Talk:Major League Soccer/Archive 3

Fact template on CSA
I had thought of removing the unsourced statement linking MLS to the Canadian Soccer Association, but since MLS has a team in Toronto, I decided to keep everything. I could remove the tag, but then again I don't know what would happen. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

caroline johnson is the most beautiful soccer player ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.97.140 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Champions
Shouldn't the "Current Champions" section on the infobox show the Supporters' Shield winner as well as the MLS Cup holder? Charles 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be something worth noting in the infobox. Kobain (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely should be noted. --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the infobox, since it didn't seem like anyone else was actually going to do it. Kobain (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The MLS champion is determined by the MLS Cup winner. The supporters' shield info should be removed. Delmlsfan (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Need some more statistics.
I think it would be nice if some more statistics were add like, you know, a list of the champions on each year, as well as the runner-up and top scorer of that year. Just like it's common on articles of other countries football leagues...

And i would also like to see another list with all the champions, with the respective number of titles they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition Format
Can we get an update on the 2008 competition format? Doing so allows us to remove the 2007 info. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

North American Football Union
Hey ppl, I think you misunderstood me when I changed the "North American" stuff, is not about the eternal disagree between the definitions. My point is that CONCACAF shall recognize 3 regional unions, Caribbean Football Union (CFU), Union Centroamericana de Futbol (UNCAF) (Central American Football Union) and the North American Football Union (NAFU). While the 2 first are a very active unions with clubs and national tournaments, the NAFU apparently is not, just 2 national championships between Canada, United States and Mexico. As the 3 nations are clasiffied to the final stage of the Gold Cup there is no need for a regional qualifying tournament like the qualifying tournaments in the other unions. The SuperLiga is showed and promoted by the MLS as the North American championship. Bermuda could be a 4th NAFU member but currently is a CFU member, in the past Bermuda clubs played qualifying stages against MEX/USA/CAN clubs. Check out all this in the CONCACAF site, like the CONCACAF STATUTES. Cheers, JC 00:30, 31 March 2008 (PST)

MLS Map
The Wizards are now based in Kansas City, Kansas, not Kansas City, Missouri. So could someone change the map on this page to reflect the Wizards move? Burroughsks88 (talk)


 * First of all, that would involve a move of like half a pixel, so I don't really see the need. Second, the move, from what I understand, is only tempororary.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is entitled MLS 2008 - yet the Fusion and Mutiny are shown. Either change the name of the map or remove the Fusion and Mutiny - preferably the latter. delmlsfan (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.159.32.104 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The map has no title, that's the title of the section the map is in. Also, the two Florida teams are listed clearly as defunct teams.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think those two should be removed anyway. I think having them removes the visual effect of the MLS footprint.  If we look at the precedent of the other leagues' pages, none of them show folded teams. Sixkick (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

2007 Avg. Attendance
I don't think the Avg. Attendance from 2007 should be anywhere on the MLS article because there is reason to believe that the information is not accurate. MLS repeatedly announces 27,000 for Galaxy games, even though there is little evidence to suggest that there are even that many seats in the stadium, let alone people. Here are some sources to check out:







I realize that we're after "verifiable" information, but when there are legitimate questions about the accuracy of these numbers, and indeed there are, I don't think we should include them. It's not like they are exactly crucial content or anything. I'm removing them until there's a response to this here. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Since there are questions of the accuracy of those numbers, I also think they shouldn’t be included. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A Minor Issue: Conference Info in the Infobox
This is simply a discussion whether the Conferences line should bother stating the number of conferences in the league. In my opinion, it should not for two reasons: Major American leagues have two conferences anyway and world soccer/football leagues generally do not acknowledge the concept of conferences (single table).

1) Major League Soccer having two conferences is not a unique (or interesting) fact. NFL, NBA, and NHL each have two conferences. Including a "2" is neither relevant, interesting, nor academically significant in the overall scheme of the article. It's simply not a number needing immediate reference.  By contrast, the number "14" is incredibly interesting and important.  The average person curious of the number of teams in MLS would find that number worth knowing.  I'd bet this person could guess the number of conferences knowing nothing about the league.

2) Major soccer leagues worldwide generally do not use the concept of conferences. MLS is very unique in this regard not because there are indeed two conferences but because we have conferences in the first place.  The number "2" becomes arbitrary.  A European football/soccer fan wanting to learn more about MLS would not care that there are two conferences; they would care that conferences even exist and what those conferences are: Eastern and Western.  Clearly there are two conferences with no need to re-represent the obvious.  If there was still a Central conference, I believe my argument would still be valid.

