Football: American & Canadian / Season Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the season article task force.

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

Copy and pasted some stuff in from '09 + a few sourced lines. The results table, coloring for the standings, and other info for related competitions still needed.Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone familiar with the 2009 Major League Soccer season#Results table? The schedule comes out tomorrow so it is probably time to do it.Cptnono (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. If you have any questions about how to populate it, let me know. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any update on whether the season is on course to go ahead? There was no point in adding "what ifs" a few months back, but with the expected start date edging nearer it becomes a more reasonable question. WFCforLife (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking good dude. The league and players have not reached an agreement. The collective bargaining agreement expired after being extended. The league has said that they will not lock out the players but the players union has not taken the strike option off the table.Cptnono (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that at least one major British news organisation suggested that we should go down "the American route", to ensure that teams are not removed from leagues mid-season, as happened to Chester City F.C.. On topic, if there is a genuine threat of the season not happening, it might be worth expanding upon. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like MLS has made huge efforts not to have either a Man United or a Leeds! It should be expanded. There has been tons of press lately so it should be easy enough (hopefully without going overboard). I'll add a few lines in if no one else gets to it.Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added clarified it, added a line, and a couple refs. This should be easy enough to break out of the lead and expand upon later as needed.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Seattle Sounders FC (season)

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

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

Welcome back Grant! You certainly didn't waste too much time before picking up this old thread. For starters, let me say I'm glad that the real slim shadey Grant Alpaugh is who's commenting now. Much better. Now, regarding the concern. I don't agree that this is even close to a violation of WP:EASTEREGG. The links go to an article about the team. The text of the link is the team name. It would be an "easter egg" if it went somewhere less obvious from the context or relevant like maybe a link to an article about the club supporters groups or something like that. I looked at the examples provided in WP:EASTEREGG. I can't honestly say that this is even in the same ballpark as them. Furthermore, this topic has been discussed previously (here, here, here, and here) and the consensus was pretty clear in favor of how it appears now. In the earlier discussions, there season articles for every team in the league had not yet been created and for that reason alone, I agreed that it was confusing to have some of the links in the table go to club articles and some go to club season articles. Since then several editors have taken it upon themselves to create the articles and keep them up to date. With that progress, I believe that since all the links in the table consistently link to club season articles, there is no ambiguity. The context of the links is within the MLS season article for a given year. That same context (the year) is maintained in the link while not visibly repeating the year for each row of the table. So in summary, when this issue was first raised, I agreed that there was confusion caused by the links. However since then, my concerns have been addressed by the efforts of several editors, and consensus is what's currently represented in the templates/articles. Given that, these suggestions, while well intended, should not be necessary. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkotyWA, thanks for responding, but I have to say that I disagree because there is a lot of ambiguity within the article. Everywhere else, from the results table to the statistical leaders to the infoboxes that will fill up after the season is over, links directly to the team article, not the team season article. Why should Columbus Crew in one place in the article link to one article, but in a different place in the article it links to a different article? This is not only markedly different from the way it is done in other soccer league season articles, but it is also markedly different from the way it is done in the vast majority of North American sports league season articles. Because of the kerfuffle about this last year, I was unable to point it out effectively, but the samples selected from other North American sports league season articles were very carefully selected to support linking to team season articles. The NFL season articles provide links to both, which is why I modeled my table above on those articles. To me that would be an acceptable compromise. When given the choice to provide one or the other or both, I don't see a reason why not to provide both. But the point is that the NFL articles only do this for the last 5 seasons. There are articles on every season going back to 1920, but the "Details" link is only for 2005 and on. This is the reason for not simply replacing the links in the standings table, but adding a new column instead: it is bad in a series of articles to go from linking the standings table to the team articles to linking the standings tables to the team season articles without any notice. It is exceedingly unlikely that people are going to go back and create team season articles for the first 13 or 14 seasons of MLS, and while the Kansas City Wizards are an exception, I don't think they should dictate what the rule is going forward. The NBA season articles link directly to the team article from the standings as well. Major League Baseball links directly to the team season articles, but only for the last two seasons. Finally, the NHL does it as well, but only for the last three seasons. All of this would probably be enough to swing in favor of linking to the team season articles