Talk:Major League Soccer/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Teams

It seems odd that a reader has to scroll almost all the way to the end of the MLS article to find the "teams" section and learn what teams play in MLS. I propose moving the "teams" section near the beginning of the article, perhaps next to the "competition format" section. Barryjjoyce (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The following articles list the teams about half way down: Premier League#Clubs, Bundesliga#Current members of the Bundesliga (2013–14 season), Serie A#Serie A clubs and Ligue 1#Clubs. La Liga doesn't list them at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's still not nearly as bad as Major League Baseball, where the teams list is the last section before the appendicies. If anywhere needs to be fixed, it's there.oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Referee stats

To complete the otherwise comprehensive article, a section on referee stats would be most welcome. This would include referee action taken but also referee performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.178.11.180 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What sort of referee stats? I don't see anything at Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1 or Serie A so you can understand my confusion.

Also, the officials have been locked-out for the season and there is no continuity between previous seasons and this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Why Canadian teams?

How come there are Canadian teams in MSL? Don't the Canadians have their own soccer leagues?  David B. Blue (talk)  16:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Probably for the same reasons there are Canadian teams in National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association. Especially NHL, even though Canada has many hockey leagues. -- Khvmty (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the NHL is the reverse: It started in 1917 as a Canadian league and expanded south into the United States in 1924. Note the old NASL had a number of Canadian teams as well back in the 1960s through early 1980s. I've always had the impression that a major reason for Canadian teams playing in US-based soccer leagues has to do with the historic weakness of Canada's national soccer federation. There's no real development system and no major established university teams comparable to the NCAA soccer competition south of the border. (Compare this to hockey, where Canada's junior leagues are far more competitive and higher-profile.) 1995hoo (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In particular, one line says, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Asking why Canadian teams are in MLS is not the appropriate use for a talk page. There are other forums on the internet to ask questions like that. KitHutch (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's totally out of line if it suggests this could be a question shared by many readers such that a line or two might be appropriate to add to the article, given that it doesn't address this issue now. I don't think this user's question rises quite to that level, but it's unnecessary to be so hasty to condemn his asking. Whether he actually phrased it that way or not, his question does raise an issue that might be appropriate for someone to address. (Compare to articles that mention why there are two teams from Wales in the Premiership, for example. Leagues spanning multiple countries are atypical in global soccer.) 1995hoo (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The rules of FIFA states that a member country should have a league. To share a league with a neighbouring country could therefore, perhaps, seem to be against the rules of FIFA. This question ought to be sorted out in the article.  David B. Blue (talk)  14:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They do have leagues that are just in Canada (see Canadian Soccer League and somewhat Canadian Championship), but the top two leagues in North America are shared between the two countries. Sport in North America in general is not set up like it tends to be in Europe and leagues are not specific to one country like they tend to be in Europe. See Canadian soccer league system for an explanation of the system in North America from the Canadian perspective. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that the English soccer pyramid contains teams from Wales, I think it's pretty clear it does not necessarily violate FIFA's "rules." I think a team from New Zealand either plays or used to play in the Australian league (probably because New Zealand is such a small country). In North America there are rules against the Canadian MLS teams competing in the US Open Cup (the US version of the FA Cup), and I believe the Canadian MLS teams can't qualify for the CONCACAF Champions' League via MLS either, whereas the Welsh teams are not subject to similar restrictions. I think the point Djsasso makes is spot-on because there are other differences between the North American leagues and the European ones (we don't use promotion and relegation, for example, because we use a franchise-based model). Either way, I think a brief paragraph on the reasons why MLS expanded into Canada, and the attendant arrangements relating to qualifying for the CONCACAF Champions' League and the like, might be a useful addition if someone is knowledgeable enough to write it, especially given that there are differences from the way it works with the Welsh teams competing in England. I'm sure there were arrangements made between the USSF, its Canadian counterpart, and CONCACAF, but I don't know what they are. 1995hoo (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The section titled "Competition Format" already includes the following:

"MLS has three automatic berths in the CONCACAF Champions League for its American clubs, with an additional spot available via the U.S. Open Cup; Canadian clubs can qualify for a single berth via the Canadian Championship." Barryjjoyce (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Season games structure

The opening para says 19 teams and 34 games. A likely scenario has each team playing each other team twice, once home and once away. But that would be 36 games. What is the rationale behind 34 games? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I found the answer in an external link:

•Each of the 19 MLS clubs will play 34 games, 17 at home and 17 away. •The nine Western Conference teams will face each West club three times (home teams reversed from 2013). •The 10 Eastern Conference teams will play seven (7) East teams three times each (home teams reversed from 2013) and two East teams twice each. •Eastern and Western Conference teams will play each other once in 2014, with the home team reversed from the 2013 -- SGBailey (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Single entity

It's not clear how this edit with it's statement of "not true" and a link to an article that states in part, "Under the league's single-entity system, M.L.S. owns all player contracts and each team has a $2 million budget for players, with a few notable exceptions", shows anything else. It would be good to see what exactly in "Major League Soccer operates under a single-entity structure in which teams are centrally owned by the league" is not supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If all teams are owned by MLS, how Redbull (an Austrian multinational) has bought 100% of one MLS team in New York? Can't you see that MLS changed its structure in the last years? Yes, MLS may own all players' contracts, but not the teams. As you can see here: read again. MarcosPassos (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Then change the wording to correctly reflect the source don't remove it! There is now no wording to indicate that the league is a single-entity system. Don't be extreme. Edit warring (continually reverting to your preferred version) is not appropriate.

Furthermore, the link you gave is the same as I gave, except mine is doesn't have the additional parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And one thing further, no team is owned by the investor. None. The story is wrong. That's what Fraser stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Gorlitz is correct. I have fixed the page and added a cite to a recent MLS press release. When someone buys into the league, they are buying a share of the league itself; they are also buying the right to operate the club but they are not buying the club itself. Some media sources report this incorrectly, but MLS public statements about ownership, which are more reliable, are generally pretty clear on the distinction. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If Gorlitz is correct, why not included a source backing the following statement: "Major League Soccer operates under a single-entity structure in which teams and player contracts are centrally owned by the league"? I know it will be very hard (impossible) to find, so we will have to keep using another wiki page to back it (seriously?) and a NYT article that states the opposite: that Redbull - and not MLS - owns a team in NYC. MarcosPassos (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We have three sources that when read together support the information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But I'd be happy to see new wording in that section if it makes it more clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you don't. One of the "sources" is another wiki page (!), the other source states that you, Walter, are wrong because it's said that Redbull - and not MLS - owns a team. Finally, the third source states that "each team has an investor-operator that is a shareholder in the league.", what is obviously true, and does not back the information that "teams (...) are centrally owned by the league". Now, you don't have a single source for that, and you won't find it because the MLS does not own all the teams since 2006. You can change the wording for "some teams (...) are centrally owned by the league". That would be true. MarcosPassos (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Which reference is a Wikipedia page? Are you confused the linking the article of Fraser, which is common practice, that's part of the link to the trial results at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html? That reference has statements such as "In many ways, MLS does resemble an ordinary company:  it owns substantial assets (teams, player contracts, stadium rights, intellectual property) critical to the performance of the league"

I'd be glad to remove the source that incorrectly states that Red Bull owns a team as it's contradicted by Fraser and MLS itself. Fraser makes it clear that the people and companies who put money into the league are not owners of anything. Please take the time to read the actual reference and see if that clears anything up for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fraser vs MLS was filed in 1996, the court gave the verdict in 2002. Since then things had changed a bit, and although the source that states that Redbull owns a team contradicts what Fraser and MLS had said from 1996 to 2002, that doesn't make the statement untrue at all. Because (1) Redbull did buy a team in 2006 and (2) the teams are not all centrally owned anymore. I know that you will reply echoing Fraser vs MLS again, but please try to make an extra effort this time to understand that (1) MLS changed its structure after 2002 and (2) you didn't show a single recent source (at least from the last 5 years) backing the statement that MLS centrally owns all the teams. MarcosPassos (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

