Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 Major League Soccer season article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Football: American & Canadian Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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
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).

W-D-L?[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I know that the rest of the world keeps its standings using the W-D-L format, but MLS uses the standard American format of W-L-T. If MLS keeps its standings that way, so should Wikipedia. KitHutch (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Wikipedia uses the international format for standings and fixtures (ie W-D-L and Home-Away). We don't have control over the MLS, but we do have control over WP. It's not POV because the actual information isn't changing, just the format. So I respectfully disagree. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I don't like the way the NHL keeps its standings, I can change that presentation simply as long as the information stays the same? We need to follow whatever format that a league uses. Since the EPL uses W-D-L that should be the format on the EPL season pages. If they started using W-L-T, then we should change to that.KitHutch (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would very ackward to see a W-D-L in a North American sports league. Kingjeff (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the examples you just gave is that the standard in American football is one thing and soccer's is another. The format used in all soccer articles is the same. If the international standard for American football was W-D-L, then we would change that. As of now, it's not. No one just decided arbitrarily, like in your example, to do it one way. We adopted the international standard because that's what we use on WP. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But MLS' official standings are kept in the W-L-T format. If that is how MLS does it, then that is the way that it should be listed here! We don't rewrite history. If and when MLS changes its format to W-D-L, then we should. KitHutch (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not changing history. We're reporting the facts just as they happened. We have conventions on WP, which we can freely control. Because we can control them, we've adopted the international standard for the sport. That's the way we do things on WP. If the standard for American football changed, we would reflect that, and so on. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Please stop. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are using international standards instead of official MLS records, we need to say MANAGER, GROUND, CHAIRMAN, COLOUR, and CLEAN SHEET instead of COACH, OWNER, COLOR, and SHUTOUT. Those are, after all, the international standards. KitHutch (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, please stop as there is no consensus to change. -- Grant .Alpaugh 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he's right. You're using a double standard and the article will be inconsistent. Kingjeff (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is the the format of the table and the way the independent media covers it. If MLS started officially calling Wins "Victories" and losses "Defeats" would we be obligated to change the table as well? Just because the league does one thing doesn't mean we are beholden to them. The facts are being reported accurately, and we have chosen to do so using the international style of reporting them. If you're going to say MLS does it one way so we have to go along I can play that game too. FIFA, the sport's governing body, reports fixtures and tables using the international system of W-D-L and Home-Away. So by that logic we should do what the highest body does. Either way, you're wrong, and you're still making a mountain out of a molehill. Please drop it and move on with your life. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is the the format of the table and the way the independent media covers it. If MLS started officially calling Wins "Victories" and losses "Defeats" would we be obligated to change the table as well? Yes. Kingjeff (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if they called goals "blagorks" we would be obligated to call them that as well? The bottom line is that if your argument is "MLS governs the league we should do what MLS says," I can just as reasonably argue that "FIFA governs the whole sport and we should do what FIFA says." -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, yes, if MLS starting calling goals "blagorks" then on a page dediated to MLS, we absolutely should use "blagorks" to describe them. We need to be consistent with the league. We should defer to FIFA and international standards for articles that involve international competitions.Ltv100 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If thats what they want to call goals, then yes. Kingjeff (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stupidity of that statement speaks for itself. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stupidity came in when you asked, "So if they called goals "blagorks" we would be obligated to call them that as well?" Kingjeff (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair question, and your answer shows that you lack the ability to be reasonable. This will be my last response on this topic. Do not change the terminology on the page without consensus. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fair question. We both know that noone speaking the english language would ever call goals "blagorks". Kingjeff (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we open up this can of worms once again. I got into this debate with the one and only Grant.Alpaugh with regards to the US Open Cup. I just don't see the logic that just because "FIFA said so" that we should have W-D-L in the standings. FIFA also says that leagues can't have more than 18 teams. Yet every week, we see 20 teams play in England, Italy, France, and Spain. We do things different in America, and that includes W-L-T in our standings (that's right, standings, not table, as they say in the rest of the world). Sounds like he was the only one that wanted it, and he won? Please explain how this happened, people. Otav347 (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't won. Nobody challenged him enough. I'm going to start a vote of consensus. Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, this topic has also come up on the 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification page (see talk), so the vote counts for both. Otav347 (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting doesn't matter on WP. Arguments do. If your argument is that the MLS runs the league, so we should do what they say, my argument is that FIFA trumps MLS, so we should do what they say. If your argument is that the media uses W-L-T, you're wrong, as the vast majority of internet sites and TV stations visted and watched by people (even in the US, mind you) use W-D-L and Home-Away format. See this article if you don't believe me. FSC, GolTV, and Setanta use W-D-L and Home-Away as well. There's really no objective metric you can use to make your argument, except basing it on other sports. Since there is no WikiProject for North American Sports, I'm aware of, but there is one for WP:FOOTY, we should defer to them. I've fought to the death about this issue regarding the MLS team articles and their infoboxes, and the only reason I argued for MLS's uniqueness is because they wanted to remove information from the article, this isn't like that. We're arguing over style, and the consistency in Footy articles is most important. Also, please don't refer to me as the "one and only" in such a condescending manner. I didn't call you guys the "Three Stooges," did I? -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you want to play this game? I'll play. We should do what FIFA says, right? Did you miss my explanation on the 20 teams in 4 of the top leagues in the world? Let's look at the top 10 soccer websites, as listed by epltalk.com. Soccer.com and BigSoccer don't have any scores, so they're out. UEFA and Manchester United are European websites, so they're out. ESPN Soccernet, Fox Soccer, Goal, and Setanta (I'll throw that in there for argument) use the same template for all of their standings, so it's inevitable that it comes out that way. FIFA has W-D-L because 95% of the world (basically everyone but us) uses it, so it's just easier. So what's left? MLSnet.com and Yahoo! Soccer. Both of those use the W-L-T format. What TV stations have you been watching? FSC? GolTV? That goes back to their websites with the same template. I've watched games on ESPN, HDNet, and local stations (MSG, CBC, whatever is on Direct Kick). They ALL have W-L-T when they show the standings. The WP:FOOTY WikiProject? I saw ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with regards to how the standings should look. You argued for MLS's uniqueness? Really? Isn't W-L-T part of MLS's uniqueness? You can't pick-and-choose how unique the league should be based on your opinion. And the "one and only" wasn't in a condescending manner. I'm simply pointing out that you're the only one keeping this from happening. You said that nothing should be changed unless there's a consensus, right? I see a consensus for W-L-T, considering you're the only one that opposes. --Otav347 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should where a website is based matter? The point is that people in the US visit the website regularly and get their soccer information from it. Same with TV stations. FSC (which is owned by the same people as the FSN local stations you're talking about, so I don't understand the "template" argument) is by far the most watched station and they use that format. Why is it that the sites based in the US don't get credit for adopting the international standard if we're discounting the ones in Europe? Your arguments just don't make sense. As for the WP:FOOTY discussion, I fought that battle because they were talking about removing information from the article. The compromise from that discussion was that we included the information but in the same format as the rest of the articles. This isn't about whether information is included, it is how we format the article, which should defer to the international standard like with the infoboxes. Finally, on a discussion page that over a dozen people have contributed to in the last few months, I don't think 4 people can form a consensus about anything that is contested heavily, especially when polling is used, which is not a substitute for discussion. But as far as people who contribute regularly to this article, myself and Sixkick are the only people regularly updating the article for the last month and a half. So that makes the tally 3-2, hardly what I would call a consensus. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really think you weren't getting a challenger on this topic, were you? Well guess what, you got a fight. Those FSN local stations? They're down to 3 now: the two LA teams on FSN West/Prime Ticket, and Dallas on FSN SW. And those FSN stations use a completely different format than FSC does, so that has no bearing. Of those people visiting the websites or watching FSC, based in the States or not, how many do you actually think are browsing for MLS scores rather than those in Europe? I'd venture to say not many. They "adopted" the international standard because of all the European leagues that they cover. One league (and not a very popular one at that, let's be honest) isn't going to sway their decision. You and Sixkick are the only people regularly updating the article? Fine. I won't dispute that. But have you talked to Sixkick? Has he agreed on how the format looks? Because apparently he likes W-D-L, according to you. I wouldn't know that since he hasn't commented on it, so how is the tally 3-2? Just because he's updating it doesn't mean he has to agree with it. On the other hand, I'm protesting the US Open Cup page. You haven't made any contribution to it other than changing how it looks to suit you. You want it updated? Do it yourself until this topic is settled, because I'm not. --Otav347 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're taking this WAY too personally. Secondly, with regards to the US Open Cup qualification article, I created the fucking article. I was adding content until I got frustrated by the MLS qualification bracket. I specifically didn't link the US Open Cup proper article to it because there was almost no content on it yet. I tried to make my own template to do the bracket but I couldn't get it working. I had to leave it alone for a few days because I had finals at school, but since they ended on Wednesday, I've been cleaning up the article quite a bit. So without claiming ownership over the articles or anything, I do think I can say I've contributed significantly to both of them. Without speaking for him I think the fact that he's edited the articles without changing the format counts as tacit endorsement, but I could be wrong. Either way there's another voter that has supported the WDL format, so it's 3-2 either way. As for the "people checking this article" debate, given MLS's not so mainstream status (the US Open Cup is even less so) I don't think I'm that off base to say that the number of people who are soccer fans that happen to be in the US (ie familiar with international format) that are checking the MLS article >> the number of people who are run of the mill sports fans checking the American Soccer league article. People that aren't soccer fans don't even know what the US Open Cup is, as there is no parallel in other sports. The arguments supporting a change in format are increasingly tedious. What matters is consistency between football articles, and failing that, what most US Soccer fans are familiar with. I would argue that the international format is supported by both of those metrics. Beyond that, please endeavor to pose this less about "me vs. you" and more about "WDL vs. WLT" as doing otherwise constitutes a violation of WP:NPA. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry, you're right. I need to tone it down a bit and keep it to topic. It just happens when I'm passionate about something, I tend to get out of hand, and it came out, so to speak, on this page. You're right. Maybe most, if not all, American soccer fans are familiar with the international standard. That doesn't mean they have to like it. I happen to be one of them, as you could probably tell. I would also say that most, if not all, American soccer fans are probably fans of another sport (or more) in this country. Those sports use W-L-T in their standings. I understand that it's not the "football way", but that habit has carried over to American soccer, just like the Away-Home format, which probably only came about because of baseball due to the fact that the home team plays second. It just stuck, and that's what Americans are now familiar with, unlike the rest of the world. Let's be honest, how many non-Americans/Canadians really follow American soccer? It's not like how we follow the European version; it's not even close. We are familiar with the W-L-T format. It's just how we are as sports fans in the United States. I think that should be reflected on American soccer pages, and I know many more agree with me on that. --Otav347 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but as of now WP:FOOTY values consistency more than anything as we attempt to develop a unified base throughout the thousands of footy articles before moving forward as a project. I understand it is confusing to have to go back and forth between formats for Americans, which is exactly why since we have a choice, we should limit that for people on WP. Since, like I said, there are for more American soccer fans who follow competitions all over the world than there are American sports fans that follow MLS. Because of this, I think it is more natural to use the international format for all of the reasons I've listed above. I really think you are in the minority on this one, and I feel for you, but the arguments just don't cut the mustard. Anyway, no hard feelings, and hopefully we can work more constructively in the future. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, read WP:COMMUNISM before you claim t ocreate an article. Kingjeff (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, quoting from my above post "So without claiming ownership over the articles or anything, I do think I can say I've contributed significantly to both of them," I specifically didn't claim ownership over the article. Second, it is a fact that I started the article. Finally, I only brought it up because he tried to say I hadn't edited the article besides to change the format, which is patently not the case. So I don't really know where you're going with this. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you still don't own the articles and because of you this article is inconsistant with all the other season articles for Major League Soccer. Kingjeff (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim to own it. I was just pointing out that I created the article, so attempts to say that I hadn't contributed before the format discussion are absurd. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. That's exactly what you were implying. Kingjeff (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying that I was the first person to work on the article, so I was working on the article before this discussion began, and any attempts to say otherwise are silly, as is your assertion I was trying to own the article. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to hide behind what you wrote. You were trying to take ownership. Kingjeff (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not, and remember to assume good faith. Continuing this line of argument constitutes a personal attack, so please stop. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between assuming good faith and blatantly disregarding what you were implying. I'll assume good faith. But it won't come at the expense of of not blatantly disregarding what you or anyone will imply. Kingjeff (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? I can't make anything out of your ominous giberish. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I said is that you want me to use good faith just so you can hide what you were trying to say. Kingjeff (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add something to what I said before? You talked about consistency in the sport throughout the world. Hockey, the sport probably most comparable to soccer in the sense that they record points based on wins and ties in their standings, is a Canadian sport. No question about it. Have they adopted it in Europe? Yes, absolutely. You should see some of the teams in the NHL with all the Europeans on the roster. Yet they use the W-D-L (with modifications to shootouts and such) format. Why? Because that's what they're used to over there. I don't hear any complaining that they should use W-L-T because it's a North American sport and they should follow the standard. --Otav347 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was not arguing that the format should be WDL because it was created in Britain, but that it was the most widely used format in covering the sport. The Hockey example is a perfect analog. The sport is more widely covered internationally in that format, especially since the lockout the sport is hardly covered at all in the US, and has been relegated to playoff only coverage, or close to it in the US media. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Don't mean to make this personal, but I have to bring this up for the sake of argument. That's not what you said before. On the USOC talk page, you said that the Grand Theft Auto IV page was written correctly in British English because the game was made by Brits. That completely contradicts your latest argument. Sure, hockey is hardly covered in the United States anymore, but 1. is still covered more than MLS, and 2. is still BY FAR the most popular sport in Canada. --Otav347 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your point. Could you please elaborate further? -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate. You said earlier on the US Open Cup talk page that the GTA IV page was written correctly in British English because even though the game takes place in the US, it was made by Brits. That would be like arguing that MLS should be W-D-L because, well, the Brits made the sport. With regards to your international standard, if hockey "is more widely covered internationally" in the W-D-L format, using your explanations, the NHL should go W-D-L, too. Granted, now because of the shootouts, it would theoretically be W-OTL-L, like they do in Europe. But do they? Of course not. Neither should MLS. --Otav347 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I wonder how many people are watching this discussion for the sole purpose of entertainment. :-) --Otav347 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that W-D-L is far more common throughout the world, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to project world standards onto MLS when MLS publishes its own standings in W-L-T format. I view this issue as similar to spelling differences between American English and British English. It doesn't make sense for me to -ize all the -ise's in articles about strictly British issues, nor should people go into Boston and start writing about the "harbour". Since MLS is (almost entirely) an American league, it should use American standards. Which are W-L-T.--Balerion (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go into Boston and write about chouwder! ← chan dler 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this basically a WP:ENGVAR issue? If so (and it pains me to say it!), the table should be kept in a W-L-T format because that is what is used in American English. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a WP: ENGVAR issue. The American/Canadian English accepted statistical tables use W-L-T. British English uses W-D-L. Since this is an article about a US/Canadian league, then it's standings should follow American/Canadian conventions. KitHutch (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, do we really need consensus then? Kingjeff (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Strong national ties to the topic of an American and Canadian Professional Sports League. So, if consensus isn't reached in favour of W-D-L, then W-L-T is how the table will be. Kingjeff (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a language issue? The issue is a numerical one. The format of the standings is the same throughout all languages, except in the United States. This is a format issue, and the accepted format in all languages is W-D-L regardless of what words you use for them. If you want to use W-T-L that's fine, because that is a language issue, but the format should be the same regardless. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the numbers under W-L-T are in question. It's the W-L-T or W-D-L and whether to use T or D. Kingjeff (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Grant Alpaugh: "The format of the standings is the same throughout all languages, except in the United States."