from last year forward, but MLS isn't just another North American sports league, it is also a soccer league, and the article should try to follow the format of most other soccer leagues around the world. In the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Fußball-Bundesliga, Ligue 1, and all other major leagues including the Primera División de México, Brasilierão, and Primera División de Argentina the standard practice is to link to the team article from the standings table. It isn't because these teams don't have team season articles either. Every Premier League team has a season article, as do the majority of the clubs in the leagues I mentioned. Another reason not to do this for the league article is that in soccer, teams are involved in many different competitions. Are we going to link the CONCACAF Champions League tables or brackets to the team season articles? What about the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup or MLS Cup Playoff articles? These teams don't just play league games, and all of these other competitions are just as much a part of a team's season as the league games they play. That is why the way to link to team season articles should be from the team's article. Again, I'm not advocating against creating, completing, and maintaining these team season articles, I'm just arguing against linking them directly to the league standings. While I don't think there's any reason to include a link to the team season articles from the standings at all, I'm willing to compromise by linking both articles. I think that's more than reasonable given all of the information I mentioned. All the best. By the by, I'm going to post something on WT:FOOTY to get some more contributions from the wider footy community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point about all the other links to the club articles is an interesting one. My long term goal with any article I watch or contribute to is to help it along it's way to WP:GA and WP:FA. Multiple links to the same place within an article is considered overlinking and should be removed. One link per article should be sufficient. Exceptions might be legitimate in tables or match reports, but that would depend on the GA or FA reviewers I think. In the end, I don't think that's relevant to this discussion. It's also interesting that this "standard" has only been true for recent years of the season articles and not for all previous years. First, I'd say it's way more likely for season articles to be created for all MLS teams than it is for most other leagues. MLS is by far the youngest league we're talking about here. Furthermore, the discrepancies between recent MLS season articles and the older articles run much deeper than just these links. If the only discrepancy was the links in the league table, then you'd have a legitimate point here, but as it stands, the older articles are different in a miriad of other ways. The rest of your points are a decent summary of the last 1.5 years worth of discussion on the topic. Consensus has been to stick with the style used most often in American sports team/league articles. I've already stated that I agree with that consensus. You disagree and make some decent points on why you disagree. I welcome the opinions of others and expect for more than just our opinions are necessary to drive a new consensus. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've only been involved in these MLS season articles for the last year as far as I know, I think it's highly possible that you might have missed the discussion on Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season, the consensus of which is that MLS is different from pretty much every other North American sports league. This is because it is a soccer league, which has a much more established tradition internationally than the other major North American sports. Sure baseball, basketball, and ice hockey have other important leagues besides the ones in North America, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the world's best players in each of those sports ply their trade in North America. This is quite clearly not the case with MLS. Because of that, we need to take care to align MLS within the accepted practices of both North American sports and international soccer articles within this encyclopedia. The discussion I'm referring to above centered around whether to list the standings as W-L-T as in North American sports or W-D-L as in international soccer, as well as whether to list results in Away-Home format as is done in North America or whether to use the Home-Away format used abroad. Concensus there centered around the fact that MLS consistently used the North American formats on their website, press releases, etc. (something which appears to have changed with the launch of the new MLSsoccer.com, but that's a whole different discussion). I think the same should apply for the standings table, but I'm willing to support a compromise as has been outlined above, particularly because this has been such a contentious issue. There were other issues as well, such as the creation of "American=yes" for the MLS team infoboxes, which allowed the MLS teams to display major trophies won in their infoboxes in compliance with standard North American tradition, but in conflict with standard international soccer tradition on the encyclopedia. So there have been compromises reached to allow the North American tradition to shine through, and I hope you will support something that allows both traditions to coexist. As for your overlinking concerns, the MLS articles are surely not the place to start this discussion, if it is in fact something you wish to pursue. You're talking about a dramatic overhaul of pretty much every other sports competition in the encyclopedia if linking to teams in the standings, infoboxes, and statistical leaders tables is to be considered "overlinking." Surely the place to start that discussion would be on WT:FOOTY or WT:SPORTS. Nevertheless, I hope that we can reach a conclusion here that will go back to the 2009 season articles, and that can be carried forward into the future seasons on this and the other issues you outlined on my talk page. All the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yep, I'm with Chris and Grant here. Team links to the team, details links to the team's season. Unambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]