http://pressbox.mlssoccer.com/content/about-major-league-soccer "Major League Soccer is structured as a single, limited liability company (single-entity). In the single-entity business structure, club operators own a financial stake in the League, not just their individual team. The MLS investors are:" As of 2014 nothing has changed at all. It's still a single-entity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the team operators (note the plural) own a financial stake in the League, not just their individual team; but that does not mean that the teams are centrally owned by MLS. i.e.: If I own company A, and said company owns a financial stake in company B, that does not mean in any way whatsoever that company B centrally owns company A. Red bull centrally owns the New York Red Bulls, as its stated in the New York Red Bulls wiki page.MarcosPassos (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. No one owns any individual team. They're only operators of that team. They "own a financial stake in the League", not a team. Red Bull owns their beverage, not the team. Conversely, the league is run by all of the team investors. That's in the MLS document as well and supported by Fraser. Fraser is the legal precedent under which the league operates. The MLS document is an attempt at explaining this to the press. You can't read one without the other. That's why this year, when the former owner of Chivas USA wanted out, the league took over operations of the team and the owner couldn't just sell it to someone else: they owned the team and not Jorge Vergara. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but you still haven't provided a source backing the following statement: "All teams are centrally owned by MLS". From this source: "This is not a marketing gimmick," City chief executive Ferran Soriano said in a conference call on Tuesday. "This is about developing a team that will play very good football and will have a chance to win." City, which is owned by Sheik Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, will be the majority owner of the team'[NYC FC]". And if you are really right, why does the NY Red Bulls wiki page states that Red Bull GmbH is the sole owner of the team?, and why does the Red Bull Arena wiki article states again that Red Bull GmbH is the 100% owner of the team? Are they wrong? MarcosPassos (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problems with NYCFC stating that it's developing a team that will play very good football, because that's what it's supposed to do as the local operators of the team. As for the ownership issue, I believe that was addressed above by Barryjjoyce, "Some media sources report this incorrectly, but MLS public statements about ownership, which are more reliable, are generally pretty clear on the distinction."

As for the New York Red Bulls team article and Red Bull Arena (New Jersey), we do not have a parameter for "operator" as opposed to "owner". It's been a problem we've had to live with, but one that we understand. Good night. If you would like, we could very easily remove that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we can't. Because we would be lying, and you don't have a single source proving that all the teams are centrally owned by MLS. MLS states that the owners own not just the teams, but a stake in the league, what is completely different from what you understood. And to insinuate that the media is dumb, stupid etc when it doesn't not agree with you doesn't help either. Find a source backing the statement that MLS, and not Red Bull GmbH, owns the New York Red Bulls and you might change it. Until then, I advise you to not do anything in this pages.MarcosPassos (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The article cites an MLS press release that Walter keeps mentioning, but which Marcos either ignores or misreads, that has a section titled "investors" (not "owners") that repeatedly uses the phrase "investor-operator" for almost every club on the list — although, just to confuse things, it occasionally (eg, Orlando, New York CIty FC, Houston, Salt Lake) also uses the phrase owner. I'll add some more cites from reliable sources on the single entity issue, and we'll see if that clears things up. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added some cites from recent articles, including the following, which should resolve the debate: "Under MLS’s current structure, MLS owns all teams in the league but contracts with operator-investors (more frequently referred to in conversations as team “owners”) who manage teams and are entitled to certain potential benefits from running the teams. That is, the team “owners” in MLS, including AEG, the Kraft family, and others, are really operator-investors in MLS’s structure." http://www.businessofsoccer.com/2013/08/26/dempsey-transfer-highlights-mls-single-entity-economic-structure/ Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Social Media

Dannyvwd40 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)dannyvwd40

 Not done It's not clear what you want done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Size

This article is now over 90kB and growing, which puts it over the WP:ARTICLESIZE guidelines. I propose shortening it by reducing the sections on History, Ownership, Stadiums, and Media coverage. The History section is particularly long and in need of trimming. All four of these sections have their own article, so it should be relatively noncontroversial to move material over to those articles. I wanted to give other editors some warning before chunks of this article start shrinking. If folks have other thoughts on how to trim this article, please share them. And if this note looks familiar, yes, I did do something similar a few months ago. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Or splitting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Major League Soccer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 23:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Numerous paragraphs and sections lack sourcing. Enough that I would ordinarily be inclined to quick fail this nomination. However, given the length of time the nomination has languished in the queue, I am giving the nominator a chance to address this before taking further action. Resolute 23:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

General

• Images are good with appropriate licenses or valid fair use rationales, as required.
  • Not a GA requirement, but alternative text for images is encouraged.

Thanks for the guidance. I am going to focus for now on GA status.

• References are generally okay, but..
  • Referencing formatting is inconsistent. Some citations use templates, others do not. The latter put the publication where the author would be on the templates. In general, the information I am looking for is there, so I'm not going to make an issue of it, but if FA is an eventual goal, this will have to be made consistent.

Thanks for the guidance. I am going to focus for now on GA status.

• • However, as a rule, online publications should not be italicized. So "ESPN" rather than "ESPN". On the flip side, print publications, such as the Los Angeles Times should be italicized.

I have fixed a bunch of these. Let me know if there is still a stray one or two that need fixing.

• • "Its All About Sports" appears to be a Wordpress blog. What makes this a reliable source (i.e.: are its authors well known in their field, is it actually peer reviewed or professional, but simply using Wordpress as a host, etc?)

Fixed.

• • Likewise, nasljerseys.com and the11.ca I am wondering about.

Fixed.

• • The reference(s) to DrewZuhoskyDaily.com I would like to see replaced though. That definitely appears to just be someone's blog, which fails WP:RS.

Fixed.

• • Ref 95 (monsters and critics) is a dead link. There are a few others already marked. Replacing them is nice, but if I come across one when I do a random check to verify the content is supported and not closely paraphrased, I'll check for archive versions.

Thank you.

• • Refs 152 and 170 are incorrectly formatted.

Fixed.

Lead

• It is noted that MLS is sanctioned by U.S. Soccer. I would presume it is also sanctioned by the Canadian Soccer Association, and as the top league for both countries, I would expect to see both governing bodies mentioned.

I don't believe that MLS is sanctioned by the CSA, despite the existence of three Canadian teams. US Soccer describes MLS as a US-sanctioned league, and I've added a cite for that. There is a somewhat analogous situation in England, where the English Premier League includes teams from Wales.

You appear to be correct. How interesting. Resolute 00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• The league lost millions of dollars in the early years, teams played in mostly empty American football stadiums, and when two teams folded, rumors of MLS' demise started circulating - just a suggestion to remove a comma: "The league lost millions of dollars in the early years, teams played in mostly empty American football stadiums, and rumors of MLS' demise circulated when two teams folded".

Done.

• I don't see the relevance of MLS having a higher average attendance than the NHL or NBA. This feels like a bit of puffery given that MLS stadiums are far larger than NHL/NBA stadiums. Likewise, I wouldn't see much value in someone claiming that the NHL or NBA has higher total attendance due to the fact that those leagues play more than twice as many games. I think it would be more illuminating to highlight MLS's internal growth, perhaps from the low average in 2000 to the high average in 2012.

That is how Forbes (and other publications) characterize MLS attendance. Many facets of MLS' development are commonly compared in the media to other major leagues.

Your connection between stadium size and attendance seems logical, but it doesn't bear out here. The MLS Attendance page shows that some MLS teams with the largest stadiums (New England, DC United) are among the lowest in attendance. Plus, the increases in MLS attendance have occurred while the league has downsized from large American football stadiums to smaller soccer-specific stadiums.

Well, Seattle skews that badly, but I can't really argue with the sources. Fair enough. Resolute 00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Competition format

• The citation provided does not appear to support the claim that "some fans have argued that playoffs reduce the importance of the regular season" - it only implies that the interviewer believes this. I would expect this is something that an explicit source could be found for, but I think it would help to add context here as well. Few North Americans would find it odd for a league to use a playoff system, so if a source can be provided for it, it would be nice to make a note about how a playoff structure actually differentiates MLS from soccer leagues in other parts of the world.

Done and done.

• Acronyms such as "NFL" and "NBA" should be spelled out on first use.

Done.

Sorry, I meant that the acronyms need to be expanded. so "National Football League (NFL) and National Basketball Association (NBA)". Resolute 00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Done.

That's as far as I am going to get today. Will continue (hopefully complete) the review tomorrow. Resolute 23:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Sorry about how slow this is going. I'm finding my time very limited, but I don't want to leave you hanging, so...

History

• I questioned whether the nasljerseys site is a RS above, but either way, it doesn't support the implied statement that the NASL was a top level predecessor to MLS.

Done.

• I'm not a fan of the organization of the Establishment section. It seems to jump around. I might suggest organizing it into three sets. Start with the on-field results: First game (date of and the team that won the first game?), DC United's early success and the first expansion teams. Then your paragraph about the rules experiments, then discuss the business. The lawsuit, attendance and viability concerns, and the first soccer specific stadium. That would lead nicely into the resurgence section.

Done. This was a great idea. The organization now goes: establishment → early play → popularity decline → financial problems → laying the groundwork for resurgence. This is a much better organization than the previous attempt to go chronologically. I'm very excited about the revised version of this section.