On a minor note, I considered doing away with the conference line all together. None of the the other major American sports leagues denote the number of conferences thus making the MLS article seem a bit amateurish. Taking into account a worldwide view, conferences are what makes MLS special and unique (for better or worse) thus meriting a place of prominence in the main Infobox. I would simply argue telling a reader there are two - next to Eastern and Western links - is stating the obvious. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, Major League Soccer has a special place in the sports pantheon because it is both a Major North American sports league (which have their own conventions) and a soccer league (which have their own conventions). The whole reason I created a new infobox was because this was not properly reflected by the one used in almost every other league.  For instance the US is one of the only leagues with clubs that compete in their own confederation's tournaments (CONCACAF Champions Cup/League), smaller regional tournaments (SuperLiga), and other confederations' tournaments (Copa Sudamericana).  That is just one example, but there are others like the conferences thing (which used to be called divisions in the old box), etc.


 * Additionally, the inclusion of the "2" is important because at one time the MLS had "3" divisions (Eastern, Western, and Central).


 * Personally, I think any discussion about the inclusion of "2" in an infobox that includes the term "academically significant" misses the mark completely. It is simply over-the-top to imply that including a number makes the whole article look "amateurish."  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On another note, there are a lot of leagues in the lower levels of different league pyramids, including the USL, that have divisions (sometimes as many as 3-4). I think you are simply coming at this from the wrong angle or making a mountain out of a mole hill, or both.  I hope that doesn't come off as mean, because I don't mean it that way.  I'm just trying to say that it really doesn't matter that much, and if it does matter, then it should be included.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Just to clear up from the get-go, I certainly didn't mean to imply the whole article was amateurish. In hindsight it came off that way. A bit to harsh on my part.)


 * I guess to sum up my problem with stating "Conferences: 2 (Easter and Western)" is that it seems to imply the number of conferences is more important than the conferences themselves. Saying simply "Conferences: Eastern and Western" gives prominence to the conferences. The number "2" is unimportant in my eyes. And yes I'm making an Everest out of an anthill. :) Thanks for indulging me. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but unless there is significant consensus to change I think we should keep it as is. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a philosophical point, I find it in poor judgment to determine what should belong in this article based on what other soccer leagues around the world deem important. Now, it's true that most, if not all, professional leagues in the US have only two conferences.  But again, MLS at one time had three, so it is again poor judgment to assume that just because there are conferences, that it is common sense to assume there are only two. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that MLS is the onlt soccer league in the world with "conferences." La Primera División de México is divided into three groups. KitHutch (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree with what has been done as it looks even worse, but saying "Number of Conferences" actually makes more sense if the "2" is to remain. Just as the phrase "Number of teams" begs to be followed with a number, so to does "Number of Conferences." Now if it was just "Conferences" (as it should be), it makes less sense to follow it with a number. Grammatically, "Conferences" is asking for words ("Eastern and Western"), not numbers like the line below it. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose any biographical infobox that says "Age" and is followed by a number is grammatically incorrect then. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just constructive criticism. Nothing more. And since you ask - no, age by its definition is a number while conference isn't. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a hard and fast rule about this, as much as you desire there to be one. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  07:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Archives
This page needs to be archived, leaving only the current issues open. It's just too long to scroll through. Can someone who is familiar with how to do that, help out? --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  07:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, with one caveat: deciding which issues are still current and which are not can be open to discussion, so I just copied and pasted whatever I thought was not chronologically recent. Open issues already archived can get new sections, and we'll just keep creating archive pages as necessary.  The link is at the top of the page. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. This might be the best bet. --Elliskev 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporters' Shield Table (part 1)
MLS has one champion a year. The Supporters' Shield is a fan award. The league gives international berths to the top two spots in the regular season in addition to the two MLS Cup finalists. Just because the league awards an international berth says nothing about the actual champions. Might as well make tables of the conference winners as well.

As it stands the table has more significance as a single list of the actual champions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixkick (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The league recognizes the Supporters' Shield. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The league recognizes many things. It does not mean that we should include every one of them.  The Supporters' Shield winners can be listed in the records and statistics page, if you'd like.  The NHL officially recognizes the Presidents' Trophy but its recipients are not listed in National Hockey League.


