Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC/Archive 2

Move request time?
So, does this mean we can have a proper move request discussion for this article and get Vancouver Whitecaps FC pointing to this page or a dab page without the sidetracking merge discussion? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should point Vancouver Whitecaps FC to this page, and move the existing Vancouver Whitecaps FC article to something like Vancouver Whitecaps FC (1974–2009) or History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC . Really the majority of readers looking to read about the Whitecaps are going to be looking to read up on the MLS team, not the previous incarnations, so we do them a disservice not having this as the main article. ← George talk 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with you, just the move discussion should be done under an official move request, IMHO. I was being intentionally nebulous in my previous request as to where the main article should point, while making it clear that I didn't think the current situation was acceptable. Previous discussions were derailed quite a bit by discussions about whether or not the articles should be merged together and it would now appear that it is now possible to start the move discussion without that option. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Old article should move to Vancouver Whitecaps (1986-2010) since their last season was played in 2010 and the 86ers history is incorporated into that article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree. Just weighing in with suggestions of what to officially request we move towards. There was at least one previous request I saw which failed simply because the names that were being suggested didn't sit well with editors. I think Walter's suggestion for the name above is good. ← George talk 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question about the practicalities: how do we ensure that every link (in player infoboxes etc.) that currently points to the team page for the old USL team (currently at Vancouver Whitecaps FC) goes to the correct version of the team when *this* page becomes Vancouver Whitecaps FC, and drops the MLS? We need to be very careful that we don't slip up and get wrong links redirecting to wrong teams. Is it simply a case of going through and manually editing all the links (I hope not!), or can a bot do it? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there are bots where we can request that any article linking to X instead link to Y. So we would have a bot go through and change everything that points to the current main article changed to point to the moved article, then any article pointing to the current MLS article be changed to point the new main article. ← George talk 22:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know how to go about getting that done? That sort of thing is beyond my tech-savvy, unfortunately. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the page and redirected the old name to Vancouver Whitecaps for now to avoid pointing to the wrong page. It should now register at WikiProject Disambiguation for cleanup or anyone that wants can do so manually Cmjc80 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but what about all the links? Every player who played for the USL Whitecaps now has their club link redirecting to the disambig page rather than to the correct new page. How do we rectify this? --JonBroxton (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely there should be one article not two, to cover the USL and MLS period. Their website clearly says "since 1974". The coach is unchanged since last season. The name is unchanged (virtually). Much of the back office staff is unchanged. The academies remain. Even some players are unchanged. There's some chane in ownership structure - but less than we've had in other teams with a single page for a century. I think we need to sort that issue out before renaming. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseum. The consensus was for it to remain split. Please for the love of God and everything holy, don't bring this up again. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the consensus either, but I will explain it. The team is actually a different financial entity than the one that ran the USSF-D2 club and that runs the women's team, development teams, etc. The owner of the Club is just an investor in the MLS team since technically (and just for now) the MLS owns the club. Unlike European clubs, there has been a tradition to break articles up when a team joins the MLS. I tried to fight the trend for a while, but with four people arguing against it, and with the almost only argument in favour of it being the history, and the overwhelming history of the other franchises and an interview with Carl Valentine pointing the other way I decided to stop fighting the mergers. Another key was Rochat's signing to the Whitecaps, loaning back to Zurich until January, but there is no documentation that it was the USSF-D2 club who signed him or whether it was the MLS who did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not bring it up. It seems odd to have the same coaches, same players (Vancouver has more 2010 Vancouver Whitecaps players with the 2011 teams than some of the existing MLS teams have of their 2010 players!), some of the same owners, same name, same supporters group - but a new article.  It's fundamentally the same team. I don't think it was clear just how similar the team was going to be when it was last discussed.  I think there should be a formal merge discussion. Nfitz (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Times is yet another source that says it is not the same team. Sources have said both but thought I would add my cherry picking to it.