Looks better! Two small issues left: Need a citation for DC United winning those titles, and you start the section noting that MLS began with "ten teams" but end it saying it contracted to "10 teams". These should be made consistent, and I believe the MOS suggests to use numerals for double-digit numbers.

I added a cite for DC United. I don't believe MOS:NUMERAL has any such requirement.

It's more the consistency issue than whether it is spelled out or numerals are used. Since you use "ten teams" in every other instance, I will change the one usage of "10 teams"

Resolute 23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• As with the NFL and NBA examples above, please expand (and wikilink) the IFAB acronym on first use.

Done.

• Is there a dollar figure for the cost of Howard's transfer that would help put "one of the most lucrative contract deals in league history" in context?

Done.

Not done? I don't see the figure in the article. Also, I am a little concerned about the sources here. They seem like blogs. Resolute 23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Now it's done. And the cites are legit, not blogs.

• A little pedantic, but MLS is not a person, so it cannot "see" things. Rewording suggestion: From 2003 to 2008, the league saw the construction of six additional soccer-specific stadiums, largely funded by owners such as Lamar Hunt and Phil Anschutz, so that by the end of 2008, a majority of MLS teams were now in soccer-specific stadiums. to "Between 2003 to 2008, construction of six additional soccer-specific stadiums was completed, largely funded by owners such as Lamar Hunt and Phil Anschutz, so that a majority of MLS teams were in soccer-specific stadiums."
  • Other examples of the league "seeing" things in the article

Done.

• Suggestion on wording: ...leaving their history behind for a new San Jose ownership group that would materialize in 2007. to "...leaving their history behind for a new San Jose ownership group that formed in 2007."

Done.

• There are a lot of places where words, particularly "league" and "MLS" are repeated within individual sentences. It helps readability to avoid this. i.e.: "Major League Soccer took steps to further raise the level of play in the league by adopting the Designated Player Rule, which helped MLS bring international stars into the league."

Done.

• Citation needed for the Toronto FC expansion. Also, the link for the creation of the Designated Player Rule appears to be dead.

Done.

• Citations needed for the addition of San Jose, Seattle and Philadelphia.

Done.

• Ditto Vancouver and Portland, as well as Salt Lake reaching the CONCACAF Champions League final.

Done.

• Number ranges should use endashes. So 12–17 instead of 12-17.

Done.

Teams

• No real issues here.

That's it for this bloc. Unfortunately, it is unlikely I will be able to return to this review before Monday. Thanks, Resolute 00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Ok, ticked off the completed items from the last batch. One concern raised with the changes: Some of the citations you added are just bare URLs. Could you ensure that you are adding at least the URL, title, author (if credited) and accessdate in a format that at least roughly matches the remaining cites? Resolute 23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find bare URLs. I did go back and add some "retrieved" dates. Is there something else you are looking for? Keep in mind, as I mentioned earlier, I am focusing for now on GA status, and not trying to meet FA criteria.

Ownership

• It doesn't seem necessary to use four citations to support the single statement that MLS is centrally owned. That block of superscripts is distracting.

Ordinarily I would agree, but this is a misunderstood issue that is subject to some debate because the media casually refers to team investor-operators as "owners". See this MLS talk page discussion for a recent example. I've scaled back the number of cites from four to three. If there were only one cite, and someone finds an article that refers to team "owners", that may start off another unnecessary edit war.

• Ref 90 (SI regarding two groups owning nine teams) is dead.

Done.

• Statement about Chivas USA being league-owned since February requires citation.

Done.

Player quality and salaries

• Citation needed on the academy teams playing in other leagues.

Done.

Stadiums

• The paragraph that begins with Real Salt Lake moving into Rio Tinto Stadium is largely uncited. Sadly, one is needed for each team.

Done.

Media coverage

• No major issues.

In general, I am seeing a fair bit of overlinking. I use User:Ucucha/duplinks, which creates a link in the left-hand toolbox that highlights them all.

I've gotten rid of a number of these.

That's it for this run, thanks. Resolute 23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Ok, final run. I'll check for resolved issues after, and might do a quick polishing review after that...

Profitability and revenues

• Would it be possible to use a more recent story than the 2005 New York Times piece to argue the league's financial stability and profitability since 2004?

I've revised the text to address your point rather than replace the cite. The cite shows the league's turnaround within a few years of the 2002 contraction.

• There's no need to re-state that ESPN signed an eight-year TV deal in this section or that it is the first time rights fees were given, as you already covered that in the media section. You probably only need to repeat what the league earns annually from the TV deals here.

I've trimmed that from the Media Coverage section instead. The Media section is about today's media coverage, whereas the Profitability section covers some of the history exploring how the league turned the corner.

That works too. Resolute 23:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Logical disconnect: After building up the league's profitability, it is noted that only three teams made money in 2008, and only two in 2009. Then, suddenly, "the league has continued to improve upon its fiscal health." I would suggest rewording that statement slightly to indicate that the 2013 Forbes report shows a marked improvement over that 2009 note, rather than what is implied to be an incremental improvement.

Rewritten.

• I believe Chivas USA has fallen under league control, and judging by the crowds lately (especially Saturday night against Vancouver - yeesh!), may be in significant financial distress. Would that perhaps be appropriate to mention here?

I've added something to that effect in the ownership section, where the MLS buy-back of Chivas is discussed.

Rules and officials

• Cite needed for the goal differential rule change.

I removed that statement. Goals Differential having precedence over Goals For is pretty typical and doesn't need to be mentioned. I've also rewritten some text so there is less of a proseline feel.

Team names

• Cites needed for some of the team name histories (if possible)

Done.

Dead links

• The External Links tool in the right hand sidebar shows a few dead links that would be ideal to fix up (links highlighted in blue, orange and red could use checking.)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean; I'm not as technically savvy as you. I've never used that tool. I don't have a right hand sidebar when I view the page.

Apologies, I meant the side bar in this GA page rather than on the article. I'll check for some of these where I can. Resolute

Apologies for the overall slow review. Big article, looks good overall, even if I did nitpick a lot above! Cheers, Resolute 13:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, most resolved. I'll do my polishing review now... Resolute 23:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And by now, I meant a day later than hoped. I took a run at polishing up the prose a little, but please check to ensure I didn't change any intended meanings. In part because I will be completely offline for the next several days, I am going to pass the article at this point, though I think there are a couple things where improvement would help the article. Of note, I replaced as many dead links as I could yesterday but two Sports Illustrated cites should be replaced - I can't tell you exactly which ones as the dead link tool is currently not working. Congrats on the GA, and good luck with your next editing project! Resolute 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

Brad Davis should be bold on the games played list since he is still active as well Mtlcpa (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done SounderBruce 01:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles MLS team

Went ahead and made the article for the Los Angeles MLS team. You can start contributing with what is already know. Treyvo (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The notation of Chivas USA should be removed from the map. They are no longer an active team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.90.34 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the text label from the map template, so Chivas isn't listed anymore, but the underlying graphic with the second dot for Chivas needs to be updated. I expect it will be soon to account for the NYCFC and Orlando expansion teams, but I'm not savvy enough to do that myself. oknazevad (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Their removal from the map is premature. That's the map for the 2014 season and technically, we're still in it. Also, Chivas still exists. Although this is fighting against a raging river so I won't oppose any additional premature edits like it, but still find it ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Effective immediately, Chivas USA will cease operations." No, Chivas does not still exist. Nothing premature about reporting accurately that they are finished. It may still be the 2014 playoffs, but that's as categorical of a statement from the league as one can get. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014: minor edits and formatting for "Player Records" tables

Somewhat related, for formatting consistency, the "Shutouts" table should probably also use spanned rows for the Rank and Shutouts columns where it's tied for 9th place.

Should also use spanned rows in the rank and count columns in a similar way for consistency in the subsequent section "Player records (active)", where there are currently ties in the ranks for both assists and shutouts.

Emxpert (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam ^Sing! 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

The sequence of numbers in the "Rank" Column is wrong for a couple of the tables in the section "Player Records". The rank column was not correctly updated for tables that included tied rankings.