 * Further, let's strip the colors from the table. Images merely for decoration should not be included in articles; we should follow the same premise for table colors.  At the moment they are merely decoration, and the team names are sufficient enough in providing the relevant information. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First the colors were in the original table I pulled off the Premier League article from months ago. I think they help communicate when teams win the Shield and Cup double and when teams win back-to-back titles.  Either way let's have consensus before removing the colors.


 * Second the Supporters' Shield is counted in the silverwear totals of teams, where the conference championships are not, so there's a recognition that the Supporters' Shield is more important. Also, many fans consider the Supporters' Shield very close or equal in value to the actual MLS cup, so there's a different relationship than in other sports.  Also, the Supporters' Shield winner is guaranteed to go to as many or more international tournaments than the MLS Cup winner (SuperLiga is not guaranteed to MLS Cup winners).  So I think when you take this all into account, the Shield is as important as the MLS Cup and should stay in the article where it is.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On a totally separate issue, the Columbus Crew bar should be yellow just because there's just too much black in there (Damn DC and their winning!) Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The official champion of MLS is the winner of the MLS Cup. The Supporters' Shield is important, but it is just like the Presidents' Trophy in the NHL. KitHutch (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but hockey, unlike soccer, doesn't have as much of an international precident toward single table leagues. That's why the award was created.  Also, you don't get anything extra for winning the Presidents' Trophy in the NHL like you do for winning the Supporters' Shield in MLS.  I still think it should stay up, but if a few more people feel it shouldn't then by all means change it.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned by what you define as consensus. As it is at the moment, no one in this section agrees with your sentiments on either issue (having the Supporters' Shield and having the colors - Greecepwns mentioned changing the colors for the Crew but that is a separate issue). I am satisfied that, absent any deeper support for your edits, there are valid reasons for revert that are supported by other editors. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support only having the MLS Cup listed as it is the only championship in MLS similar to other North American leagues. I know most soccer leagues use the single table, but right now that's one of MLS' quirks is that the supporter's sheild doesn't equat to a championship. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In deference to both traditions (and the whole rationale for creating the Shield in the first place) I think we should keep both. They are very close in prestige, and MLS recognizes this as the case by choosing to award the Shield winner with a spot in the Champions' Cup/Champions League and the SuperLiga, instead of just the semifinalists in the MLS Cup Playoffs.  In regard to Roehl's comment, no offense taken by the all caps (I think someone should get around to making bold and italics work in edit summaries, don't you?).  I see neither a consensus to remove or keep the colors, and since in contested situations we keep things as they are, and I created the table with the colors, I think we should leave them in until a few more people besides you think they should go.  As always, I appreciate your attempts to calmly build consensus, and do so graciously, so thanks again, Roehl.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well seeing as it wasn't even issued until 1998 I'd at the very least request that the Supporter's Shield be listed second as it is a secondary honor below the MLS Cup winner (MLS Champion) at best. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict, suprisingly on the same issue) Also, if anyone is reading into my putting the Supporters' Shield to the left of MLS Cup, I did so not to make it seem like it was more important, but rather to indicate chronological order from left to right because the Shield is decided before MLS Cup.  Just providing the method to my madness.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me how you want it to appear second, and it's done. You mean to the right of the MLS Cup?  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we must have it, yes to the right. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither a fan of listing the MLS Cup/Supporter's Shield winnners nor the colors. Sooner or later the table will be so big, it will be distracting from what's important: the article's text. In fact, a more informative and helpful location to find the winners of both awards would be their respective articles. As for the colors, they're rather loud, distracting, and unesthetic. Colors in tables are more useful communicating secondary information, not reaffirming what is already being said be the table's text. I'd vote to axe both. --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the table as it is because it is the most important piece of history of the league. The colors can be toned down a bit I guess. I moved to history because like you said it takes away from the article itself and most of the charts seem to be there I guess.Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be many, many years before the table is long enough to pose much of a disturbance. I think the table belongs in the history section because it provides an instant view of the league's championship history.  In the teams section we have mostly information about the current teams, and the section is nicely balanced vertically by the similar witdths of the map and the team-stadium table.  Throwing in the championship winners messes all of that up.  I promise that the table doesn't destract from the text, but instead compliments it nicely.