Talk:Atlético Ottawa

Team name
According to CBC News, Jeff Hunt, the team's strategical partner, has confirmed that the team will be called "Atlético Ottawa". Quoting the article:

"The club will play at TD Place, also home of the CFL's Ottawa Redblacks and will be called Atlético Ottawa, said former Redblacks president Jeff Hunt, also a one-time owner of the Ontario Hockey League's Ottawa 67's."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cpl-ottawa-soccer-1.5444976

Is this enough to rename the page? I think that if we do not rename the page, we should at least mention this within the body.

Gmwikipedier (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's move the article and apply the name then. Apologies to the anon in Edmonton. We look for sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) UmpireRay (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ottawa CPL club → Atlético Ottawa – As mentioned previously, according to CBC News (link to the article), Jeff Hunt, the team's strategical partner, has confirmed that the team will be called "Atlético Ottawa". Therefore I propose that we move the page to change it from the generic place holder title to the team's given name Gmwikipedier (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be their official name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I WP:BOLDly moved it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the Current Squad display the information in one table or two side by side tables?
I have moved the discussion between myself and User:Mongeese here. According to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard there should be a history here on the Talk page of the article itself and not between the users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atl%C3%A9tico_Ottawa

I understand that you split the roster to make it similar to squad rosters from other international leagues.

I suggest staying with the CPL system that is already in place. 87.5% of the clubs in the league use the single table versus the double table side by side now employed on this page. But there are issues with two table system;

1) It does not conform to the system already in place by other leagues in the CPL and MLS

2) because as advised by Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables "Splitting lists and tables per summary style is advised against" it can lead to technical issues

3) I have noticed that viewing the split squad tables on mobile is problematic because if has the adverse effect of sliding the page menu from the right

4) I am concerned that there is accessibility issues with the split table "Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within tables. Use the correct wikitable pipe syntax to take advantage of all the features available."

5) It impairs the =IMPORTHTML function in google sheets to retrieve the data

The WikiProject Football/Clubs article clearly states that it is "a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football club" and therefore is not imperative that the Atlético Ottawa article conform to that style guide.

Furthermore a member of the project - WikiProject Football - stated the two templates are still technically in the process of being merged, though as far as I can tell there are some technical problems impeding that User:Nehme1499

User:Mongeese Until that process is completed, and all club articles can benefit from the change, I recommend using the one table format

Tamccullough (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

1) This is irrelevant as the system already in place in CPL (MLS shouldn't be a factor in this argument) is an outlier and not in line with the system every other club in the world uses. The appeal to precedent actually goes against your argument here the moment someone changes a meagre 3 or 4 other club pages to properly align with the tens of thousands of other club pages that follow the WikiProject on Football manual of style.

2) This manual of style surely was not ignored during the lengthy discussion which established the WikiProject on Football manual of style, but it was obviously deviated from for a valid reason.

3) This has been addressed in this lengthy discussion.

4) This has been addressed in this lengthy discussion.

5) This shouldn't be a priority in formatting a Wikipedia article.

As to the last point, I recommend the opposite. Until you can successful lobby the WikiProject on Football to ammend their manual of style, there is more precedent on this website to follow it than in your proposal to have one small corner of Wikipedia deviate from it..

Mongeese (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The "single table" version is 100% correct. The project has not amended their mos for clubs. North American club articles switched to this version for reasons of accessibility and correctly implement MOS:FLAG. There was a discussion at the incorrect template a year ago. They agreed to change but that has not happened for technical reasons. Since they admit there are problems with the more common template I don't know how anyone can continue to argue for its use. I have restored the longstanding and correct version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)