Harrison401 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are: a soccer club. But not when they were formed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not they were a club before the team first stepped on the pitch is irrelevant to this discussion forum. The bottom line is, FC stands for "Football Club", a term that is used by the team in their official media, merchandise, and facilities. Before you bring it up again, it makes absolutely no difference that the name "Toronto FC" is used more frequently. Does Sunderland of the Premier League put out headlines on their site saying things like like "Tough Loss for Sunderland Association Football Club"? No. They commonly refer to them as Sunderland, but that doesn't change the full name of the team. Harrison401 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the consensus here, but not to this discussion forum.

And they cannot be a football club as the only real football club in Toronto is the Argonauts, which is owned by the same company that is tasked with operating this franchise. TFC is a soccer club.

And considering you've stuck your foot into it yet again, you have shown that it is used on one facility, but not that it is used in their official media or merchandise. Now, offer some sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

TFC is indeed a soccer club, as that is the name of the sport most in Canada use. But they named the team "Toronto Football Club". It's similar to how the team Adelaide United FC is a soccer club. Soccer is the term most commonly used in Australia, but the team still uses the term "Football Club". So the terms can be used interchangeably.

As for sources of the name "Toronto Football Club" being used in other facilities and merchandise. http://mhysc.albodigital.net/assets/uploads/TFCAcademygroup.jpg Here you can see some kids standing in the TFC dressing room, with the name "Toronto Football Club", and "EST 2007" clearly visible on the floor. And here are some links to merchandise the team is selling in their official store, both with the name "Toronto Football Club" clearly visible. https://shop.realsports.ca/collections/toronto-fc-1/products/toronto-fc-adidas-mens-originals-track-jacket-1 https://shop.realsports.ca/collections/toronto-fc-1/products/toronto-fc-adidas-mens-originals-tank-top-1 Harrison401 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I've explained this before, but let me unequivocal: I have no doubt that the academy used Toronto Football Club Academy. The senior men's team does not seem to use the term.

So we have one editor opposed to the change, and everyone else in agreement? Sounds like we've reached a consensus on this. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have indicated that we had reached consensus a long time ago. I just want a reference to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Earl Andrew: Yes, the change has already been made. These two are just continuing on for some reason. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Walter removed "Toronto Football Club" from the opening line, that's why I'm continuing the discussion with him. But I agree, there is consensus, so I'll change the line. Harrison401 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually , I did not. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_FC&diff=738667267&oldid=738637546 So now you're not only wrong about it being the team's name, you're also wrong about who is making edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, was myself. It is quite common to still, at the start of an article, use a contracted version of a clubs name (the FC is self evident so doesn't need spelling out other than to perhaps differentiate itself from Toronto Fencing Club or something). The "full name" is referenced in the infobox which is appropriate for the purpose of spelling out the meaning of "F" and "C". Koncorde (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Side note, the guys who did the actual franchise identity also identify team as Toronto Football Club. Getty Images also identify using full name, as does the local council minutes for requests to recognise their games as municipally beneficial. Seems to be a fair few references to the "long name". Koncorde (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Getty Images isn't a RS in this case, and I would argue that Vaughan Region council minutes aren't either, but I won't contest the second, but it's a stretch. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Walter. I assumed from the discussion you made the edit, but I was wrong. Harrison401 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a lot of edits flying around and I could see how it could be confused for one of mine. I think we can close this discussion now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

General Manager

Hello fellow Wikipedians, In the infobox it states that Greg Vanney is the team's general manager. However, according to the "Team Management" section of the Toronto FC website the general manager is Tim Bezbatchenko (http://www.torontofc.ca/club/management-team). The "Team Staff" section of the website states that Greg Vanney is the team's technical director and head coach (http://www.torontofc.ca/club/staff). Should the general manager section of the infobox be changed to Tim Bezbatchenko and a new "Head Coach" section be made and Greg Vanney's name added there? Jith12 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jith12: You're right. It was a mistake with the code. I fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)