So you admit the format is different in the United States. If that really is the case, then just let it be W-L-T and move on. --Otav347 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, trying to update the USOC qualification page as it stands right now is literally making my head spin. This needs to be taken care of soon. --Otav347 (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain, but I edit the MLS articles like this all the time, it's really not that big a deal unless you make it one. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I agree that the word "draw" is less used in the US, so if changing it to W-T-L will solve this, then be my guest. If you're arguing that the format used in covering soccer is anything other than Wins-Draws-Losses (terms don't matter) and Home-Away, you're wrong. ESPN (when actually covering soccer, so on their website, which is the most visited soccer site for Americans), Fox (FSC does most if not all of their soccer coverage), GolTV (either language), Setanta, FIFA, or any other medium widely used by Americans for Soccer information, all use the W-D-L format. The game is international in nature, language isn't the issue, format is. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, the game is international in nature. But that doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. Guess what other format is different in the United States than in the rest of the world: terms (including the name of the sport itself), salary cap, playoffs, single entity, and promotion & relegation. Should we change all those, too? All those websites and TV stations you named, I HIGHLY doubt ANY of them are in the soccer business for MLS. It just happens to be there because some people (like us) look for it in addition to the European leagues. And why the hell do you keep bringing up Setanta? They NEVER cover anything American related. No MLS games, no shows, there's not even any information about it on their website! --Otav347 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add this, too. You want to name media outlets that use W-D-L, I'll name media outlets that use W-L-T: All local MLS TV stations, SI.com, Yahoo, NBC Sports, CBS Sportsline, CBC, and TSN (hell, yes, I'm including Canada in this). I can play that game, too. --Otav347 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, lets check what it says about major edits. "... there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page...". Did you even bother to discuss the change in the format of the table? Do try and tell me that it's a minor edit because you know and I know that the standings in the United States/Canada sports league articles or tables in Europe sports league articles are the biggest part of the article. So essentially you broke a Wikipedia guideline. Good faith can last for so long. Even on Wikipedia. Kingjeff (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is that you shouldn't have made the change without coming to the talk page of this article. Kingjeff (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't disputed for more than a month. I and Sixkicks have been the only people consistently editing the article for the last 6 weeks. I don't see what you don't get about that. I made the change, and it is a small change, and no one said woop about it until now. The status quo is W-D-L and you have to come up with a consensus for change to switch it. By your own metric, the vote you started, you're losing. So I don't see what the continued discussion is all about. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What status quo? The only status quo is that W-L-T has been in every single American soccer article until this year, when you came along. Now you change it and say THAT is the status quo? No one had a problem with the way it was done before. Now that there's a fight over what it should be, you say that W-D-L should've been there in the first place, considering it BEGAN with W-L-T and YOU were the first one to change it. And don't deny that you were the first one to make it W-D-L, either. You did the exact same thing on the USOC page, as well. These two pages are now completely inconsistent with EVERY OTHER American soccer page on Wikipedia. That, my friend, is consistency. --Otav347 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo of this article was W-D-L until this discussion began. It has been this way for over a month. I'm concerned with this article, and we'll deal with everything else afterwards. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every other soccer article on WP uses that format, and I might add that all of the MLS and USOC articles use the Home-Away format for games. Since every part of WP:FOOTY is on the international standard except for the standings of MLS and USOC articles I think converting all the standings to W-D-L would be appropriate, but one step at a time. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say the status quo of this article was W-D-L, when you MADE it the status quo. Unfortunately, for over a month, no one put up a fight about it. Also unfortunately, you didn't ask whether or not it would be a good decision before you went and did it. I will say this: the only reason you didn't have a fight sooner is because I don't frequent this page. It happened when you messed up with the tables I made on the USOC page. You want to talk about who updates the MLS page? I was once the only one who did it (look at the 2006 history if you don't believe me). No one confronted me about whether or not it should be one way or the other. Funny how no one has a problem when it's W-L-T, yet there's an acre of a page of discussions when it's suddenly W-D-L. That says something. --Otav347 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every other soccer article on WP uses that format because every other country uses that format. Does the United States? No. So why should we comply with the rest of the world now when we have been doing it our own way all this time? Maybe we should try that with the metric system. See how well that goes with the average American mentality. --Otav347 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You status quo was established when for over a month the format was unchanged, and no one said boo. I made the change and there was no uproar like the one you're getting now that you want to change it again. You still haven't answered why on the soccer articles we list Home-Away. Why is one part of the international standard so objectionable, but the other is not? I still don't see why there's the uproar about this. It's an international project, we use the international standard for everything else, this should be no different. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask this? Can I? What the hell is the international standard, anyway? Is there some rule book, some document I don't know about? Is there some mandate that everything must be Home-Away and W-D-L? Because I missed that press release. --Otav347 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of media outlets covering the sport use Home-Away and W-D-L. That's what we should use for covering all soccer articles. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except I pointed out to you that, just like this discussion, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. --Otav347 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is though. Internationally, the media presents results and standings in Home-Away and W-D-L format. If you look at the total number of reports about soccer, all but a very small minority will be in Home-Away and W-D-L format. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally. Not American. How many times must I point that out to you? The majority of media outlets you brought up are foreign. EVERY media outlet I brought up is North American. Don't you get that we as Americans do things differently, and that includes how we look at the standings? --Otav347 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the majority of Americans get their soccer information from overseas, as I pointed out to you. The ESPNsoccernet site is based in England, that's the most popular soccer website for Americans. As are the Man U website, UEFA, FIFA, etc. Hell, FSC is based in Canada, and they use the international standard. The point is that the American media doesn't cover soccer, so Americans have to get their info elsewhere. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who visits this article and isn't familiar with the Home-Away and W-D-L format. Like I said before "number of soccer fans who live in America and follow MLS" >> "number of casual American sports fans who follow MLS." -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sad fact that the majority of the American media doesn't cover soccer. But they're coming around. Slowly, but it's happening. I've gotten a lot of soccer information from local newspapers before that I would've never seen without going to a soccer-specific website. And every American-based media outlet that I've seen cover soccer has used the W-L-T and Away @ Home format. That's just the way it is. Just because most Americans have to go to overseas outlets to get their information and are familiar with the "international standard" doesn't mean they have to like it. There are plenty of outlets on this side of the pond that do it the American way. This is an American article. It should be portrayed as such. --Otav347 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a noise?" If more people in the US get their information from international sources using the international format, and the vast majority of all media internationally use the international format, and half of the international format is already used in the US articles, I don't understand what reason there is to keep the US format in articles that will be read by people that are overwhelmingly familiar with W-D-L and Home-Away. Consistency within WP:FOOTY is also important. I fear you are trying to project too much of what you think should be into a situation that should be about what is. The vast majority of material created about soccer and consumed by Americans uses the international format, and WP should be no different. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why you keep pushing the international viewpoint. This isn't an international article. This is an American article. If it was the World Cup, then by all means, put whatever the international community tells you to. But it's not. I'll bring back the hockey example. The vast majority of news comes from North American websites, does it not? Yet the European standings are in W-D-L. Hockey is the opposite of soccer in terms of one region getting its information from the other. Why should soccer conform to one standard for the whole world when hockey, which is like soccer in the international perspective, doesn't? --Otav347 (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on one thing? That we need a third perspective on this? Because I'm sick of going back and forth, one-on-one with you. I don't even care which side they would be on anymore. Just a different view for a change. --Otav347 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding yourself, Jeff, and myself from the people that voted, the count is 5-3 in favor of keeping W-D-L. So that says it all to me. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't you the one that said it isn't about votes, but about arguments? Now you're falling back on the votes, since they, after all, are in your favor? I was talking about another viewpoint, something to add to the discussion. --Otav347 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is. He would go back on his original word when it suits him best. Kingjeff (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That constitutes a personal attack. If I don't get an apology (or at least a strike through) from you here or on my talk page within a few hours, Jeff, I'm reporting you for violation of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:NPA. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you seem to be backtracking and contradicting yourself whenever you feel it will help your argument. You've fought for the uniqueness of MLS, yet you won't give up on this. You said votes don't matter, but now all of a sudden they do. You've accepted that the United States does the standings differently, but apparently you don't want it that way. You pointed out that GTA IV was correctly written in British English because it was made in Britain, but even though MLS is based in the US, according to you, it should be in a foreign format. Something seems fishy here. --Otav347 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is a common (and effective) rhetorical technique to point out that you are winning on the scorecard that your opponent themselves suggested. That's all I'm doing. I happen to think I'm winning on both scorecards, but then, if I didn't, I wouldn't still be arguing. Next, I argued for MLS's uniqueness because of a content dispute, not a style dispute. In the previous case I supported the switch to the standard layout (i.e. kit templates on the bottom of the box, etc.) as long as it added the MLS information as well. Third, I acknowledge that newspapers, ESPN proper, local TV, and some internet sites in the US use the W-L-T format. The problem is that they are largely ignored by the soccer fans in the US because the soccer fans in the US have been ignored by them for so long. Instead, American soccer fans look almost exclusively at foreign sources of information for their information about soccer, which uses the international format. The GTA IV argument works in favor of W-D-L, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. The sport was invented by people using the international format, and so by the GTA IV argument so should all soccer articles. Nothing is fishy here, except the fact that Jeff keeps making personal attacks against me and bringing frivilous charges of sock puppetry against me even though he recruited you to make edits for him so that he wouldn't violate the 3RR. You didn't act on it, thankfully, but the point remains that Jeff has made this personal, and that's unfortunate, for as much as we've disagreed Otav, I've considered this discussion constructive and stimulating, and look forward to working with you on many American soccer articles after this is over. I agree that this needs a 3rd party intervention, and if you want to go about securing that, I would be appreciative as it appears I now have a ridiculous sockpuppetry allegation to fight off. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I asked him to watch out for the page, he had an option of doing it or not. I myself was at the limit of 3 Reverts. Kingjeff (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My roommate could have done the same thing. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you planted doubt. Kingjeff (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I meant. My roommate had the same choice as Otav, and my roommate chose to revert. Actually, if you look at Otav's comments on my page, he agreed that you were wrong to revert as well, and was going to keep the page W-D-L until this issue is settled. Don't try to twist my words. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your "roommate" just happen to start on Wikipedia tonight and just happen to support you in four cases. Kingjeff (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, I asked him to do it. That's no worse than you telling Otav to help you keep the edit war going. I'm not being anything but transparent here. The reason the IP is the same is because we're in an apartment hooked up to the same internet connection. We have the same IP. If he had created an account, you wouldn't have said bupkiss. Also, please remove all but the IP from the list of alleged sockpuppets, as it is a personal attack, and a petty, frivilous one at that, to accuse those users of being involved in this. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. I think you're lying. Kingjeff (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a violation of WP:GOODFAITH, and I am working on admin intervention, as we speak. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this has been brought up already - I'm not taking the time to read the previous 48 kb of text in its entirety - but it occurs to me that if WP:MOS National varieties of English is policy, why wouldn't it follow to use a similar policy with regard to formatting, specifically:

"Strong national ties to a topic: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation."

Since this is a north-american league, it follows that the format used in north-america should be used in the article. — Zaui (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to tell Gran this, but he claims this is a numerical issue and not a language issue. Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then one could argue that this is not a language nor numerical issue, but a style issue. We're not constructing sentences or running calculations - we're trying to figure out how to display information. The article is about a north-american league. The prevailing style in north america is W-L-T. Therefore, following the same logic found at WP:MOS National varieties of English, the article should follow that style. — Zaui (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back. I have to say, I was a little reluctant to come back because I'm sick and tired of arguing. But there's a duty I have to fulfill; there's a case that needs to be won. So I'm here. On to stating my case.

First of all, thank you, Zaui, for bringing your ideas to the discussion. I was praying that someone would show up and break the monotony between me and Grant. Now, Grant, I'd like to hear your take on this. I was reading the USA Today this morning, as I do every morning I'm at school, and looking at the back pages of the sports, there are soccer standings and schedules. There are listings for MLS and USL here in North America, but also the final Premier League standings and the standings of the Spanish, Italian, and German leagues heading into their last week. I will note that all the leagues, not just the North American ones, had W-L-T and Away @ Home formatting. Thus proving my point once again that American media will report soccer information in the American way. This article is American, it therefore must be portrayed as such. It doesn't matter where Americans get their soccer information from. I'll bring in my own perspective on this. Yes, I go to ESPN Soccernet and UEFA, and also Channel 4 in the UK, for my Serie A and Champions League fix. However, when I look for MLS information, I look at three media outlets: the aforementioned USA Today (and Beau Dure writes some great articles, you should try them sometime), MLSNet.com (the obvious source), and Yahoo (it's right on my homepage). I will note that every place I look has W-L-T in their format. I will also note that all those sources are American, unlike Soccernet, UEFA, and the like that you have mentioned before. The international community does it one way. The American community does it another. That may not be to your liking, but that's the way it is.

One more thing. I keep bringing up the GTA article because the way you are using it is outlandish. Let me give you an example. Say you bought a foreign car. Let's say it's, oh, Japanese. Even though the car was built SPECIFICALLY for driving in the United States, the car was made in Japan. That means it must have all its controls in Japanese, the meters in the dashboard on the metric system, and the Owners Manual in Japanese as well. It may be a bit on the extreme side, but that's the exact reasoning you have given me for having MLS in W-D-L because the sport was made in Britain. I don't know about you, but I'm not all that willing to learn Japanese just to drive a car around town. --Otav347 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I'm more concerned about these other allegations for the time being, I'll be back in a few hours to answer. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about it. It'll blow over. I'm busy myself anyway. I'm helping roommates move out and I'm packing today, and I'm moving out myself tomorrow. If you want, we can hold off this discussion until Thursday. Or, rather, if you don't mind. --Otav347 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually in a similar situation, so that's fine. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been looking at ESPN for something else, so I thought I'd have a look at their MLS table - guess what, despite it being a wholly-American centric website, it uses W-D-L. And for good measure, it has the points totals on the right hand side. Not where this article has it, on the left, or where MLS has it - somewhere in the middle. - fchd (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I'll admit I've only read the first portion of this debate as it is very lengthy (much to do today), so forgive me if someone has said this previously. For my money, in the same way that must say "soccer" rather than "football" because it's a North American article, the W-L-T format ought to be used because that's how it's done it North America. More specifically, it's also how the MLS does it. As for the "it's how FIFA does it (W-D-L)" argument, it don't think it quite applies here because FIFA doesn't have any say/control of MLS. That's my three cents: yes, my opinion is worth more than yours. :) That last line was of course a joke meant to lighten up the mood.