This table is wrong:

Single season goals
Regular Season only

Rank	Player	Season	Goals
1	Roy Lassiter	1996	27
	Chris Wondolowski	2012
	Bradley Wright-Phillips	2014
4	Mamadou Diallo	2000	26
	Stern John	1998
6	Carlos Ruiz	2002	24
7	Raúl Díaz Arce	1996	23
	Taylor Twellman	2002
9	Dom Dwyer	2014	22
	Camilo Sanvezzo	2013

Instead, it should be:

Single season goals
Regular Season only

Rank	Player	Season	Goals
1	Roy Lassiter	1996	27
	Chris Wondolowski	2012
	Bradley Wright-Phillips	2014
2	Mamadou Diallo	2000	26
	Stern John	1998
3	Carlos Ruiz	2002	24
4	Raúl Díaz Arce	1996	23
	Taylor Twellman	2002
5	Dom Dwyer	2014	22
	Camilo Sanvezzo	2013

Somewhat related, for formatting consistency, the "Shutouts" table should probably also use spanned rows for the Rank and count columns where it's tied for 9th place

Emxpert (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I believe we do use Standard competition ranking. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sam ^Sing! 13:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If two players stand with the same record, then the next placement is as though there were player in each place. So it's not three tied for first and then two for second, it's three tied for first and the next place is fourth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Team names

In the section called "Team names" (under the Organization header) Miami Fusion FC is described as an "original team" however they were a 1998 expansion club along with the Chicago Fire, weren't they? Just my two cents but it seems like that should be rephrased. Cheers to all. -Creativewill (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Barryjjoyce (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Major League Soccer stadiums

The list of Major League Soccer stadiums needs some attention. I'm working on the map. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

MOSNUM

@Walter Görlitz: Here is the guidance from WP:NUMNOTES:

• Avoid beginning a sentence with figures:

  •   Not There were many attacks. 23 men were killed, but There were many attacks; 23 men were killed or There were many attacks. Twenty-three men were killed.

Barryjjoyce (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reworded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

6 Logo Graphic

Proposing we remove the graphic of the 6 MLS logos. Although it comes from an official source, I think whoever at the league made it is incorrect about their own history. The graphic implies that in 2012 the league changed its primary logo from green and blue to a black and white. They did use a B&W logo on their social media and minor website graphics, but it was not a change to the official primary logo. Team jerseys, balls, television, media guides (and other non-marketing print materials), etc. all continued to use the green/blue logo right up until 2014/15 logo change.

Also, the graphic implies the 1996, 2000, and 2008 logos were new versions replacing the ones prior. But actually the league used logos between '96 and '08 with and without the full spelling along side the 3 letter abbreviation. The only real logo change in this period was in 2000 when it got a minor tweak – there were no changes in 2008 and 2012. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. A small gallery with vector logos would be much more flexible and should be implemented. SounderBruce 18:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to do a gallery of historical logos, I'll suggest that the History of Major League Soccer article is a better place for it than this one. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC

See this RFC in regards to the use of FC/SC in MLS-related articles. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sporting Kansas City Location

Sporting Kansas City (Formerly Kansas City Wizards) is a team that operates and practices from its head office and facilities in Missouri. The team never relocated to Kansas despite opening a new stadium over the state line in 2011. Shouldn't the team city be listed as Kansas City, Missouri where they are from? For this unique situation, I think we could override the previously used convention in this table in order to preserve accuracy. This is verifiable by checking the team's website where they show the home venue in Kansas but everything else in Missouri. As a Missourian, it's odd to see my team listed with a location in another state. I am curious to hear other opinions on this.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jkeiltaylor: Good to see you starting a discussion on this topic. The reason they are list as being in KC, Kansas and not KC, Missouri is strictly because that is where the play their home games. It is quite common for a team to play in a stadium in a different city than where the teams headquarters/offices are located, but in all the league tables for the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc., the teams are listed by the city they play in. Some examples are the NY Islanders offices are still in Uniondale, NY, but they play in Brooklyn, part of NYC, and are listed as NYC in the NHL table; the Dallas Cowboys offices are in Irving but they play in Arlington and are listed in Arlington in the NFL table. In the above examples, they are a part of the NYC Metro area and Dallas-Ft Worth metro area but they are still listed as the actual cities they play in. Using the above examples, Sporting has offices and facilities in KC, Missouri but they play in KC, Kansas while still being part of the KC metro, thus they are listed as Kansas City, Kansas. So unless we drastically change how we list teams on the league tables (listing where to send mail instead of where to find them when they play home games), I don't see why having the location in Kansas is a big deal. It's not like anyone is claiming is only a a Missouri or Kansas team, it is a Kansas City team and that includes areas from both states. Yosemiter (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:Thanks for the info on this. Missouri isn't just where they receive mail. It's where the team was founded and still currently resides and operates. The team has zero ties to Kansas except 17 nights a year for home games. Everything else is done in Missouri. My argument would be that all of those tables of other leagues should reflect where the team is from and not where they happen to be playing. Not because this is where you send mail, but because it would accurately show where a team belongs. Where they play can change but where they are from does not unless they relocate. Sporting KC is the perfect example of why the current method in this table is faulty. I know changing all of the tables would never happen, so I definitely don't expect that. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Kansas does not have any major pro sports teams. Missouri built Sporting KC from the ground up as a founding club in a fledgling league. It's sad that the page seems to ignore that.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And we indicate where they play, not where the team's office is. There is no need to agree to disagree, there is the need for you to understand what is being represented in the table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:I understand now what is represented in the table. I think where we disagree is what city should be listed. What's currently being used is where the team plays but I think it should list where the team is based (by this I don't mean an office where they simply receive mail. I mean the team's current hometown which can differ from home venue); only because in very rare cases, such as with Sporting KC, it is not an accurate representation of the team. Someone who doesn't know anything about the MLS will not realize these are stadium locations because the table is described in the article as showing conference alignment. There is already another column in the table showing home venue so why duplicate basically the same information in a second column? The table makes the assumption that whoever is reading already has knowledge about MLS teams and we know this is not always true.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would we list where the club's front-office is located? The fans don't travel to the front-office is located, they travel to the pitch on which they play. In club articles, the infobox lists the team's "ground" or "stadium" location, not where their front-office is located. If it's listed in the prose, that's a different matter. If someone who doesn't know anything about MLS, they are not interested in the front-office location but where they play, it supports the following column. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