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main reason for the new article is that the owners' group is apparently only a franchisee for the league. They are not privately owned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By that standard, we'd need a new article for every team, every time they are sold. We don't, that's not how things work.  Even the team's website says it's the same team.  Yes, the ownership structure has changed, but there are still those who have some ownership now, how had some ownership before ... but even that isn't a requirement. There's no reason for there to be a separate article for the current team, compared to the previous team.  And no reason not to have a discussion about it, now that the season has started, and it's become clear that it's the same team. Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this has been talked to death and the conclusion is to follow the model currently in place (as with other MLS teams with tier-two predecessors). --Ckatz chat spy  10:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dated founded
This Whitecaps FC article states that the Whitecaps FC were "born on" December 13, 1973, I changed the NASL team to allude that date, but shouldn't we do this for the current article, since the club claims all franchises are the same team? [[User:Twwalter|Twwalter (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we should. We also have to be careful to indicate that this is a claim so that we don't offend Sounders, Timbers, and other MLS fans who like to think that Vancouver doesn't deserve to claim their history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That article specifically describes iself as referring to "the Whitecaps days in the old North American Soccer League" (see the note at the top). Note also that the article says in its final line:"'It was a former Whitecaps player in Bobby Lenarduzzi that led the city's new professional soccer team, as the Vancouver 86ers emerged following the birth of the Canadian Soccer League in 1987.'"--Ckatz chat spy  02:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See what I mean. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge these articles
Anyone who stands in the way of merging these articles is only proving to the world that Wikipedia has become a useless bureaucratic nightmare full of people devoid of any commonsense who have nothing better to do than stake out retarded positions and create rules that stand in the way of any real progress and discourage real editing and writing. Now that its been said, merge these god damned articles already, thanks bye. --Þadius (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, without the name-calling. Europeans don't understand why there need to be different articles. The simple reason, one that I don't agree with but is the enforced consensus of two other editors and a few Seattle & Portland editors, is that they are different corporate structures. The argument is that "the MLS operates under a single-entity structure" and "each club has an owner-operator and the team owners are shareholders in the league" (see http://whitecapsfc.com/news/2011/01/mls-101-making-mls-team). What that means is that unlike European clubs, the league owns all of teams. Much like the Premier League, the teams are actually stakeholders of the league. Also unlike European clubs, the league holds the contracts for all of the players. This brings about an interesting situation: The USSF-D2 club signed Alain Rochat and immediately loaned him back to the European club that they signed him from. Then a few weeks ago, the MLS gave him a contract to play with the MLS side. This is one of the clear signs that the clubs are related.
 * One other thing that shows a disconnect with the club/franchise scenario is that Vancouver has been operating in a structure similar to European clubs since 2003. Unlike many other second division and even first division clubs in North America, they have a development system and they run a women's club as well. The will have the ability to bring players up from their reserves without affecting the salary cap. All MLS teams have this privileged, but not all MLS teams have such a developed reserves team. An argument against an unchanged club structure is that in past years, all of the women's home games were played immediately before the men's games at Swanguard Stadium. The women's matches would be played at 4:00 and the men's games would start at 7:00. One ticket was good for both matches. This year, the women never play a home game in the same location twice, and they play none before the men's team, likely because majority of the men's matches are 4:00 starts.
 * So while I agree that the it makes sense to merge the two articles, I don't think it will happen unless we can find a way to change the mind of the caretakers of the Seattle and Portland articles. It's also not a good idea to insult other editors. It definitely doesn't assume good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep reading this same line over and over in your posts, Walter, about Portland Timbers editors standing in the way of what you would like to do here. Who exactly are you talking about? I know that personally I've tried to stay out of this mess. DemonJuice (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to summarize other arguments please try to get it right. Vancouver received the expansion franchise, not the Whitecaps. It is a separate entity but has many similarities (just like Seattle and Portland). That argument is close enough to the one you attempted to summarize but you failed at mention the quality issues. Merging the articles will create an eventual problem with WP:LENGTH and will highlight WP:RECENTISM. The leagues are a perfect breaking point even if they were the same team. Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to state the legal situation please try to get it right. The only legal entity for Vancouver BC is the Corporation of the City of Vancouver, and they did no make a bid. The Whitecaps owner's group made the bid. They were awarded the franchise, not some nebulous entity named "Vancouver".
