Grant.Alpaugh (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:I strongly, strongly disagree. We had these set up as templates three years ago until everyone agreed that it was counterproductive. Templating makes errors harder to catch, because people see them in the main article, but don't know how to go to the template and edit them. To do an update to the article after games, rather than editing the whole article all at once, you have to go to four or five seperate pages to update the results table, conference and overall standings, and stats. It is a lot more work than is necessary. I don't think the main MLS season article should be made to suffer just to accomodate the hanging of every possible trinket on the Christmas tree that is the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC article. -- '''[[User:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#BF0A30">Grant</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#FFFFFF">.</font>]][[User talk:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#002868">Alpaugh</font>]]''' 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
:I strongly, strongly disagree. We had these set up as templates three years ago until everyone agreed that it was counterproductive. Templating makes errors harder to catch, because people see them in the main article, but don't know how to go to the template and edit them. To do an update to the article after games, rather than editing the whole article all at once, you have to go to four or five seperate pages to update the results table, conference and overall standings, and stats. It is a lot more work than is necessary. I don't think the main MLS season article should be made to suffer just to accomodate the hanging of every possible trinket on the Christmas tree that is the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC article. -- '''[[User:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#BF0A30">Grant</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#FFFFFF">.</font>]][[User talk:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#002868">Alpaugh</font>]]''' 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Consensus here is that a template should be used. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]</sup>''' 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Consensus here is that a template should be used. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]</sup>''' 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::On the 2007 Major League Soccer article we had templates for the Results table, the Conference Standings, and the Overall Standings. To update results, you had to edit 5 articles to do it correctly. Additionally, mistakes in updates were much harder to fix, because random IP editors who saw a mistake, but didn't know how to get to the template article to correct them, couldn't correct them. The main MLS article has existed in the same form for three seasons now, and it will take more than three people to change that. -- '''[[User:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#BF0A30">Grant</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#FFFFFF">.</font>]][[User talk:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#002868">Alpaugh</font>]]''' 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== All-Star Game == |
== All-Star Game == |
Revision as of 17:07, 16 April 2009
![]() | Football Unassessed | |||||||||
|
MLS 2009 Season Attendance
I understand that MLS is not the most reliable in terms of it's attendance but removing my addition without discussion might be a bit far reaching- Those stats came directly from MLS and their website, as do most all the other information included within the article, should we remove it all at a whim? Should we go remove all attendance data from MLS team articles under the same thinking? I think I will revert it back into being included- This is in response to Grant removing my attendance addition to the infobox. Morry32 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- You must not be familiar with the WP:BRD cycle on Wikipedia, which is quite a common way of going about things. I could just as easily argued that you should have discussed before adding, but whatever, the bottom line is that I didn't do anything out of line. Now that we're discussing this, I think you should know about this, this, and this with regard to MLS attendances. As you can see, there is legitimate doubt coming from third party sources that MLS attendances are valid, whether there are even as many seats in some stadiums as MLS claims to sell, and what constitutes attendance in the first place. For these reasons, which I raised on the main MLS article when average attendance was included in the table of teams, I think especially for MLS attendance is a hard thing to trust. And for the record, I wouldn't have a problem with removing attendance figures from the team articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect Grant- My argument has nothing to with nor is it concerned with how many people showed up the game- it has nothing to do with proving MLS incorrect- nor does it have anything to do with arguing who is correct. Instead it has everything to do with providing information, MLS has listed their attendance and I am, I believe rightfully so, displaying it in the appropriate manner. If someone were to come on Wikipedia looking for the data in hopes of finding it to dispute MLS, then so be it- either way it is information that we include everywhere else on Wikipedia. In clubs pages, in match reports, on season pages- why not on the league season page where it can be put together clearly and cleanly for the entire league? I would also support the making of a section on the MLS article outlining some of the claims against their "Attendance Numbers" but I am not as up to date on the subject to be the author of suck a section. Morry32 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is legitimate question as to the