JKT, there's something weird about you keep mentioning "where the team is based". I, honestly, have no idea what that means. Especially since, before, you seemed to agree with Bridgeview for the Chicago Fire. What does 'where a team is based' mean? Achowat (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jkeiltaylor: You mention front-offices and practice/training facilities. Many teams don't have both in the same city. Whitecaps FC have their front-office in Vancouver, but their practice facility is on the University of British Columbia's property. It is not part of Vancouver, but is only accessible through the city (or by boat or by helicopter). See http://www.whitecapsfc.com/facilities/training-facilities and http://www.whitecapsfc.com/post/2013/02/26/ubc-training-facility-tour. That's supported at the team article. Unless we change the column heading to indicate "front-offices" or "primary business operations" and somehow include training facility, either as as weight in selecting the location or as a separate column, we're not doing it "right". It's much easier to indicate that the city in which their primary stadium is located is the one listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you have Orlando City, whose office headquarters is in Winter Park, the main training field is in Sanford (actually unincorprated Seminole County) and their stadium is in Orlando. --Trödel 12:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The consensus has been that the location of the stadium should be listed in this table (as in other sports tables) because what most people think of when they talk about the location of a team is either (1) the metro area they belong to, or (2) where they play their games. Since nearly all teams (except those named for a state) are named by the metro area, it makes sense that the location should be where they play their games. If someone wants to know more they can read the article on the team and get those details. The purpose of the location is not to be "static" unless they completely change cities, but to be the location where they play. I support the current consensus. Perhaps a comment in the lede of the Sporting KC article would be appropriate. --Trödel 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, where a team plays is arbitrary. What makes sense is where the team is from. They can play on Mars but the team's city doesn't change. Nobody thinks of New Jersey when talking about the New York Giants. I understand the consensus here is for the opposite opinion so I will leave it alone. All I know is I live in Kansas City, Missouri and nobody thinks of Kansas when talking about Sporting KC. The table gives the impression that there is an MLS team in Kansas and that is false. I honestly believe that if you all lived in this area and knew the dynamics and history of the situation, you would understand why listing Kansas is obviously uninformed and so ludicrous that it would make me laugh if I wasn't so shocked that my home team is listed in the wrong location.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The main Wikipedia Sporting KC article has it 100% correct as it reads now. So no changes should need to be made there. It lists both where the team is based AND where the team plays, which is the most accurate way to portray the situation. In the "Sporting Renovation: 2011–12" section, it addresses the stadium location issue. Also, see Sports section of Kansas City, Missouri and Sports in Missouri.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Sports in Missouri error (it was a fairly new and unchecked page). I fixed it using the exact template from Sports in New York since this scenario is exactly identical (despite your claims that this is unique). Also where a team is "from" makes no difference since we only care about where they "are". We, as editors, assume that the reader of the table, an average non-business caring individual, is looking to see where they can find the team when they want to see them, which is most likely to be on game day. In general, I have never met an average fan of a sports team who wants to talk to the marketing department or the president's secretary or even to watch a team run through drill at practice. I should also note that I have read through most every main article on Sporting KC's website and they never once claim to be "from" Missouri, they claim on Twitter and news articles that they are from Kansas City (with no state indicated). Your citation about their Contact Info page lists KCK for the stadium, KCM as facilities and offices, and their local phone number contact is a KCK area code; there is no definite statement or citation that they are a "Missouri team". TL:DR, the League Tables (in all US major leagues on wikipedia currently) list a City where the team is most likely to be found by an average fan and in this case it happens to be an address you do not like due to "dynamics and history of the situation" which has absolutely no impact on the reality of where they actually play. Yosemiter (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Haha. Now you are just meddling. I can't tell if you are from Kansas and wish you had a team or if you just plain don't know what you're talking about. The only consolation I can take from this is that people already know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jkeiltaylor: I can assure you I am from nowhere close to the subject matter and completely unbiased when it comes to your border rivalry (I am nomadic but have never lived anywhere east of the Rockies), my goal here is only with clarification and fact checking (mostly in hockey if you check my edit history, I only cam across your changes because I watch the lists of teams pages and now I have been trying to help clarify to you why we have things listed the way we do). I checked what you asked us to look at (Sporting KC website, Sports in Missouri, etc.) and then compared to how we have used the data presented to us to give the information that the average person is looking for. In this case (involving state lines and representative teams playing in other states), I defaulted to New York since this situation is quite common there. Personally, I think the way the NFL team infoboxes, where they list location of homegames and operations separately, might be change that you are looking for here. Otherwise, it just looks like you have some huge bias against Kansas and the fact that it is part of a metropolitan area in your precious Missouri. Honestly, I have only been trying to help you since more editors can help make a better encyclopedia. Yosemiter (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:Understood. I apologize. Thanks for hearing me out.Jkeiltaylor (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: where the team is from. Players on this team are from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, England, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Spain, Venezuela and 17 players from the United States. That's where the team is from. The club's front-office is located in one state, which is where their mail is from, while the matches are broadcast from another state where their pitch is located. So once again, we're still no closer to helping people with different understandings of what "from" means to come to consensus. I didn't list the provenance of the staff or investors/owners. Ultimately, we treat all teams the same way and list the location of the stadium, not the front-office or other location under city. In some cases, those are the same city. In other cases it's not. Unless you can provide a way to display the front-office location and keep the table small, I can't see us changing what is listed under "city". Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:"Players on this team are from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, England, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Spain, Venezuela and 17 players from the United States. That's where the team is from." You're retarded. Now I understand the backwards logic behind this. It's no wonder Wikipedia is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkeiltaylor (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's only as reliable as we make it. I was making a point. That being that the team itself isn't from any one place. It plays in one city and its offices are in another. Its players and staff, which is another way of interpreting what "from" means, find their origin in many locations. Sorry I didn't make that more clear, but do be civil when disagreeing with editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:I don't think we need to interpret what "from" means. Most people already know what this refers to and it does not make sense to state that a team is from a series of individual cities. A team is from one place only. It seems like you are distracting from the point of my argument so that it will be buried and dismissed as invalid. The discussion here is not how to determine where a team is from but what should be shown in the table in the MLS article. According to our discussion, this group and the other groups maintaining sports pages have decided to show readers where team stadiums are located and to omit where the teams are based. I disagree with that policy because of situations like Sporting KC. They are the only team in the MLS (and most of the sports world, in fact) that plays in a different city than where they are based. The table doesn't reflect this. Because most readers are interested in where teams are from and not where their home venue was built, they will be misled into thinking that Sporting KC is not from Kansas City, Missouri. Jkeiltaylor (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If readers are led to believe that SKC is not from Missouri, they're not being misled. Achowat (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The team's head office and facilities in Missouri. The team plays in Kansas. What proof does Jkeiltaylor (talk · contribs) have that "most readers are interested in where teams are from and not where their home venue was built"? What proof does Achowat (talk · contribs) have to the contrary? With simply arguing one way or the other, we don't have any proof what readers actually expect. Until there's some actual proof, I say we should not project our opinions.

I would argue that there has been very little edit warring. I would expect if it was absolutely wrong, we would see a lot more of it. The club's history page doesn't mention Missouri, but it mentions that they broke ground for their home field in Kansas. Their contacts are obviously all in Missouri because that's where their front offices are. I believe the lede isn't too bad: "Sporting Kansas City is an American professional soccer club based in Kansas City, Missouri, playing its home games in Kansas City, Kansas" although I would argue that "Sporting Kansas City is an American professional soccer club that plays its home games in Kansas City, Kansas" would be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Frankly, there are very few people who really notice or care where a team's practice facility and business offices are, instead of where their stadium is actually located. Pretty much limited to sports journalists working the team beat. Its probably a bit too trivial to mention in the lead. And yes, it's trivial. I don't know what Jkeiltalyor's issue is, but it's clear he has a problem with SKC being from KCK. Heck, I can't believe we've wasted so much time on this when consensus is already clear. Consensus is not unanimity. oknazevad (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree fully. In fact, the "...playing its home games in KCK" is a compromise that I doubt anyone would be able to reasonably argue against. Achowat (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "headquarted in KCMO, playing in KCK". the use of "based in" is too potentially confusing, and also makes it sound like the stadium is a temporary faciltiy, not their permanent home field. oknazevad (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

One further point. Mean attendance for KC this season was 19,687. That means over the 17 matches (and how many other home games did they play?) more than 19,000 people went to see this team in a specific location. How many people called, posted a letter or visited the offices? I suspect it was fewer that a single game's attendance, but I have no proof. And I would argue that Jkeiltaylor (talk · contribs)'s earlier statement, "where teams are from" is biased and misleading. As I stated "from" can mean many thing and we should user the term "front office" and "stadium" or similar rather than offer the other term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

individual records sections

They are not better, they're just wider. In fact, they're too wide for a screen at 1024 pixels, and we have to accept that mobile user will want the page rendered. It looks terrible on my phone. It's cut-off at "Apps". Also, date ranges use unspaced en-dashes. It looks like they new tables are using hyphens. What does a ratio mean in terms of scoring or assists? The percentage of games that the individual scored in or assisted in? It doesn't match the numbers in the reference and is confusing. Put it back and discuss now that we have an idea what you would like it to look like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• How about instead of adding ratios add number of games played. Add them at least to the goals table. Shows how some players took 400 games to score 100 goals, while others needed only 200 games. I would also shorten the years of seasons played to two digits as they take up too much space. Khvmty (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The player tables on the main MLS page already have more than enough information. I say we keep the tables as they are, and add whatever detail you want to the player tables on the Major League Soccer records and statistics page. CUA 27 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Player Records

It is annoying how anyone partially updates in the Player Records section and does not update pall of the tables. It can lead to confusion and to inaccuracy.

Especially when no one bothers to update the date as well which is frustrating. Why bother updating of no one will update the date as well?!? Bluhaze777 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Promotion and relegation

The article states: "The league's closed membership makes it one of the world's few soccer leagues that does not use promotion and relegation, which is uncommon in North America.".

This is inaccurate. If we only count Canada, United States and Mexico as North America, that would make MLS and Liga MX the only leagues which means 50% of the leagues in North America have a promotion-relegation system which makes it not uncommon. My suggestion is removing the "which is uncommon in North America" wording.

Amendezg (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not true, sorry. Below it is NASL and it doesn't have relegation and there's nowhere to promote to. Below that is USL and it doesn't promote or relegate. In fact, no league in Canada or the US I know of has promotion or relegation.

Now perhaps you meant other sports, and we know that's false as well.

Now if you include Mexico in North America, you would be correct in stating that football in Mexico uses promotion and relegation, but historically, most Americans and Canadians consider it to be in Central America. We should probably change that statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am very late to this discussion (only five months, but who's counting?), but the passage seems (seemed?) to be referring to NA sports as a whole rather than soccer in NA alone. So even if 50% of North American soccer leagues did use a promotion/relegation system, the statement would still be accurate. Albeit perhaps in need of a slight rewording for clarity. Resolute 14:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Might as well not have it visible since it isn't even a practice in the U.S. Bluhaze777 (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. It shouldn't be visible. Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We're talking association football vs other sports in the US and Canada. It should be visible in the infobox and article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

...Did you really just agree with yourself? Resolute 23:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Teams table

User:AquilaXIII, User:Walter Görlitz — There have been a lot of reverts lately to the table in the teams section. Anyone care to discuss here?