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not a fan of the color. Typical use of color in Wikipedia and the world in general (when not for layout/artistic purposes) is to convey secondary information not already expressed by text in the table's cells. For example, periodic tables often use color to convey similar properties between multiple elements. It does not give a unique color for each of the hundred-some-odd elements to further highlight their individual natures.  If black and red equals "DC United" and nobody else gets black and red, the colors' become redundant since the words "DC United" mean the exact same thing the colors do. Another easy example would be the table at the bottom of this very article.  Here color exists to signify terms like "Major League Soccer", "Miscellaneous", "Soccer in Canada", etc. are headers and categories organizing non-colored information. Not because it "looks good". Color use in this winner's table was chosen aesthetic reasons, not to convey additional information that couldn't be expressed by the table's text. --Blackbox77 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The color helps to instantly convey information that can get lost in a maze of words. You are better able to tell the years when on team won the SS and the MLS Cup in the same year, you are able to see back-to-back titles, etc.  I don't think it's that big of an issue, and if nothing else it breaks up the text only look of an article article that has few pictures, charts, diagrams, etc.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style - Color Key points:
 * "Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases." Is this a special case? Does the color convey something critical or worth knowing to the reader?
 * "Reduce[s] consistency—the text will no longer look uniform with typical text." Loud, distracting colors give it the appearance of a post's signature in an online forum - not the standards of an encyclopedia.
 * "Increase[s] arguments—there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes." Found this last one interesting.
 * There are other interesting points about usability and color blindness but overall those are the most interesting points. The color use here is just unnecessary. Examples of (IMO) good color use: List of Super Bowl champions, Periodic table, Party divisions of United States Congresses, FIFA World Cup results, D.C. United year-by-year records. --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that those are good examples of color use - they enhance the table, but the color is not an integral part. Plus, the colors are lighter, not brazen and bold like they are on this article.  In my opinion, the colors here look bad - they seem amateurish, like a 1990s website.  Notice that on the tables the color is used in a manner to make identification easier in a larger table - conferences, wins, losses, etc.  In this case, the color in no way adds to the table and does not make it easier to find information.  My vote is against the colors (and honestly against the tables, too.  Maybe put them on their own page - say Major League Soccer Seasonal Championships or something like that). WeatherManNX01 (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll second getting rid of tables all together. And actually I really like the last point you made on giving them their own page if one doesn't already exist.  Great idea. --Blackbox77 (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more with removing them from the article entirely. Secondly, it's already at Major League Soccer records and statistics, so the ridiculous notion that this deserves its own article is redundant.  Third, why do we have to have giant text-only sections in the article?  As of now the only thing breaking that up is the picture of Pizza Hut Park.  This table is just a quick recap of how the seasons went.  It hardly seems inapropriate or "amatuerish."  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I very much disagree with having the table, I don't think it makes the article look amateurish; I think the colors do. If the issue is simply breaking up monotonous text, then I can 100% agree with you.  However I'd say the solution would be not another table but actual shots and images of MLS action/events. Maybe in the history section, have a pic of a notable player from that era. (Suggestions - Early Years: Pic involving a DCU championship - Resurgence: Freddy Adu draft day/on-field pic - Present: David Beckham  pic) I can understand other reasons why one might like the table but as far as "breaking up" the article, relevant pictures would probably be a more interesting way of doing it. --Blackbox77 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how including relevant information in the correct section, clearly and sucinctly is inappropriate. I think the colors should stay, but I'm not married to them.  If there is consensus to remove them, that's fine, but the table should stay.  I don't see any reason why we can't have the table and the pictures you mentioned.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm calling the colors amateurish, not the tables themselves. The colors just look...bad.  And as such, my vote is to remove them. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been over a week since these issues were brought up and I think the best compromise at this point is to keep an MLS Cup winners table with no Supporter's Shield list or color. Although the original issue was never to do away with the whole table, I can understand why have a list of the Cup winners is valuable. --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with removing the Supporters' Shield. I'll give you the colors, but I don't think there is consensus to remove the Supporters' Shield.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  13:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been only 2 people to repeatedly argue against the Supporters Shield, and 3 of the people besides myself argued only against the colors. I simply think there is no consensus to remove the shield.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Due respect, I count at least four posters arguing against keeping the Supporters' Shield in the table. Repeated advocacy is unnecessary, otherwise it would be impossible to determine consensus on Wikipedia (i.e. all AfD votes could be disputed if one need simply contest another's vote and that vote were not defended afterwards).  