validity of the information you're adding. What does MLS consider attendance, anyway? The articles I linked for you point out that there are all sorts of standards, even within the league. Does it only include paying customers, or do people who are given free tickets so there won't be empty seats for a TV game count as well? Often times the Galaxy claim a sell out crowd of 27,000, to the point (as one article notes) of being a joke, and there is even question as to whether there are even 27,000 seats in The Home Depot Center. There is simply no way of knowing the validity of this information. Until you can better articulate why the article can't do without potentially garbage information, I think it should remain out of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your links- first attendance who is Kenn? Why is he credible? "I’m a 43-year old guy who moved last year from the Chicago area to Arizona, where I work in marketing and edit a business magazine." The second and third links are directly linked to this "KENN" and his information gathered therein. Ken now admits he is no longer in the business and says "I didn’t keep tabs on things as closely in 2007 as I had before. I didn’t update the analysis, which had been a staple of my website for a long time. I found I had less and less patience for the weekly bitchfests about attendance on Bigsoccer.com". Your second link this is from an article written in Sept 2006. Third this again is from the same writter as link two but was published even early in May of 2006, the majority of the article speaks of all leagues "attendance practices". I see a lot of numbers from Mark Zeigler but very few sources in his work but I do see this quote, "“(Teams) aren't faking the numbers,” MLS President Mark Abbott says. “We know this from the reports we get from the tickets distributed. It's not happening ... We haven't historically tracked turnstile attendance (for all teams), so it's not a number we have. But we feel confident our 'official attendance' is a fair representation of the number of people who are coming and paying attention to the sport." So those are your links- They seem outdated and not anymore creditable than the league its self- I don't understand why there is a fighting happening against the MLS and not other leagues as well. I honestly do not like the position you have put me in, I don't like fighting in behave of the league I am just simply making the case that it isn't our place to verify their stats to put them up- If we question their ability to count heads why aren't we also removing all the other stats we get from the league? I believe the information should be included- if you have problems with it then make a section on the league article highlighting your concerns about their accuracy. And also I looked up the archive you presented to be a "discussion"- in reality it was you making a point on the talk page and no one else disagreeing with you. Morry32 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kenn Tomasch is a soccer broadcaster that has done games on Fox Soccer Channel for the MISL and the Big Ten men's soccer tournament. He was widely considered the best 3rd party analyst of MLS attendance, but has since stopped doing so after the conflicts on BigSoccer you mentioned. The fact remains that there is legitimate 3rd party questions as to the number of seats in some stadiums, as well as questions about what the league constitutes attendance. Does "coming and paying attention to the sport" constitute actually paying money for the tickets, or does it include free tickets that are given away because they won't sell, and the team doesn't want to be embarassed on nationally televised games? That's what the definition is in sports, but we don't know about MLS. Furthermore, forgive me for questioning the motivation of MLS when talking about attendance. It's not like they don't have a vested interest in inflating their attendance numbers, as those numbers correlate to sponsorship, advertising, etc. As for this calling into question all other stats reported by MLS, we have video of goals scored and saves made. I can't use the tape of MLS games to determine exactly how many people were at the game, or even whether those people at the game were paying customers, etc. etc. They are totally different things. My point is, what does the article lose by not having this information in the article? I would argue there is little to no benefit to this information being included, and it comes at the expense of the article's credibility. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You just wrote a new definition of Sports attendance no where in that article do I see anything concerning who paid and who didn't. Your information is nonetheless three years old. I made an announcement on the MLS page as you requested, we will wait and see what others have to say on the subject. Morry32 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is just my two cents, but the attendance figures are a stat released by MLS. Yes, there are questions about whether they are accurate. However, there are questions from almost every professional sports league about whether their attendance numbers are accurate. If Wikipedia includes attendance numbers on other professional sports leagues that are reported by those sports leagues, then the numbers should also be included in MLS articles. KitHutch (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Correct or not, valid or not, controversial or not, they are the official statistics that are on record. If someone personally disagrees with the figures, that's fine. But they are official statistics and official information and should be treated as such on Wikipedia. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is just my two cents, but the attendance figures are a stat released by MLS. Yes, there are questions about whether they are accurate. However, there are questions from almost every professional sports league about whether their attendance numbers are accurate. If Wikipedia includes attendance numbers on other professional sports leagues that are reported by those sports leagues, then the numbers should also be included in MLS articles. KitHutch (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You just wrote a new definition of Sports attendance no where in that article do I see anything concerning who paid and who didn't. Your information is nonetheless three years old. I made an announcement on the MLS page as you requested, we will wait and see what others have to say on the subject. Morry32 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kenn Tomasch is a soccer broadcaster that has done games on Fox Soccer Channel for the MISL and the Big Ten men's soccer tournament. He was widely considered the best 3rd party analyst of MLS attendance, but has since stopped doing so after the conflicts on BigSoccer you mentioned. The fact remains that there is legitimate 3rd party questions as to the number of seats in some stadiums, as well as questions about what the league constitutes attendance. Does "coming and paying attention to the sport" constitute actually paying money for the tickets, or does it include free tickets that are given away because they won't sell, and the team doesn't want to be embarassed on nationally televised games? That's what the definition is in sports, but we don't know about MLS. Furthermore, forgive me for questioning the motivation of MLS when talking about attendance. It's not like they don't have a vested interest in inflating their attendance numbers, as those numbers correlate to sponsorship, advertising, etc. As for this calling into question all other stats reported by MLS, we have video of goals scored and saves made. I can't use the tape of MLS games to determine exactly how many people were at the game, or even whether those people at the game were paying customers, etc. etc. They are totally different things. My point is, what does the article lose by not having this information in the article? I would argue there is little to no benefit to this information being included, and it comes at the expense of the article's credibility. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your links- first attendance who is Kenn? Why is he credible? "I’m a 43-year old guy who moved last year from the Chicago area to Arizona, where I work in marketing and edit a business magazine." The second and third links are directly linked to this "KENN" and his information gathered therein. Ken now admits he is no longer in the business and says "I didn’t keep tabs on things as closely in 2007 as I had before. I didn’t update the analysis, which had been a staple of my website for a long time. I found I had less and less patience for the weekly bitchfests about attendance on Bigsoccer.com". Your second link this is from an article written in Sept 2006. Third this again is from the same writter as link two but was published even early in May of 2006, the majority of the article speaks of all leagues "attendance practices". I see a lot of numbers from Mark Zeigler but very few sources in his work but I do see this quote, "“(Teams) aren't faking the numbers,” MLS President Mark Abbott says. “We know this from the reports we get from the tickets distributed. It's not happening ... We haven't historically tracked turnstile attendance (for all teams), so it's not a number we have. But we feel confident our 'official attendance' is a fair representation of the number of people who are coming and paying attention to the sport." So those are your links- They seem outdated and not anymore creditable than the league its self- I don't understand why there is a fighting happening against the MLS and not other leagues as well. I honestly do not like the position you have put me in, I don't like fighting in behave of the league I am just simply making the case that it isn't our place to verify their stats to put them up- If we question their ability to count heads why aren't we also removing all the other stats we get from the league? I believe the information should be included- if you have problems with it then make a section on the league article highlighting your concerns about their accuracy. And also I looked up the archive you presented to be a "discussion"- in reality it was you making a point on the talk page and no one else disagreeing with you. Morry32 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is legitimate question as to the validity of the information you're adding. What does MLS consider attendance, anyway? The articles I linked for you point out that there are all sorts of standards, even within the league. Does it only include paying customers, or do people who are given free tickets so there won't be empty seats for a TV game count as well? Often times the Galaxy claim a sell out crowd of 27,000, to the point (as one article notes) of being a joke, and there is even question as to whether there are even 27,000 seats in The Home Depot Center. There is simply no way of knowing the validity of this information. Until you can better articulate why the article can't do without potentially garbage information, I think it should remain out of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect Grant- My argument has nothing to with nor is it concerned with how many people showed up the game- it has nothing to do with proving MLS incorrect- nor does it have anything to do with arguing who is correct. Instead it has everything to do with providing information, MLS has listed their attendance and I am, I believe rightfully so, displaying it in the appropriate manner. If someone were to come on Wikipedia looking for the data in hopes of finding it to dispute MLS, then so be it- either way it is information that we include everywhere else on Wikipedia. In clubs pages, in match reports, on season pages- why not on the league season page where it can be put together clearly and cleanly for the entire league? I would also support the making of a section on the MLS article outlining some of the claims against their "Attendance Numbers" but I am not as up to date on the subject to be the author of suck a section. Morry32 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How long should this process take? Should we take this to a higher power? Thanks Morry32 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- There really isn't a time limit on discussions, but seeing how Grant is the only one that is opposed to including the info I don't see a problem with you adding the info. MLS may inflate their numbers, but its the best numbers we have available to us. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with providing the official MLS numbers either. While I likewise agree they are highly suspect, if this is what MLS officially tells us then this is the number that is in the record books for all time. Like KitHutch said, every single professional league fudges number; this soccer league is not unique. These stats are a unique and interesting part of each season and are worth noting. I support their inclusion. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, it's not that official...where are you adding the attendance anyway...just as a summary statistic I hope. Nlsanand (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Abbreviations in Statistics and Standings
Could someone add information on the meaning of the abbreviations in the Statistics and Standings sections? Many aren't obvious from context, at least not to us Americans. What is SHTS (if SVS+GA doesn't seem to equal SHTS), for example? It's not clear on other websites; anything I guess add would just be a guess. Bennetto (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- You make a fair point, but these abbreviations are used by MLS, so that's why we use them. I can't honestly tell you what the exact criteria set by MLS is, but I can tell you that SHTS can be either "total shots" or "total shots on goal". A shot is any time a team tries to score a goal, and these are actually often called "goal attempts." Shots on goal are shots that would go into the goal if they weren't deflected, and while this would suggest that shots on goal wouldn't include shots that hit the goal frame and don't go in, sometimes they are included. It should also be noted that it doesn't have to be the goalkeeper who deflects a shot on goal, as often defenders clear balls off of the goal line. So depending on whether the definition used by MLS included shots that hit the goal frame and didn't go in, or whether a goalkeeper's teammates cleared shots off the goal line themselves, the SVS and GA columns might not add up to equal SHTS. I hope that helps. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
MLS season article naming convention
I was perusing the MLS articles and noticed that there really wasn't a convention on how the season articles should be named, so I started a discussion on the USA/Canada Footy Wikiproject. If you with to join in the discussion, you may do so here. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Links in headers
are bad. The link should be in the prose, and in most cases they already are. Grsz11 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to fix it, then use the {{main|}} template to fix them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't need it. They're all linked in the first sentence or so. Template seems pointless considering each section is just a few lines. Grsz11 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- What Grz11 said. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't need it. They're all linked in the first sentence or so. Template seems pointless considering each section is just a few lines. Grsz11 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Standings Template
I was wondering how people might feel about a template like this one Template:2009_AL_Central_standings for our current season? It could easily be placed on each club's season page and require that only it be edited/updated rather than each page. I personally don't know much about making these sort of things but I would like to see one made, if no one else steps up I would probably just find one to alter.Morry32 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why does every team need a copy of the standings in their article? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would highlight the team's position in the standings much like this that and this. I don't know that it is necessary so much as a slick cool way to handle it for each club. Morry32 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would argue that not including the whole standings accomplishes that better. This is also not done for any of the European teams, and we should try to make all of those articles as similar as possible. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- "we should try to make all of those articles as similar as possible" but you are saying on the naming convention to make those less like European articles? Maybe the Europeans aren't aware of the ease of making a template like the one I am suggesting? Like I said, I'm not sure it is necessary at all but I also can't think of a good reason not to do it. It is interesting and dynamic and does provide information currently not found on the pages. Let me ask you this- if we were going to include a table on each clubs season page, could you think of a better way of handling it?Morry32 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would argue that not including the whole standings accomplishes that better. This is also not done for any of the European teams, and we should try to make all of those articles as similar as possible. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would highlight the team's position in the standings much like this that and this. I don't know that it is necessary so much as a slick cool way to handle it for each club. Morry32 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the template- it has a lot of mistakes I am sure but it was my first attempt at a template. You can see how it looks on here KCW or look at the screwed up template page here Template:2009_major_league_soccer_season_table. It doesn't have to stay on any pages, maybe someone will chime in on what they think it could become or where it might be best suited. Morry32 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this even needs to exist. I understand your desire to improve articles, and your passion for your team, but what does this improve? There are no continental qualification scenarios, etc. I guess I don't understand what this accomplishes that a link to the main article with information about all teams doesn't. I personally think this should be deleted. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yet you failed to answer my questions above- So it is your feeling that club season pages have no space for where the club is sitting in the table? If it included "continental qualification scenarios" you would feel differently? I presented you EPL clubs above who have tables (be it only a selective portion) that do not include any of that information- I want to know what would make it better. I honestly think this is a tool some people would like to see and for most people it wouldn't bother them a bit one way or another. I don't understand your argument and I would love to know why it doesn't belong now, or what can happen to make it so in your opinion. On a personal note- since you included one- I know you approach wiki with a zest that we can all appreciate but I think you come off as being a touch assertive, derisive, and subversive. Can we just accept that our vision of things won't always be fully accepted? Can we just try to be constructive? Morry32 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are taking this way too personally. I don't think there is any need to include a template of the standings that provides less information than is found in the main article, when a link to the main article would suffice. The last thing we need is more poorly formatted, under-used templates on Wikipedia. I think that the format (across the whole article) currently used on the Seattle Sounders FC season article is much better than the over-templated, frankly ugly, and hodgepodge look found throughout the Kansas City Wizards season articles. Don't get me wrong, I was shocked to learn that someone went back through the years and created all of those articles, but they should really be cleaned up. I'm busy over the next few days, but later this month I'm going to have my hand at a few of them, and you can see whether you agree or disagree with my assessment. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- "I think that the format (across the whole article) currently used on the Seattle Sounders FC season article is much better than the over-templated, frankly ugly, and hodgepodge look found throughout the Kansas City Wizards season articles." I'll give you the chance now to change your opinion on the comparisons of the two articles. :) goodluck with your edit wars over there, even if I don't completely agree with your position. Morry32 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is because I'm used to editing baseball and football season articles, but I don't see a problem with include standing templates on the season articles. Although perhaps it should be conference standing rather than league standings? Although, considering how little value MLS places on conference standings in determining playoffs (NYRB were the Western Conference representatives in the MLS Cup last year after all), I can understand why conference standings are not being used in the team articles. Just to make my comment more confusing, how another alternative would be to include both? If the MLB or NFL standings templates are any indicator, maintenance of the templates certainly won't be an issue and the info does seem to be rather useful. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have done a lot of research into this template business since making it- First I want to say the template I made is incredibly simple and does need some work done to it by someone with more impressive skills than I possession. It appears to me that all of the Major American leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB,and NHL) embraced the standings templates on their club season pages. Along the lines of Grant's argument against it is the refusal of the EPL to include one, it has been brought up many times and shot down over and over again. My theory and I believe it to be a fairly sound one is that the EPL is larger than any club within the league, it maybe important for the Wiki EPL people to keep it that way afterall with them having promotion and regulation it creates an entirely different beast than we know. I know we have very few clubs who have 2009 season pages in MLS this time around, (Houston and Chicago season people disappeared?) but I'm not letting that detour me from trying to push this space forward. Morry32 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on creating a template for each conference and also a league standing template? Basically, recreate the Standings section as three separate templates so the team season articles could have the standings for their conference and the overall standings. It would cut down on the need to maintain multiple tables... I also don't see a problem with the template you've created. Maybe make the table sortable, but other than that, it seems to work fairly well. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're saying to do both conferences and the single table all on the same template? That would certainly work- it would be cool if it were color coded and you were able to plug in each club like the way it is now. If anyone else wants to take a stab at it, I won't have the free time to look into it for a while.Morry32 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Grant's praise for the 2009 Sounders FC season article is just patting himself on the back since he's pretty much