Lucky Strike (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke[reply]

For the record, FIFA has plenty of say in/control of MLS, just like they do every league in the world. They let some things go, but the buck stops with FIFA over pretty much any issue with FIFA. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But FIFA doesn't have control over the day-to-day operations of Major League Soccer. Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does that matter? Listen, here's my point: if you are going to change all of the MLS, USL, USMNT, USWNT, and other US Soccer articles to use not just WLT but Away-Home (and do this clearly), then that is fine, but unless you are arguing for 100% consistency, like I am, your arguments are bankrupt. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was consistent until 2008 MLS season was changed to W-D-L. Kingjeff (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. All of the MLS Cup playoff articles use the Home-Away format for the games, and the US Open Cup articles are like that as well. Unless you're arguing for changing all of that, you should stop arguing for this change. I'm more than willing to change all of the standings in all of the articles (it's not that many changes), in order to get this consistent with the rest of WP. Unless you are willing to do the same, you're just making the problem worse. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that a cup format is different from a league format? Kingjeff (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize you don't know what you're talking about? Home-Away is international format, and Away-Home is US format. If you're arguing that US Soccer articles should all be 100% in the US format, then fine, have fun changing all of those articles, and you won't hear another peep out of me. All I'm saying is that we should change the standings on a few articles, in order to bring them in line with the rest of those articles and the rest of the football articles on WP, to keep them in international format. Unless you're willing to change all of the American soccer articles to that format, this conversation appears to finally be over. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be heading to the airport in a few minutes to go home, but I'll jump in for this. I have absolutely NO problem changing the format of every US Soccer article to Away-Home. It keeps them in line with the US format, plus it'll give me something to do later this week. Does that mean this is settled? :-) --Otav347 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is clear that it is Away-Home, I'm willing to let that happen. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But just so we're clear, that means the MNT, WNT, MLS team articles, etc. Every match has to be in Away-Home format to justify W-L-T. And have fun with that. :P -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if this change for consistency of every article is what we can agree on, I will help with the changover. So just say the word, Otav. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Alright, I've found some extra time and gone back and read the entire thing and wow, that was long! Here is what I see:

GrantAlpaugh:

a) You obviously care and put much effort into this and many other articles. We (as one of many Wiki readers/editors) appreciate your diligence.

Thank you. Really, it means a lot to hear some appreciation for the work I've done. I really do care quite a bit about American soccer, and want to see the articles in the best possible shape. I realize sometimes that causes me to engage in long, often silly debates about trivialities, but that's life sometimes. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

b) You make some valid points for your argument. However, many of them come undone later in the debate - by your hand no less. One example that jumps out is the vote. At first, you judge arguments as more productive than a simple vote - okay. Alternatively, the WP, according to you, takes priority over voting as well - okay. However, when the vote favoured you, you began to use it as a reason why the WDL should be used. When it turned back the other way, no longer did a vote matter. It is good rhetoric but not a good argument.

I haven't brought up the vote since it changed. I only brought it up because if you introduce a metric, and then lose by it, that's pretty much it for your argument. I never introduced such a metric, but instead I contested it from the start, either way it is a pretty evenly split vote that gives no clear consensus one way or the other. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c) Someone brought WP:Communism. I think you should read it again. You have argued that it was not what you're implying, which would be fine, but it is extremely difficult to believe you. You're no John Locke - putting effort into something does not imply ownership. I've read what you've written and you're clearly trying to discourage people from editing pieces where you are a primary contributor. I quote: "It wasn't disputed for more than a month. I and Sixkicks have been the only people consistently editing the article for the last 6 weeks." and "Listen, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, please stop as there is no consensus to change." and "Either way, you're wrong, and you're still making a mountain out of a molehill. Please drop it and move on with your life."

I was only pointing out that for 4-6 weeks the article remained in one format, so it should remain in that format until a consensus is reached, which, thank God, we are close to reaching now. I have obviously been a major contributor to the article, but I by no means claim ownership of it. My argument was never "I work on the article, so listen to me." The only reason I brought it up was because people were trying to say that I wasn't involved in the 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification article until I decided to change the format, which is untrue since I created the article. That's when the ownership charges came in to play, and they were frivilous, like many of Jeff's allegations. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

d) You accuse others of not assuming good faith but neither do you. In many of your posts exists a trend which implies that: "I'm smarter than you are, you should defer to me." I quote: "I think the stupidity of that statement speaks for itself." You report people for not assuming good faith, which is fine, if not a little pathetic in my opinion but you should be aware that you come off the same way. Tattle at your own risk. You may lose credibility with the moderators if this hasn't occurred already.

There was a consistently negative and personal tone coming from Jeff from the start, dating back to a dispute a month ago where I mistakenly, but justifiably, called him a vandal for shrinking the team names in the UEFA Champions League article, which had been the subject of much vandalism at the time. Ever since then he has gone out of his way to make my life miserable, like here, where he managed to drag everyone who voted against him into this mess along with me. The comment you quoted was unfortunate, and I regret it. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otav347: It's not about winning or losing, it's about accuracy. However, I do acknowledge that arguing with GrantAlpaugh encourages one to think it that way because he/she has been at times overly subborn and inflexible.

Kingjeff: We know each other well (in the sense that we've come across one another on some TFC projects). How's it going?

Kithutch: You probably make the most sense in this poorly acted farce. It's not to say that others are by default illogical but you (and probably Kingjeff) have articulated your point very clearly.

In the end, it seems to be a question of North American/MLS standards of WLT versus European/FIFA standards of WDL. It has been suggested that FIFA has influence on MLS (and thus should take precedence) but I have yet to see evidence of this. I haven't read WP:Footy lately so I can't comment on the goings-on there. But either way, one cannot use or disregard the vote depending on which side it favours. Keep it clean, civil, without insults and profanity.

Lucky Strike (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke[reply]

I can't help but notice that your comments appear to be coming from the fact that you're in agreement with Kingjeff due to your previous relationship, which is understandable. I agree this discussion has gotten uncivil, but as long as the above agreement between myself and Otav holds up, we appear to have found a solution. Thanks for weighing in. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for my credibility, that is not the case. As for the "agreement", you can call it whatever you like but it just reinforces point D that I've made. You're basically telling me: "You're buddies with Kingjeff so I reject what you've said. I've asked Otav347 to do something near impossible and if he doesn't do it, I win. In the mean time, you can get lost." Unless perhaps I am mistaken (with a hint of sarcasm)?