If you would like to leave out SixKick because this user posted on your talk page, that's valid, but that would still mean at least 3 people here oppose the inclusion of the Shield in the table. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since discussion, rather than voting is paramount on WP, if I make valid arguments in response to those arguing in favor of removing the shield, and they are left unchallenged, I don't think that should count, but either way there were also those who took part in the discussion about colors without attacking the shield's inclusion, which indicates tacit support. Even without that, Gateman and I agreed that the Shield should stay up if moved to the right of the MLS Cup, which means we're at no better than 3-2 in favor of removal, which I would hardly call a consensus.  I think its clear that what most people had a problem with was the colors (I would go so far as to say that's what brought them to the talk page in the first place) and now that they are removed, let's see if people are still actively arguing against the Shield's inclusion.  If after another few days there is still support for removal, then be my guest.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have a note above or below the table stating that MLS recognizes the MLS Cup winners as official champions?Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're like "Hm, I wonder what the Supporters' Shield is," then chances are you're going to click the link to the Supporters' Shield article where that is made abundantly clear. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion. I would like to reaffirm my dissent to the Supporters' Shield inclusion. Grant Alpaugh, your arguments are valid in that they give more weight to the supporters' shield. However, that doesn't put it anywhere near the level of the championship. For the league, players, and coaches the MLS Cup is far and away the goal of the season. If you look at the history page on the MLS website, it is broken down by season and highlight the champion. It makes no mention what-so-ever to the Supporters' Shield. I believe it's a bit disingenuous to put the Shield in the general table alongside the actual league champions. Not only does it devalue the actual MLS champions, but also it's a bit confusing for those unfamiliar with the league. I STRONGLY feel that the table should be only of the actual league champions throughout the years. It does seem that there is more opposition than support and I'll will make the change. If a clear consensus goes the other way, you're welcome to change it. But as of now, it shouldn't be included. Sixkick (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a major trophy determined directly by league play that is very close in value to the MLS Cup, though it is, of course, less valuable than the MLS Cup. It determines just as many international berths as the MLS Cup does, further proving that MLS values it almost on par with the Championship.  Please leave it in.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sixkick, Roehl Sybing, KitHutch, Gateman1997, WeatherManNX01, and myself have all expressed a negative opinion of displaying the Supporters' Shield in the table. Allowing a secondary award to be visually represented as equal to the league championship isn't right. 6:1 in favor of removal. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * MLS also awards a Champions League spot to the Open Cup winner. That criteria isn't enough.Sixkick (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Where on earth did you hear that?  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4171 Champions League slots: MLS Cup winner, MLS Cup runner up, Supporters' Shield winner, US Open Cup winner.  Sixkick (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Half of the people you're pointing to had a problem with the colors on the table, not the table itself.  There is no clear consensus.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on now, man. You're just being stubborn now.  There are far more arguments against it's inclusion than not.  Unless you include USOC as well for titles, then there is only ONE champion, as evidenced by the CCL slot allocations.  Please do not revert unless you can come up with something stronger. Sixkick (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not just being stubborn. You made an argument that was not true.  Half of the people you claim criticized the inclusion of the Shield, were criticizing the colors included in the early version of the table.  Look at the A-League article, they include Champions and Premiers in both their infoboxes and their league article.  There is simply no reason why they can't appear side-by-side.  Anyone who looks at the articles will realize they're not the same thing or of the same importance, though they are close in importance.  The titles are distinguished in the table, and should both be included.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reiterating that it is not necessary to reiterate anyone's vote to keep or remove the Supporters' Shield in the table. Blackbox is correct in that there is sufficient consensus to remove it. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, upon reviewing this discussion, the only error I made when claiming the people I listed were against listing the SS winners was WeatherMan simply wanting to do away with the whole table altogether. Everyone else has specifically voiced opposition to this issue separate from the colors. Please don't be petty about this. --Blackbox77 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I gotta say, and I respect everyone's opinions here, but perhaps the next step in this process is to take it to a noticeboard and have an admin sort this out, because as it stands I'm satisfied that WP:CON has been followed, yet most (if not all) of the reverts putting back this part of the table have been done by one user. I've pretty much given the benefit of time to see if other users explicitly agreed with Grant, but the opposition to the table has been more vocal and in varying degrees. Absent that, I'm not sure what else is required to come to a decision that has, in fact, been settled in my opinion. Maybe we should see what an admin thinks? --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that most of the people who have weighed in on this were against including the Shield, but most of that was because it could be confusing as to the difference between the two or which one should be on the left side of the table. The issue was settled for several weeks after I moved the Shield to the right side of the table.  