bulldozed throughcleaned up the work others were doing there. Anyway, I'm a proponent of three templates being created: 1 for each conference and one for overall standings. A given team's season article could include the template for the conference they belong is as well as the overall standings template. I think this will be a much more effective way of representing playoff positioning (and USOC, Champions League, and SuperLiga) than the color coding scheme Grant's got going on in the round-by-round table on the 2009 Sounders FC season page. --SkotywaTalk 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC) - I've now updated Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table such that it looks mostly like the one included in this page. Does anyone have a problem if we swap out the one on this page to use the template now? Most readers won't notice any difference. --SkotywaTalk 08:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great, I say switch them.Morry32 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've made the switch. I'm sure more feedback is on the way now ;) When it's reverted (not if, but when) it's really important that everyone watching shares their opinion on this (and that we invite others to join the conversation). I'm not trying to do something evil here. Morry32, Bobblehead and a few others think that making these tables available for reuse on team season pages is a good thing. I tend to agree with that and had a little time to follow through on it. I'll get started on the two conference templates later tonight probably. --SkotywaTalk 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of having conference tables in season pages. I also like having the overall standings mentioned and think the Liverpool and Manchester United versions mentioned above (shows their position and the teams above and below) is a good way to summarize it if it looks like too much data for a season page.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that there should be three templates. One called Template:2009 Eastern Conference standings, another called Template:Western Conference standings and the third the Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table. That way for the teams in the Eastern Conference they could have the Eastern Conference and MLS standings and those in the Western Conference and MLS standings.Argh. I really need to look at the edit history of the article before I comment on the talk page. Looks like it's already been done. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of having conference tables in season pages. I also like having the overall standings mentioned and think the Liverpool and Manchester United versions mentioned above (shows their position and the teams above and below) is a good way to summarize it if it looks like too much data for a season page.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've made the switch. I'm sure more feedback is on the way now ;) When it's reverted (not if, but when) it's really important that everyone watching shares their opinion on this (and that we invite others to join the conversation). I'm not trying to do something evil here. Morry32, Bobblehead and a few others think that making these tables available for reuse on team season pages is a good thing. I tend to agree with that and had a little time to follow through on it. I'll get started on the two conference templates later tonight probably. --SkotywaTalk 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great, I say switch them.Morry32 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Grant's praise for the 2009 Sounders FC season article is just patting himself on the back since he's pretty much
- You're saying to do both conferences and the single table all on the same template? That would certainly work- it would be cool if it were color coded and you were able to plug in each club like the way it is now. If anyone else wants to take a stab at it, I won't have the free time to look into it for a while.Morry32 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on creating a template for each conference and also a league standing template? Basically, recreate the Standings section as three separate templates so the team season articles could have the standings for their conference and the overall standings. It would cut down on the need to maintain multiple tables... I also don't see a problem with the template you've created. Maybe make the table sortable, but other than that, it seems to work fairly well. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have done a lot of research into this template business since making it- First I want to say the template I made is incredibly simple and does need some work done to it by someone with more impressive skills than I possession. It appears to me that all of the Major American leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB,and NHL) embraced the standings templates on their club season pages. Along the lines of Grant's argument against it is the refusal of the EPL to include one, it has been brought up many times and shot down over and over again. My theory and I believe it to be a fairly sound one is that the EPL is larger than any club within the league, it maybe important for the Wiki EPL people to keep it that way afterall with them having promotion and regulation it creates an entirely different beast than we know. I know we have very few clubs who have 2009 season pages in MLS this time around, (Houston and Chicago season people disappeared?) but I'm not letting that detour me from trying to push this space forward. Morry32 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is because I'm used to editing baseball and football season articles, but I don't see a problem with include standing templates on the season articles. Although perhaps it should be conference standing rather than league standings? Although, considering how little value MLS places on conference standings in determining playoffs (NYRB were the Western Conference representatives in the MLS Cup last year after all), I can understand why conference standings are not being used in the team articles. Just to make my comment more confusing, how another alternative would be to include both? If the MLB or NFL standings templates are any indicator, maintenance of the templates certainly won't be an issue and the info does seem to be rather useful. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- "I think that the format (across the whole article) currently used on the Seattle Sounders FC season article is much better than the over-templated, frankly ugly, and hodgepodge look found throughout the Kansas City Wizards season articles." I'll give you the chance now to change your opinion on the comparisons of the two articles. :) goodluck with your edit wars over there, even if I don't completely agree with your position. Morry32 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are taking this way too personally. I don't think there is any need to include a template of the standings that provides less information than is found in the main article, when a link to the main article would suffice. The last thing we need is more poorly formatted, under-used templates on Wikipedia. I think that the format (across the whole article) currently used on the Seattle Sounders FC season article is much better than the over-templated, frankly ugly, and hodgepodge look found throughout the Kansas City Wizards season articles. Don't get me wrong, I was shocked to learn that someone went back through the years and created all of those articles, but they should really be cleaned up. I'm busy over the next few days, but later this month I'm going to have my hand at a few of them, and you can see whether you agree or disagree with my assessment. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yet you failed to answer my questions above- So it is your feeling that club season pages have no space for where the club is sitting in the table? If it included "continental qualification scenarios" you would feel differently? I presented you EPL clubs above who have tables (be it only a selective portion) that do not include any of that information- I want to know what would make it better. I honestly think this is a tool some people would like to see and for most people it wouldn't bother them a bit one way or another. I don't understand your argument and I would love to know why it doesn't belong now, or what can happen to make it so in your opinion. On a personal note- since you included one- I know you approach wiki with a zest that we can all appreciate but I think you come off as being a touch assertive, derisive, and subversive. Can we just accept that our vision of things won't always be fully accepted? Can we just try to be constructive? Morry32 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I also support the use of the standings template, and would approve of it for each set of standings. Even if it isn't transcluded anywhere but this article, as there aren't team season articles like in other sports, it keeps the large amounts of edits off this page, and definitely helps. Grsz11 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly, strongly disagree. We had these set up as templates three years ago until everyone agreed that it was counterproductive. Templating makes errors harder to catch, because people see them in the main article, but don't know how to go to the template and edit them. To do an update to the article after games, rather than editing the whole article all at once, you have to go to four or five seperate pages to update the results table, conference and overall standings, and stats. It is a lot more work than is necessary. I don't think the main MLS season article should be made to suffer just to accomodate the hanging of every possible trinket on the Christmas tree that is the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your argument. Consensus here is that a template should be used. Grsz11 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- On the 2007 Major League Soccer article we had templates for the Results table, the Conference Standings, and the Overall Standings. To update results, you had to edit 5 articles to do it correctly. Additionally, mistakes in updates were much harder to fix, because random IP editors who saw a mistake, but didn't know how to get to the template article to correct them, couldn't correct them. The main MLS article has existed in the same form for three seasons now, and it will take more than three people to change that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your argument. Consensus here is that a template should be used. Grsz11 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
All-Star Game
Twice now I have removed the line about Real Madrid- Twice people have put it back, I brought a reference to the table that MLS has been looking to Villarreal and now that has failed. I think it is obvious we should remove the entire speculation of who the opponent will be since no one knows and the reference being used to outdated. Morry32 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is sourced. It is accurate regarding the intentions of Real Salt Lake and the league. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I provided an out dated reference that claimed that Red Bull Arena was going to be opened in the summer of 2009 I wouldn't then include it in the article now, I don't see how or why we even consider to do the same in this case. Not only is it speculative in nature but it has clearly been updated to prove it incorrect. Adding the line "the likes of" does excuse that Real Madrid will not be coming over for the match.Morry32 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)