User:AquilaXIII has been repeatedly adding a capacity column to the table. His primary justification is that all other US sports leagues pages have a capacity column. What he fails to mention is that as he embarked on this WP:EDITWAR he also began adding a capacity column to other leagues -- eg, for Major League Baseball, for National Hockey League and for other leagues.

On a side note, we have a newly registered user, User:JAMendoza, who has joined User:AquilaXIII's reverts. User:JAMendoza first ever edit as a registered user was to repeat one of User:AquilaXIII's reverts. User:JAMendoza's new account and first revert appeared within hours of me leaving a note on User:AquilaXIII's talk page asking him to stop edit warring after he made made the same revert on the MLS page three times. Sock puppet? CUA 27 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure we need links to states/provinces or capacities.

I would argue the former is against WP:OVERLINK and I don't care what other league articles do if they don't use their brains to understand or follow the guidelines. NHL player articles have ignored OVERLINK for years, linking nations and using ISO 3166 abbreviations for the linked country names for years and have had many editors tell them neither is appropriate.

As for capacity, the capacity of the stadiums is listed at the linked article, and it changes frequently. It also doesn't indicate if the capacity is artificially reduced or not and other issues that are discussed at the article, so it seems selective as to what information we are presenting.

In other words, less is more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Referencing clubs being members of the conferences of MLS

I had placed all teams of MLS since the league it self is unique in the Soccer landscape, having a post season and conferences since it is also a league in the United States. I believed it was important to reflect that aspect for all teams belonging in either the Western Conference or the Eastern Conference. It is shown in the post season how the Western Conference teams only compete within the Western Conference and vice versa. The ten teams in the two conferences makes up the two conferences that makes each club a member.

This is shown in the major sport leagues in the U.S as well.

Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

However, they're not members of the conferences, but of the league. They participate in the conferences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity and Founding Years

I remember a while ago that someone had added the capacity of the stadiums to the table but was later reverted back and also someone else had added the year that the teams were founded only to later be reverted. My question is why aren't we including the stadium capacities and founding years to the table? I saw the other pages for the sports teams after that and all of the major North American sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) include them in their table. I think we should add them this page to match the other leagues. Also, it adds useful information that someone might want to know. I didn't want to do anything until I got some feedback. Any thoughts? Rodre112330 (talk) 13:02, 22 Octobrt 2016 (UTC)

As User:Walter Görlitz said in a previous post on this subject, less is more. The MLS teams table is much better than the other leagues, which are overloaded with so much clutter that the font size is shrunk to a small hard-to-read size just to make the content fit. Adding a column for MLS clubs founding year adds clutter without adding much useful information because for the vast majority of MLS teams the year of founding is 1-2 years before they began play in MLS. CUA 27 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was someone else who argued against it. I simply agreed. Just because other leagues list unnecessary information and want to crowd templates, doesn't mean we have to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That being said, the founding years of the teams that make up a league is pretty critical information even if they are only a year apart. I would actually suggest doing it like the NHL where it is only one column but it is split if the two dates are different. There is so much white space on this table there is plenty of room for some pertinent information like capacity and founding. I wouldn't add anything beyond that however. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The founding year for every MLS team is different than the year they began play. The NHL has two columns because a number of NHL teams came over when two rival leagues merged, a situation that we do not have with MLS. For some of the MLS teams there have been heated discussions as to what the founding year is, and so best to avoid an edit war over that if we can. CUA 27 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CUA 27: Yeah, the Ice Hockey Project has long discussions about the Founded usage as well, as seen Here. My comments there were that the Founded date as currently used is useful on the NHL table because it indicates that the franchise played before it entered the league and indicates how the league grew and expanded. However, if it uses actual founding dates (as in the date that the franchise was announced), that information is more team relevant since there can be long time between "founding" and "joining" where the team never played and is therefore not useful for the generalized league table. On the other hand, I do feel stadium capacity (as used when the team plays with caps and such) is an indication of what kind of draw the league aims for in general. It can be useful info, but it is not critical. Yosemiter (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And that's the thing, the teams technically did not play prior to joining the league even if teams like San Jose, Portland, Seattle, Montreal and Vancouver all claim an earlier founding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Except that at least in Montreal and Vancouver's case they did, can't speak to the other two because I don't know their history as well. But Montreal and Vancouver switched leagues, the articles here for some reason indicate "replaced" but all the news articles up here that would verify such things indicated that they are the same team that just switched leagues. Similar to a number of teams in other sports that retain the same ownership and name etc and just go from one league to another. A couple good examples since they are the same cities are the Vancouver Canucks or the Montreal Canadiens both of which started in other leagues and then moved to the NHL, although the Canadiens weren't an expansion team like the Canucks. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think Founded years are critical info for a generalized league table, which was my intention behind my statement. I was just pointing out it can be helpful to indicate that it added organizations that had previously been playing (how the league grows), but there are other ways to indicate that such as a note. Yosemiter (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

League Championships

This table has for quite some time had the numbers centered in the columns. It looks more professional that way. CUA 27 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not with the different numbers of dates in the years column. Since those lists-within-the-list are not all the same length, they should be left aligned, similar to a stem-and-leaf plot. It's the same sort of layout one sees for charts in newspapers, almanacs, encyclopedias and other reference works. The single-number columns can be centered, as they do look better that way. oknazevad (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is best to have it aligned to the left. It is used in many pages from other soccer leagues.

Now that is two to one. CUA. Honestly, if you don't agree to it, that wouldn't be a reason to revert edits. Bluhaze777 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with the version that oknazevad has proposed; that format is consistent with the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A. I do not agree with the version that Bluhaze777 has been trying to impose. I have not found another significant league that uses that format; please provide links to the "many pages from other soccer leagues" that use that format. CUA 27 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bundesliga article does not have the same type of table, but the similar table lists the clubs centred, so I understand that there is not uniformity across league articles. I would argue that the number should be left-justified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bundesliga has its championships table at List_of_German_football_champions#Performance_by_club, with the same format as the rest of the European big four leagues — i.e., single-number columns are centered, dates are left-aligned. Walter Görlitz: So we're all clear, when you say the number should be left-justified, which number(s) are you referring to? CUA 27 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Years should be left-justified. Goals scored (which is not what we're talking about), mathces played, etc. All numbers left. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at a few more high-profile footy leagues: French Ligue 1, Campeonato Brasileiro, Argentine Primera División, and Liga MX. They too share the same format as the big four European leagues. I say we follow that format, which oknazevad had proposed. CUA 27 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I also looked at the WP:FOOTY templates for guidance and found some tables at WikiProject Football/Competitions#Performances, which suggests that single-number columns should be centered. CUA 27 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That page that had nothing? I wanted the years to be aligned left. Since it's two Trophies that are shown, having it centered doesn't work well, the chart is too big as well Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue

Just so we're all clear on what's been happening here and on related pages, Bluhaze777 has three times now tried to make the same edit on this page to align single-digit numbers to the left in the table. He has claimed that he is doing it "to match other leagues" and that "It is used in many pages from other soccer leagues", but he has not provided any example of another soccer league, even though he has been asked to, and even though he has been provided with eight examples that don't match his preferred version. I reverted his edits and started this discussion on the talk page.
While the discussion was ongoing here, and without having achieved any consensus for his preferred version, he then made the same edit at Supporters' Shield claiming that he had "Aligned it to coincide table as to those in other leagues". And he then made the same edit at MLS Cup.
I've reverted some, but not all, of Bluhaze777's edits. I have left three warnings on his talk page and asked him to self-revert. I am not sure how to best proceed at this point. I would appreciate thoughts from oknazevad, Walter Görlitz, Dale Arnett or any other regular editor of this and other MLS pages. CUA 27 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And within hours of me leaving a warning on Bluhaze777 talk page, we now have IP 131.118.229.7 — an account that has not edited on wiki during the past six months — joining the fray and repeating the same reverts that Bluhaze777 had been making on the Supporters' Shield page. CUA 27 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, the change has been to the MLS Cup titles and Supporters' Shield Wins table. In the section above, youo linked to three European league articles. The equivalent table in Premier League#Champions is the wins by club section, and the years won are left-justified. That is also the case at La Liga#Performance by club and Serie A#Champions. So why are you warning Bluhaze777 when he's doing exactly what your examples indicate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz — Thanks for the question. The best way for me to clarify would be to show the three options below (I've truncated the tables to show only four rows so you can see them all on one screen if on desktop). To be clear, the five big European leagues, the three largest Latin American leagues, as well as MLS, NASL, and USL all have single-number columns centered. CUA 27 (talk)

Version 1: All numbers center (original version)