Lucky Strike (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke[reply]

No, he's up for it, and I will be helping him if that's what he agrees to. I didn't mean to dismiss your comments entirely, but given your friendship with Kingjeff, I, and I don't think unreasonably, give them less weight than a truly nuetral observer. That said I do take your criticisms of my tone seriously, and will endeavor to work on that in the future. Sorry if it seemed like I was ignoring everything you said. I hear you, I just happen to disagree with some of it. Hey, maybe you're a sock of Kingjeff!? I think I'll have to start an investigation of my own. :P -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As for me, this is my stop, I'm getting off the argument. Regardless of what I've said, I do appreciate your work, particularly on the MLS standings table; I use it all the time over what is found at MLSnet.

Lucky Strike (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke[reply]

I hereby declare this case CLOSED. In favor of, well, everybody. We can all agree that this has been long, drawn out, and tiring for everyone involved, so ending this discussion is a thankful event. Grant, I may have been a little harsh on you at times, but like I said before, that stems back to my passion about certain things and I tend to get heated as a result. I look forward to working with you on all future soccer articles, U.S. or otherwise. Lucky Strike, thanks for your input, but I think we've decided that this has been settled, and I will diligently get to work at fixing up the US Soccer articles into the Away-Home format that, now that I think about it, probably should've been there all along (at least in my opinion). Anyone who is willing to help, be my guest. I'll probably need it. Thank you all, especially Grant, for taking 4 days of what would normally be a painstaking time of taking final exams and making it somewhat eventful and entertaining. --Otav347 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Kingjeff, I appreciate the help, but please lay off the guy. I got heated after a little while, but I realized what I was doing (with a little help, of course), and I apologized, backed off, and moved on. For the sake of the users that frequent these Wiki pages, could you please do the same?

Without belabouring the issue, I'd just say that i agree with the concensus that following MLS's style (and North American style in general) to describe MLS's league makes the most sense. It would be very odd to use W-D-L format for MLS considering that that is not how the league or teams themselves list the standings.Ltv100 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I don't know if this has been mentioned (there's a lot of discussion here), but since all previously MLS season pages seen to use W-L-T format, that would be yet another reason to continue with that format to not only be consistent with MLS and its teams, but also to be consistent within Wikipedia.Ltv100 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP as a whole uses the international format, so if that was what we were going to go on, we'd use the international format. What MLS uses also doesn't inherently matter either, as the vast majority of American soccer fans get their soccer news elsewhere. In the end the reason for the compromise is basically that W-L-T and Away-Home are part of AmEng and these articles are written in AmEng, whereas W-L-D and Home-Away are part of BrEng, which this article is not written in. The decision is to put all of US and Canadian soccer articles within the AmEng format. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the recent discussion, I have changed from W-D-L to W-L-T. American (and Canadian) articles should not be de-Americanized because of international standards. All sports in the USA use away-home and W-L-T. This one should be no different. Just like American articles use imperial (metric) and American soccer articles use soccer, not football. The reasons are the same. The US uses the imperial system to measure, it calls the game soccer, it uses away-home, and it uses W-L-T. So no matter if every country worldwide uses the opposite, American articles should use American styles. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's too late but I would just like to fully agree with Grant's opinion. It doesn't matter that MLS has a different, and strange, way of reporting their stats. The issue is that there should be a streamlined way of presenting information on wikipedia. When a reader looks at the column after wins in a European league article and then goes to MLS to read the stats the reader should no tbe left confused. For this reason it wikipedia should be using the WDL format teh majority of the world use. Also, for all the MLS fans that want the WLT formate used, don't you think it's confusing that CONCACAF Champions' Cup 1996 uses WDL format while MLS uses WLT? When the CONCACAF Champions League 2008-09 page gets the group stage added it better be in WDL format as the majority of the teams are from countries that use the WDL format, I hope that MLS fans don't take the page hostage and format it with WLT format because they can't wrap their head around something different. Also, I am Canadian and I started the 2008 Canada Cup of Soccer page and I will use WDL format, many fellow canadian fans have seen the page and have not objected to its use. NeilCanada (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the CONCACAF Champions' Cup articles should use W-D-L because that is an international scompetition, so it should use the international standard format. When CONCACAF puts out official press releases, it does so in W-D-L and home-away formats. I don't see what that has to do with an MLS article dealing exclusively with American and Canadian teams. Obviously, then, such an article should use the standard that the league itself uses and which is common to all sports in the US and Canada. As has been pointed out, that's equivalent to using metric measurements in an article about a US city, rather than the local standard of imperial measurements. But international results simply featuring MLS teams should continue to use international standards.Ltv100 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this voting over? Cuz if it is...I hate you guys. Myself and possibly one other guy can definitely tie this thing up. Then we will be 0-0-1, wait I mean 0-1-0. Well anyway I don't really hate you guys, I was just in Cartman mode for a second. Libro0 (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official league standings page: [1]. This article should accurately represent the league formats and that would be W-L-T, as I stated when I first edited the template. The wikipedia policy between North American and English language should be the end all of the debate with this. Theasfl (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we haven't reached a concensus. So what do we do now? I agree w/ the point that "The wikipedia policy between North American and English language should be the end all of the debate with this." We should stick w/ the chart listings as the league does just as we would with the spelling in the article being kept in the American English style. Seems to be a pretty non-starting argument to me.Rhodesisland (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That debate ended last year. Look at the dates. We've been using W-L-T just like official MLS statistics do. KitHutch (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I had the same trouble today being an European myself, so of course I am more familiar w/ international W-D-L standard, though I prefer it because it's just a little more logical—the results are presented following the 3-1-0 progression of points earned. 194.50.169.20 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there are two more questions I'd like to ask about the standings format:
(a) the correct position of 'Points' column—you place it next to the 'Games played' and we place it last, after the goal difference. Again, it's a little bit easier to find the points (which are the most important numbers in the table) just looking on the edge of the table, not somewhere into the middle;
(b) the display of positive goal difference—should the "+" symbol be included?
Thanks in advance. 194.50.169.20 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of Consensus[edit]

