Talk:2021 MLS Cup Playoffs

RfC on inclusion of details for Philadelphia NYCFC match
A variety of IP editors have stated that some kind of asterisk and note be included regarding the Philadelphia Union's situation where they needed to sign additional players to have a full squad to compete due to COVID-19. I am personally of the opinion that this is not necessary, because these requirements were not unprecedented and their inclusion is unnecessary, but I would like additional feedback. This dispute has also carried over to the 2021 MLS season page. Jay eyem (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * On the face of it, no I am a complete outsider to this situation so I will try to address it both ways I can think this might be a problem. In both cases, perhaps we can say that additional players had to be signed because of the pandemic, but in one case it sounds to me as if there are fans who want Wikipedia to vouch for their argument that were the Union playing with their normal squad they would have advanced further in the playoffs, and in the other case it's possible there are fans who think it is unfair the Union were allowed to do this at all (I don't know what the alternative might have been in that case, again a complete outsider to the MLS topic area). We cannot and should not imply either of these things, as both are WP:OR at the very least, so if we do mention that such backup players were summoned out of necessity, it should be done in such a way as to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about the impact this had on the Union's playoff run and whether it were ethical for MLS to allow. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would think 2021 Philadelphia Union season is the more correct place to have this information. --SuperJew (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose asterisk it's worth mentioning the COVID outbreak/related squad changes in text somewhere in this article. But not through the use of an asterisk on the score as in this edit, as an asterik there implies there's something that needs relaying to the viewer with regards to the score. Adding the text as text without an asterisk seems sensible to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This also seems to be akin to how IP users kept adding asterisks for teams that won football seasons that were curtailed due to the pandemic. The asterisk added no value there, only added to confusion on its purpose, and that is the same here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Joseph, the situation at Philadelphia Union should be included but this should not be done in a way that could suggest the result is not legitimate. The best way would be to add prose outlining what happened and why. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose An asterisk provides no useful information. It would require explanation somewhere. just provide the information directly, or if it must be repeated, or spoils the flow, or does not fit well in the formatting, use a linked footnote. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose An asterisk would imply something untoward or unusual, but COVID has affected all teams everywhere. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, I think it would imply Wikipedia itself questions the legitimacy of the results. All this talk of asterisks reminds me of the last few times Tampa Bay won the Stanley Cup, particularly in 2020. Some people think it simply shouldn't count for some reason, even though there's no real ground to stand upon for it. An asterisk is basically a way of saying it's not valid, not merely stopping at "Draw your own conclusions here but XYZ thing made this very unusual". If the information is worthy of inclusion, it should only be to describe who participated in the game, without any implication whatsoever as to what the reader should be thinking about it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)