Team	MLS Cups	Year(s) won	Supporters' Shields	Year(s) won	MLS Seasons
LA Galaxy	5	2002, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2014	4	1998, 2002, 2010, 2011	21
D.C. United	4	1996, 1997, 1999, 2004	4	1997, 1999, 2006, 2007	21
San Jose Earthquakes	2	2001, 2003	2	2005, 2012	19
Sporting Kansas City	2	2000, 2013	1	2000	21

Version 2: All numbers left (Bluhaze777 preferred version)

Team	MLS Cups	Year(s) won	Supporters' Shields	Year(s) won	MLS Seasons
LA Galaxy	5	2002, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2014	4	1998, 2002, 2010, 2011	21
D.C. United	4	1996, 1997, 1999, 2004	4	1997, 1999, 2006, 2007	21
San Jose Earthquakes	2	2001, 2003	2	2005, 2012	19
Sporting Kansas City	2	2000, 2013	1	2000	21

Version 3: Single-numbers center; multi-numbers left (Footy consensus version)

Team	MLS Cups	Year(s) won	Supporters' Shields	Year(s) won	MLS Seasons
LA Galaxy	5	2002, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2014	4	1998, 2002, 2010, 2011	21
D.C. United	4	1996, 1997, 1999, 2004	4	1997, 1999, 2006, 2007	21
San Jose Earthquakes	2	2001, 2003	2	2005, 2012	19
Sporting Kansas City	2	2000, 2013	1	2000	21

Being it's exactly what I suggested, I think version three is the best. But let's assume some good faith here regarding Bluehaze; I'm going to assume that his all left aligned version is the result of lacking the knowledge of how to code the table. I certainly didn't know, which is why I don't make the adjustment myself. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Version 3 is the way to go. I'll wait to see if any reasoned opposition appears, and if not, I'll conform all three articles to this format. CUA 27 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

16 Team Bracket

In case anyone was curious I created a 16 team bracket in the event that MLS decides to expand the playoffs from 12 teams to 16. You can find it under the title Template:16TeamBracket-MLS Divisional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquilaXIII (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Founding date of MLS

The infobox, article text, and cited sources, disagree. The infobox says 1993, and cites to an MLS release, here. The article text says that MLS was formally founded in 1995, as successor to the original, and separate, 1993 entity. That's supported by a link to the opinion in the players' suit against MLS regarding the single-entity structure, here. Elsewhere MLS's own media material describes itself as founded in 1996 - link. Yet another MLS source, here, also states 1996. Which do we like? Whichever it is, I think everything should agree with itself at least. Comments welcome! JohnInDC (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The 1996 date is, of course, when the league commenced play. The 1995 date, as the date of organizing the business operations, seems to be the valid date. As noted, the 1993 date was for an earlier proposal for the league that did not play. The legal founding of the business was 1995 per the Fraser decision. No date prior to that should be used. Of course, whether or not the exact day of the year the business office was organized is important is the real question. I say it's not. The attempt to add such info to every team article is unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope others weigh in as well. Meantime there is a somewhat related discussion at Talk:D.C._United#DC_United_founding that might benefit from another person's views as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oknazevad. That has essentially been what I have been saying (writing?). Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Soccer history in soccer clubs' respected cities.

Mikemor92 (talk)

I don't get the big deal of why a few editors think having existing soccer history in North America is irrelevant. I think It isn't​ up to editors that hasn't contributed in research and time in doing this. I myself haven't even planned on being here for this long as I have and I have began my journey in the military as well.

History is history. While Europe has clubs that had been existing for over Centuries, there have been various clubs in the US and Canada that had came and gone in that same time span. They are general information as well. I want to show that. To let the reader have an idea that the MLS clubs' are not the first ever clubs in the cities they play in but the latest

So why is it irrelevant then for there not to show the cities' soccer heritage then if there is one? Soccer isn't the same in North America as in Europe so it should be seen and reflected as such on here. There wasn't a problem of this for years, LA Galaxy, San Jose Earthquakes, nor the Vancouver Whitecaps where the founding date of this current incated club is wrong. These aren't vandalism posts and I don't think those few editors are informed enough if the unique History of soccer ball the US and Canada do do those decisions. Soi will revert all edits if i have too since there is no valid reason to remove content other then one's personal opinion. Thank You. Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

These articles are about specific teams, not about the soccer history in those cities. There is merit in noting a previous team's history when the current MLS club either takes its name from that past team, or is essentially a continuation, but looking at your contributions, you are adding material on completely unrelated clubs and history. If you wish to start articles on History of soccer in Atlanta, Georgia and the like, feel free - and in fact, is something I would personally encourage. You could take what you've tried to add, throw in a couple paragraphs on the current MLS clubs, and have a series of viable articles. But one thing you certainly must stop doing is edit warring on the MLS team pages. You added material, it was reverted. Your next step is to try and build consensus, not continually re-insert in the hopes of wearing out opposition. Resolute 14:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Resolute. There are articles about soccer in specific cities, such as Soccer in St. Louis, where this content is appropriate. There are also existing articles about sports generally in specific cities, such as Sports in Atlanta, where this content can go.
User:Bluhaze777: I am very concerned by your edit warring over the past three days, and your statement above that "i will revert all edits if i have too". If you continue to edit war, you risk an editor reporting your behavior. CUA 27 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No one here cooperates and I'm sick of it. Specific clubs? The section itself is history. It's only interpreted history. That is it. I don't appreciate all of you reverting edits. I don't see anyone here contributing on these articles. I don't see a problem of this and I wasn't the only one adding those eidts. I should just leave Wikipedia. I do not have to this. This is only stressful and a waste of time. It's people like yourselves that always makes people that actually wants to put in ideas and effort to improve articles and pages to no longer want to continue doing so. That is what I was doing. Improving. So that's it. Regardless. I joined the military earlier this year. I planned on leaving Wiki for a while but again people like yourselves likes to revert and not contribute.

Honestly you guys are just as guilty on wearing out the opposition as well because I have been worn it a lot by User:Walter Görlitz and (User talk:JohninDC) who would only do what they think is right because they must know everything as If they are omniscient.

I would have reported you guys if I have know the way to do so since it wrong to classify me as the bad guy when it's you guys not doing any different. So I will leave. This gets old fast. Go on and do whatever you guys want. I won't be here. So go and edit and make pages and articles that will never reflect the league or the actual big picture of soccer in America. Keep making MLS and Soccer in America a recent thing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to report, you're free to start a post on WP:ANI. I can warn you that you will find no joy as it is clear that consensus is against you on this point. Also, "I'll just leave if you don't let me do what I want" also will not sway anyone. Your best bet, if you insist on adding all of this, is to focus on writing/improving articles for the actual older teams themselves, and/or articles on the soccer/sport history of each city. Resolute 14:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not that "no one is cooperating." It's that people aren't doing exactly what you want. I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia edited by tens of thousands of editors, it's run by consensus, and by the nature of such things, sometimes consensus runs against you. It can't really be the case (can it?) that your definition of whether someone knows anything about soccer or cares anything about history depends on whether they agree with you. You are far better off (a) presenting sound and reasonable arguments for your case beyond "I'm right and you're wrong," and (b) losing gracefully if consensus is against you and move on than adopting any other approach. But that being said, Resolute's right. The reaction to stamping your foot and shouting that you'll leave if you don't get your way is likely to be "Whatever," followed by everyone here forgetting your name within a week's time. (As to that, it's nicer treatment than you'd get in the military, if you really did join it, an institution notably intolerant of free spirits who want to do things their own way.) Ravenswing 20:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Back to the histories

There are been opponents to including a history of "all Whitecaps", "all Timbers" and "all Sounders" teams in the Vancouver, Portland and Seattle articles. I haven't followed other "similarly named" team discussions, but there are a few others (San Jose, Montreal and Minnesota are three that come to mind) but I have to agree with the majority here: without a common name it's unusual to provide a history of the sport in the city in any other articles, even European club articles. At least when it's included there, there are direct lines from the previous teams to the current team, and the name is likely not the only issue (merging of sport clubs, name changes to avoid an embarrassing past, etc.) What we have for the most part with MLS are articles about individual franchisees in the league, where the league (likely) owns the rights to the name. The exceptions I made above can show (however tenuously) a direct connect to the previous entities. That's not the case in the most of the edits Bluhaze777 has made. A general history of the sport in Chicago, New York, etc. do not directly relate to the team. A link to the history in the see also section is all that is needed, not an new section however well written and researched it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(User talk:Resolute)

I am not here swaying no one. I am done with dealing with you assholes. Go ahead and keep preventing anyone from contributing. Make those articles as inaccurate as possible. Go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not preventing you from contributing. We're trying to determine why tangential material should ever be injected into an article. If you're WP:NOTHERE to work cooperatively and collaboratively in creating a (coherent) encyclopedia, it might be better to walk away. Your skills will likely be appreciated in another environment. I will say that many of your edits have been good and have improved articles, but some I just don't understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The readers would. Because soccer in America is different from Europe. I wanted to show that unique History to show that the MLS clubs are the lastest teams based in thier respected cities, where there have been previous teams before them in different periods of time to show a big picture of an actual soccer History in the US. To allow the reader to realize that the US isn't new to soccer. That Major League Soccer isn't the first domestic soccer league in the US. That soccer has been around as long as it is in Europe but it didn't flourished as it has in Europe.