Since this issue has become contested again, I tried to make more clear what the difference was, and no one has weighed in on it in the day or so since I made the change.  If one or two people say that they still have a problem with it, then fine, but until then I don't think there's anything wrong with including the two trophies that are directly decided by MLS play.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be changed in my opinion, even after the edits. Sixkick (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If one more person that weighed in before says it should be changed, without anyone supporting my changes, then fine, I'll remove it myself. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  05:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Grant, seriously: you did say "if one or two people." Using the "or" operative, SixKick is one person. I'm pretty sure Blackbox is another.  I make a third person.  That's enough.  I am normally very reluctant to do so, but given the length of time we've had with this, and the circumstances of the body of opinions on this topic, I would be more than fine with taking it to a noticeboard to get an administrator's opinion. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Blackbox is another. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As am I. I support removing the Supporter's Shield since it is a lower level award in MLS. The way it's being presented, even after the changes, still present it as a comparable award to the Cup. That just isn't the case. The Supporter's Shield winner is not a league champion, just a team that had the regular season's best record. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The league champion is the winner of the MLS Cup, not the winner of the Supporters' Shield. The Shield seems almost arbitrary, just to have a team win something like they do elsewhere in the world.  It has no significance beyond a Champions League spot.  If anything, we need to remember that this is MLS and not a European league.  I support removing the Supporters' Shield table. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Table removed...again. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine. All I was trying to do was improve the article.  I hope everyone understands that.  I understand the frustration on your side, but all I was trying to do was compromise on the issue by adding the clarification.  Obviously that wasn't enough, and I understand and support the removal of the shield from the table.  Just FYI, if you read the Shield article, I think you'll understand that it is more than just "arbitrary."  The MLS has endorsed the award as a major trophy in US soccer, so to say that the only reason for its existence is to award a spot on the Champions League is a little disingenuous, but I understand the objection.  I still think if you look at the A-League article, you'd see where I'm coming from, but whatever.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to seek out disciplinary action. That's fine. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor has disputed the standing consensus against inclusion of the Supporters' Shield results. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There no reason not to display the Supporters' Shield, a secondary award, if it is included in the info box? Well, for the same reasons as listed above, I'd argue the Supporters' Shield information has no valid place in the infobox either. The prominence and prestige of the MLS Cup does not equal that of the Supporters' Shield. Grant, I believe it is okay for people to disagree but you are acting very petty on this issue. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone agree this issue should carry over to the info box? Not that Supporters' Shield information shouldn't ever be included in the infobox, but just that it should not warrant the same respected treatment the MLS Cup receives. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain to me, then, why the corresponding information is included in the A-League article and infobox. It is 1) a major trophy, 2) determined completely by MLS play, and 3) determines entrants into regional competitions (both SuperLiga and CONCACAF Champions League.  I know the award started as an informal award given out by the fans, but since then it has become a major trophy endorsed by MLS that has major significance within American soccer.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Grant, the same argument could be used for including the Open Cup winner now since it is also an award and it too leads to international play now just like the Supporter's Shield. Doesn't change the fact that neither award is the league champion, nor is winning either of those as high an honor as winning the league championship (the MLS Cup). Besides that, I thought we had a consensus above regardless of how you feel about it. You must respect the consensus above. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My vote against inclusion stands. We can't restart this debate every time Grant has a new, novel argument that he thinks should take precedence over standing consensus. Nothing would get done. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Open Cup is not determined by MLS play. The Supporters' Shield is.  The other league which uses this Regular season- Playoff championship format, the A-League uses the information in the infobox and article.  Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the number of people disagreeing with me doesn't matter.  The arguments that are being made are what matter, and as you can see, none of the answers you gave had anything to do with the arguments I'm making.  Unless you can answer these arguments, your opposition to inclusion doesn't matter.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not the position you've taken previously. In past statements in this very section, you have said you would be alright if other people disagreed with you and said so, even going so far as saying:

If one more person that weighed in before says it should be changed, without anyone supporting my changes, then fine, I'll remove it myself.
 * You have since backed away from that, as well as an acknowledgement that you "understand and support the removal of the shield from the table." That sounds like changing the rules and moving the goalposts to me. Now, it is certainly within your right to keep going round and round on this, no one's going to prevent you.  But until you can demonstrate consensus, please stop reverting the article. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Grant, you're making compelling arguments, but so far no people have been swayed. THAT is what matters. No Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either. Your arguments have been received, understood, and rejected by everyone else who has chimed in, meaning consensus has been reached against your idea. End of debate. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone care to debate this issue on the merits? I'm still waiting for anyone at all to answer my specific reasons for supporting this inclusion.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I voted against it before, and I'm voting against it now. I don't find it a significant award.  In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing.  The Supporters' Shield winner just had the best regular season record, but in a league with a postseason and a championship, the Shield doesn't mean much.  The idea of the table is to list the league champions.  Shield winners are not league champions. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of the table (I should know, as I created it) is to show the progression of the league's history, which is why it is so aptly included in the History section of the article. MLS has two major trophys that it awards, both the MLS Cup and the Supporters' Shield (which is why United can and do claim to be the only US team with more than 10 major trophys).  This isn't an issue of opinion.  It is a fact that the league regards the award as legit and important.  Furthermore, the A-League also does this with their league and the article, so the practice isn't just something I made up.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to recount some of your points for its inclusion. Forgive me if I miss any arguments or I include an argument that's already been put to rest... One a totally separate note, I would not be opposed to including a table that listed every cup MLS teams can win that's similar to the "Year-by-year" tables seen on the teams pages (example 1, 2, 3...). In fact this might better display the leagues history. Grant, you are right, MLS has only two trophies. Two important, legitimate trophies. But no one, not even you ("[The Supporters' Shield] is a major trophy...very close in value to the MLS Cup, though it is, of course, less valuable than the MLS Cup.") considers them equals. Everyone but yourself considers your opinion of how things should be formatted as placing them on equal terms. You are being petty. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point: "Also, many fans consider the Supporters' Shield very close or equal in value to the actual MLS cup"
 * That's a very opinionated statement. What fans? I don't doubt there are some that do but even they don't (or shouldn't) consider themselves league champions. It is more beneficial to readers of the encyclopedic article on Major League Soccer to summarize the most important aspects of the league in the most concise, thorough, elegantly laid out way possible. In most of the editor's eyes, the Supporters' Shield is peripheral: important to MLS lore and the article's body but not so much it deserves equal footing with the championship MLS Cup.
 * Point: "the Supporters' Shield winner is guaranteed to go to as many or more international tournaments than the MLS Cup winner"
 * There is truth in this statement but does that mean it is the pinnacle of MLS success? Even if the MLS Cup determined no extra tournament berths, it still does not make the Supporters' Shield the league's premiere award. And therefore undeserving of equal stature.  I believe this argument says more for the importance of the SS in American soccer in general than its importance within MLS and only MLS.
 * Point: "They are very close in prestige, and MLS recognizes this"
 * This needs an above average source to make a strong statement. Who says its close in prestige? Fans? How many? MLS recognizes this? A definitive statement needs to be found to back this up. It just seems nothing is backing up these claims. The MLS Cup is first tier award within the league, SS is second. Within the context of the article, MLS Cup should carry more weight.
 * Point: "Look at the A-League article, they include Champions and Premiers in both their infoboxes and their league article."
 * Just from reading its Wikipedia article, it appears that - yes - the A-Leauge does have a system similar to MLS. Unfortunetally, I'm not Australian so I cannot appreciate living in the context of their culutre while following their league. In Australian sports, do they typically have playoffs for a champion or do they play single table? Does the culture/fanbase of sports in general value a regular season victor just as much as the postseason winner? I don't know the answers but the questions are important. Another more relevant point may be that A-League and MLS actually have very different formats for crowning a champion.  MLS, of course, has the American system of conferences, conference champions, conference standings separate from league standings, etc. Once it is time for postseason, both conferences get to put their share of teams into the playoffs. No doubt the number of post season teams will grow as MLS grows. The A-League is different. After the entire regular season, the top four teams compete in a four-team playoff.  No playoff rounds to determine a conference champion, no conference finals, etc. I could understand the similarities if the A-League had two conferences or MLS had one but they don't. What it means to play postseaon in each league is different.
 * If you could refrain from making personal attacks at the end of a very well written, well reasoned post it would keep from detracting from the strength of your argument. I am still composing a response to the meat of the argument, but I felt an immediate response to the last bit was quite important.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies. In hindsight, I was incorrect. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)