 * As for length, it would be no longer than European clubs, and could easily be pared-back to incorporate only what is necessary. They are the same club, but not the same team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Vancouver received the expansion franchise, not the Whitecaps."   Wait, what??? Come again? Greg Salter (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We actually have a source that says "Vancouver received a franchise". Technically it was the the MLS awarding a franchise to a bidding group based in Vancouver but it was not the "Whitecaps" from the USL nor its ownership that received a franchise. But yeah, I can repeat myself all day long if you ask.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time of the bid, the ownership group for the USL Whitecaps was the bidding group for the franchise. I could repeat myself all day long, and I know you've seen me do it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rivalries and repeated reverts
Once again, more reverts by Walter as any wording that even suggests the idea of the MLS squad being separate from the NASL and USL teams is being rejected. I'd like some input from other editors as to what to do; the wording WG wants suggests (in the contect of the article as a whole) the the MLS squad has a long-standing rivalry with Portland and Seattle, when it would be more appropriate to simply state that Whitecaps teams do... Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  22:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the MLS squad is an extension of teh club that participates. These are fan-created cups, not MLS cups. You're pushing your franchisee POV into an area where it doesn't belong. The fans don't belong to the MLS. And the Voyager's cup includes NASL teams yet there's an inter-league rivalry there--unrelated to the league. This has to do with the Whitecaps FC not with the MLS in any way.
 * One final point, this is an article about the MLS Whitecaps already so making your point in every paragraph is pedantic and obtuse. There is no need to push your franchisee point over the readers' heads at all. I requested months ago that this article be related to the club and that we have separate articles about the each team, but you refused. You made your bed.... The consesus seems to be you against two editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about "making a point"; you're not even prepared to accept "The Whitecaps organization" as a compromise. Please look at the history of most articles related to the 'Caps. That will clearly demonstrate how you have repeatedly and consistently worked to weed out and revert changes that disagree with your POV on the team structure. --Ckatz chat spy  23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've self-reverted back to last night's version. The wording is not as strong, and there is unsourced and speculative material, but I'm not going to push 3RR over Walter's ownership issues. Other input is certainly needed. --Ckatz chat spy  23:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since every team that takes on a historic name - to some extent - informally adopts the history that comes with it, I don't think Walter's version is trying to imply something it's not. If we assume the MLS Whitecaps are a totally new organization, saying these modern-day Whitecaps have had a longstanding rivalry is still acceptable as its an inherited rivalry that is clearly passed down in the eyes of the clubs and fans. I don't think anything outrageous is being implied here. And on a seperate point, from a writer's perspective, "the Vancouver Whitecaps organization has had" is rather wordy compared to just saying "have had". No need to modify. --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to know how a team that just started this year has any rivalries at all since they've only been in existence since April. Yeah, this should be amusing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Stadium
I plan on reverting to this edit for a few reasons. 1)The current stadium is a good thing to show. 2)A picture that shows more of the pitch (with players on or off) is preferable to one that barely shoes it. 3)The current image is very similar to the one directly below.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When did it change away from that (I'm sure I could figure it out, I'm just curious)?
 * Did I just agree with you?
 * --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We rarely agree, if ever, my northern friend. With no offence meant, I prefer File:BC Place 2011 Whitecaps.jpg over File:Whitecapsgameempire.jpg. I have no preference for what goes in the section below and assume that next season will provide even better options. But for now, I think that File:BC Place 2011 Whitecaps.jpg is the superior image for the section.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed that's what you meant, and that's what I was agreeing with. It's a better picture. What would be best is a match image from a similar angle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet! I assumed we wouldn't agree. I also agree that a picture of the guys playing would be awesome. Next time you are in Seattle get a pint or five of Big Al's Brougham Bitter. Sadly for us in Seattle, it is not as fine as what Vancouver has to offer (good food and pretty girls).Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Barry Robson Signed
Not sure where I would put this, and didn't want to try editing and ruining all of Wikipedia. So ill just put he link here and hopefully someone capable can put it on the proper page. No confirmation on what number he'll be. Source: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Scottish+midfielder+Barry+Robson+join+Vancouver+Whitecaps/6163225/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyack7 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Le Toux Nationality
Le Toux received a green card in 2010, and he have never been capped by France at any level. In a interview in 2008, he said that United States is his home, and stated his desire to play fou USA at international level. In face of these facts, it would be more logical, that the flag that appears next to his name, would the american flag? --SirEdimon (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any indication that he has renounced his French citizenship? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I think there no indication that he renounced his french nationality, but in the team squads what counts, is not only the nationality, but mainly the national team that player, plays for. SirEdimon (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The rule to determine the nationality of a football player is simple: The national team with which the player has most recently played overrides everything, country of birth is next. The country listed by his club would be next. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/players lists France. His green card is mentioned in his article already. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New squad format for Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC
Are the new squad formats for Portland and Vancouver necessary? Sure, they meet the guidelines, but so did the old format. The new format isn't consistent with the squad listings for 99% of football or soccer teams on Wikipedia. It seems rather contrary.