That was my plan. I don't know about you all and what were your plans on editing here. But that was mine. But it looked those like yourself that would not allow anyone to add legitimate content. To prevent the information as an entirety to show readers. It is yourselves that will prevent the readers from known the actual history of soccer in America. I hope you all are proud of yourselves being stubborn and hard headed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, soccer is different in The U.S. and Canada. But let's look at FC Bayern Munich as an example of a European club. There is a history section there and it has three sub-sections. Each section focuses on the club not the sport in the city. It mentions other teams only in how it related to the subject of the article. There is no discussion of the sport prior to MTV 1879's decision to form a football division of the gymnastics club. There is no discussion of how 1860 Munich developed, other than how it affected the subject's progress. Do you see how the history section is not a broad-ranging discussion of the sport in the city of Munich the way your histories are? Do you see how a discussion of previous teams with the name "Timbers" are appropriate in an article on the Portland Timbers? The same can be said for the articles on the Sounders, Earthquake, Whitecaps, Impact and Minnesota United? Can you explain how discussing the sport in the city of Atlanta is germane to the discuss of their team? At best, a link to an article discussing the history of the sport in the region, or all of the U.S., is appropriate in the see also section. Can you show a first-division European club article that has a general history of the sport?

One point further. Do you see how I and others are attempting to engage you in discussion? What I see in response is no discussion, but rather further points from you showing us how you're right and we're wrong. YOu don't attempt to answer our questions at all. One one person talks, we have a monologue. When other people comment on that, it's not a real discussion. Think of what happens when pundits write about athletes or teams in papers or on talk radio. Think of when late nigh talk shows comment on politicians. If this continues, I will withdraw because I'm an editor, not a commentator, comedian or entertainer. To restate that point: if you don't start discussing, I will no longer interact with you as it's not productive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest making a separate Wikiepdia page or a Wikipedia Special:Mypage called History of soccer in America @Bluhaze777? -NetWitz- 21:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Do you mean something like history of soccer in the United States? It'll never fly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, nevermind then, thank you @Walter Görlitz!!! -NetWitz- 23:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

game balls

• 1996-2000 Mitre
• 2001-2002 Kappa
• 2003-2005 Puma
• 2006-pres Adidas

Czechia2016 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure Bluhaze777 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

League championship table

I am wondering. If possible and perhaps if others are Interested. What can we do to improve the current table? Should it be separated for both cups and shields or to have a different format and such. Bluhaze777 (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the current format in one table as opposed to two tables. CUA 27 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the team name and years in league values would be repeated in both tables for more than half the teams, it makes sense to keep them together. What benefit do you see to separating them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There would be no need to have to align the clubs with Cups along with Supporters Shield. Some teams hasn't won a shield and other teams has won a cup. It leaves gaps in the table and I think it can be better represented by having two separate tables where it shows years won and the number of times the team won. They are not the same championships. Honestly wether the Shield is as important as the Anchutz Trophy is debatable. One was made by the fans while the other was made by the league. One is an Award to recognize the team that had the most points. The other is the Victor in the league. It is actually also repetitive for the current table to show teams that won both in the same season. Bluhaze777 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Four teams have not won the shield that have won the cup, and vice-versa. What you're suggesting is the following:

Team	MLS Cups	Year(s) won	MLS Seasons
LA Galaxy	5	2002, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2014	21
D.C. United	4	1996, 1997, 1999, 2004	21
San Jose Earthquakes	2	2001, 2003	19
Sporting Kansas City	2	2000, 2013	21
Houston Dynamo	2	2006, 2007	11
Columbus Crew SC	1	2008	21
Chicago Fire	1	1998	19
Seattle Sounders FC	1	2016	8
Real Salt Lake	1	2009	12
Colorado Rapids	1	2010	21
Portland Timbers	1	2015	6

Team	Supporters' Shields	Year(s) won	MLS Seasons
D.C. United	4	1997, 1999, 2006, 2007	21
LA Galaxy	4	1998, 2002, 2010, 2011	21
Columbus Crew SC	3	2004, 2008, 2009	21
San Jose Earthquakes	2	2005, 2012	19
New York Red Bulls	2	2013, 2015	21
Sporting Kansas City	1	2000	21
Chicago Fire	1	2003	19
Seattle Sounders FC	1	2014	8
Tampa Bay Mutiny*	1	1996	6*
Miami Fusion*	1	2001	4*
FC Dallas	1	2016	21

*Franchise folded after completion of the 2001 season

You lose the ability to see a unified view that shows why LA is listed before DC. This view is probably better for mobile devices, but I still don't like it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The current format makes it easier to see if a team has done the 'double' or not in a particular season. Red Jay (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Well I'm sure it will look good for desktop with a few adjustments. Everything can be centered too since it will only be the years that will win.

Those are two different Trophies and is debatable for both being valued the same. Bluhaze777 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also the reader can see the clubs' honor section to see if the tream has had a double or not. MLS is old enough for clubs having their own history. Bluhaze777 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

They can also see the individual team articles to see if they won an MLS Cup or Supporter's Shield, or they can see those articles. So are you suggesting that this table isn't (these tables aren't) needed here because of that? If you're not saying that, then why would you suggest that conveying more detail isn't needed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that table has to go. It has served it's purpose. Split tables are simpler. There won't be gaps. No one need to find which team gets placed where due to having to deal with two trophies.

Well if this is fine then why isn't the US Open Cup aligned with these in that table then?? Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The US Open Cup isn't an MLS trophy, even if US-based MLS teams participate in the tournament (and have won all but one tournament since the league began). MLS Cup and the Supporter's Shield are awarded based purely on MLS league play, so they're truly league-relevant. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying no one needs to know which teams has doubles or not which is a reason you have for this page. That isn't necessary. That shouldn't be emphasized on this page. Bluhaze777 (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Having gaps is not a reason to split a table or delete it. There are plenty of other things on MLS pages that I think are pointless but it’s not my call. Red Jay (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what those could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs)

My point being if there is an obvious consensus, there is no point in antagonizing people. Red Jay (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the single table. By consolidating the awards it conveys more information at a glance; and it is not unwieldy. JohnInDC (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bluhaze777 behavior

Bluhaze has reverted, even though a discussion is ongoing and most (all?) people who have weighed in have rejected his suggestion. This is one more episode in a series of troubling behavior by this editor on MLS related pages that has persisted for years. If he reverts this table again, perhaps ANI and a block will be in his future. CUA 27 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted. There is an obvious consensus to keep one table. This behiavior is completely inappropriate for a collaborative environment. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I still do not see the benefit of splitting the table up. I was beaten to the punch on the revert front. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Major League Soccer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618064130/http://www.mlsplayers.org/files/April%201%2C%202014%20Salary%20Information%20-%20By%20Club.pdf to http://www.mlsplayers.org/files/April%201,%202014%20Salary%20Information%20-%20By%20Club.pdf

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

JorgeLSaC (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Campeones Cup

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation of future MLS team in Austin, TX

Either the MLS or USL will field a team in Austin, TX in the future, their last professional soccer team was the Austin Aztex dissolved in 2017. https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/12/15/austins-competing-pro-soccer-ambitions-cota.html 67.49.89.214 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that doesn't confirm anything, and is months old. If there was any news, we'd be all over it. oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Campeones Cup in infobox

@Walter Görlitz: I'd like to discuss this here so we can get other opinions and not start an edit war. I had added Campeones Cup to the "confed_cup/International cup(s)" parameter in the infobox. While the Campeones Cup is not a confederation cup, as you stated, I don't think this parameter is required only to include confederation cups. It is shown in the infobox as "International cup(s)", and the respective section in Template:Infobox football league says "Names of international cups". Therefore, I think it's fine to add Campeones Cup, like Liga MX does, as it is an international cup played between the MLS and Campeón de Campeones and basically the regional cup for the North American Football Union. UmpireRay (talk)

That's an interesting point. There are many other international cups that could be added. Let me self-revert until FOOTY can weigh-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)