Wins-Losses-Ties format[edit]

Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otav347 (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KitHutch (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– Pee Jay 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Balerion (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Zaui (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heitz669 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sixkick (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lckystrke (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ltv100 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theasfl (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your Radio Enemy (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodesisland Rhodesisland (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wins-Draws-Losses format[edit]

fchd (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grant .Alpaugh 18:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← chan dler 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Che84 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NeilCanada (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muppeteer (talk) 18:42, June 6, 2008

Single Table Format[edit]

the overall standings trim or ranking color should be changed as the white on beige is difficult to read Theasfl (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the second place team qualifies for the 2009-2010 CONCACAF Champions League along with the first place team as the Supporter's Shield Runner Up, it should have its own color in the single table with a note at the bottom of the table. Theasfl (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need every team in the overall standings. It should be just a wild card table since there is a league wide ranking for the last 2 playoff spots. Kingjeff (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except for the fact that qualifications for Champions League, Superliga, and Open Cup are based on regular season performance. Therefore, the single table makes for easier tracking of those slots, in addition to the playoff wildcards. Sixkick (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there should just be a wild card standing somewhere. Irregardless of the situation. The impression of an overall table is that this is how the playoffs are done irregardless of whether there are conferences or not. Kingjeff (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somone should fix the single table. According to concacaf http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4171 Champs League entrants are Group Stage: MLS Cup Winner and Supportrs Shield Winner, Prelim round: MLS Cup runner Up and US Open Cup winner. Chivas was only put in this year as Supporters shield runner up due to New England being MLS Cup runner up and US Open Cup winner.NeilCanada (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results Tables[edit]

Someone should create results tables Like this or this for this article. Darryl.matheson (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the league doesn't play a balanced schedule, its probably not worth it. Theasfl (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created one. It will look better once we have some scores to add. ---CWY2190^T^C 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your table, but I have to say it would look much better if you had the team in the row across the top and the match number going down the column. As it is now, it is much too wide. As there are only 14 teams versus 30 matches, it would fit better for them to be switched. --otduff ^t/_c 08:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, tables are bad when you have to scroll down to see them, whereas the table at present can be seen entirely in one window, at least that's my opinion. -- Grant .Alpaugh 11:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fit until the "@" signs were added. ---CWY2190^T^C 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, still fits in my browser, so I dunno. -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fits my 1600 px monitor, but if you had a monitor below that, it won't fit. ---CWY2190^T^C 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a 1400x1050 (I know it's wierd but it's a lappy) and it fits perfectly. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fix on the 1280px monitors at my school. The cut off must be in the 1300s. ---CWY2190^T^C 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the league doesn't play a balanced schedule, its probably not worth it." Neither does the SPL but they use it anyway. Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the SPL does it on a very organized and systematic basis. MLS plays Home-Away with every team for 26 games and then the pick four "regional rivalries" to round out the schedule. I don't think it would be a significant improvement over the current situation. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season Format[edit]

I think it's worth mentioning the season format. Because of the expansion, the format has to have changed if there are still only 30 games in a season. I'd do it myself only I can't find the format written anywhere and I can't be bothered working it out myself yet. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff Format[edit]

Is there a link to verify the change to 3 teams per conference guaranteed instead of 2 as it was last season? I don't doubt it happened I just haven't seen or heard anything about it myself. I checked the MLS website and didn't see anything. Theasfl (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Don Garber announcing this at the State of the League address last November, so I figured the rule stuck and put it in. Anyway, here's the proof from the MLS website: [2]Otav347 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable Statistics Tables[edit]

It would be nice if the scorers and goalkeepers statistics tables were sortable by category. (Example here.) -- TexasDawg (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think sortability on tables this small is more trouble than it's worth. They can cause accessability issues and they screw up tables when certain cells span multiple rows like the ranking on the current table. So if consensus is otherwise, fine, but I am firmly opposed. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

As the edit warring has continued for the above dispute, including editors gaming 3RR, I have protected the standings templates. Please discuss matters on talk instead of reverting each other. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now unprotected, as the dispute appears to have subsided. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews invitation[edit]

Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for the FAI League of Ireland. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results Table: reversed numbers?[edit]

Well I was looking at the results table and was a bit confused. The dark square above the result indicates that it is a home game. I also noticed that, for example, week 12 Toronto FC beat Colorado 3 goals to 1. Yet in the results table the score shows TFC's result on the right making the score look like 1-3. I always thought that the home team had their score first and the away team after. Can we possibly change this around? And if don't quite get what I am saying I can explain further. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The North American format uses Away-Home, unlike the international format. Take a look at the giant discussion near the top of the page to see why this is such a contentious issue, and why the consensus to keep it as North American format is what won out. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't see that. Still it looks funny this way. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you wouldn't say "Toronto lost at home 1-3." You would say the higher score first (at least that's what I'm used to.) Since the box on top says they are at home already and the bottom boxes are color coded for results, there wouldn't be a problem with home-away or away-home format. Looking at the dark top box, red bottom box and 3-1 should tell a reader "Toronto lost 3-1 at home." Just my 2 cents. Greecepwns (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annotation of CCL positions awarded[edit]

Hey I saw Grant eliminated my discussion of the treatment of CCL positions, that if Columbus or DC go to MLS Cup 2008. I see Grant noted some precedent, which I'll take at face value. However, wouldn't it be more useful to users to add that discussion right now? I am trying to get a sense of what is best here, so if anyone has any input, please discuss here. Cheers!Nlsanand (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance[edit]

The attendance figures given on this page are the same as those given on 2007 Major League Soccer season. That means at least one set is wrong. Do we have any decent sources for the attendances in the league? Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://homepages.sover.net/~spectrum/ KitHutch (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any attendance figures at all on those pages. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302124415/http://web.mlsnet.com:80/players/bio.jsp?team=t280&player=johnston_mo to http://web.mlsnet.com/players/bio.jsp?team=t280&player=johnston_mo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 04:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 60 external links on 2008 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]