UncleTupelo1 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * this is


 * as opposed to


 * I don't know that it's "necessary", but it correctly reflects WP:MOSFLAG and so is a better choice for that template's use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has other advantages such as the ability to sort. While the Fs player template was more compact and didn't require arbitrary determination of family and given names. Some Latin American names are quite confusing and what do we do with Asian players such as Tan Long are represented in traditional European naming convention: given family; while their names are actually family given. These two edits introduced the changes here with ethe comment Since we're adhering to WP:MOSFLAG so I'm not sure of the motive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest. I was totally against using any of the new formats when I first saw them. I agree that the original format looks cleaner, although I'm not ruling out that's just because I'm used to it. More than anything there is one thing that changed my mind: mobile users can't hover over a flag to see the country. I sure don't know what all the flags look like and have to hover over them all the time when on a desktop. When I'm on my mobile, I don't have that option and I usually don't want to waste data MBs or time tapping on it. That is honestly my reason for coming over to the dark side on this issue. Also, if we're striving to get these articles to Good or Featured status, this will come up. Ask the Sounders task force. DemonJuice (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My argument also applies to accessibility (yes, I just re-read WP:MOSFLAG to bolster my argument). Not only are mobile users at a disadvantage but also those users who may have a visual impairment. From the color-blind person who can't discern what the colors of that three-striped flag are to the person who is having the article read to them by the computer. I've been persuaded. DemonJuice (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we planning on rolling this out among all MLS clubs? It seems sensible that there should be an MLS standard, rather than jut the Pacific North-West MLS clubs.UncleTupelo1 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning on making the change. It should be discussed somewhere though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no plans since I really don't edit the other articles much. However, if that discussion were to happen, I would happily participate. DemonJuice (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone tell me why we have to be one of the 3 teams in the whole world that have to have this stupid roster format. Looks like lop of shit, change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.210.183 (talk • contribs) 2011-12-16T02:16:46‎
 * Ask without the attitude. We're discussing it but you don't seem to want to discuss it, you just want to complain so there's no need to expect that you want to improve anything (or understand the purpose of the change). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The history of the new template is recorded here: Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 1. The current discussion at the football project is to commission a bot to change all articles automatically. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible if we could use the table format like in the article Boca Juniors? They have the country initial next to the flag 96.49.42.182 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is possible, but a template is better because of the way it connects on the other side. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I still prefer the old squad format, which is still used in most articles of European teams.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The agreement was at the end of the European season that we would revisit the subject and likely apply the compliant format to all European leagues as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are they doing this, my friend? This new format is not better than old. SirEdimon (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the discussion above and you'll see. But to summarize, it is better than the old one on so many other levels. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The anon has returned
I wouldn't mind so much if the anon was discussing, and even more so, if the anon was from the Cascadia area, but the anon is from New York. Is there any need, if anon continues to restore the template to the old version, to either lock the article temporarily or have the anon blocked as uncooperative?

On a separate note, the discussion at the footy project determined that all articles should move to the new format, but will raise it one more time and suggest that for the coming season, that we apply it to MLS and NASL articles to see how it feels and then apply it to other European leagues in the July-August timeframe. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll help out if you bump up against 3RR. DemonJuice (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

More imposition of POV
2011 was the inaugural MLS season. They have a history that they link back to 1974 however several editors would like to state that some stupid franchising rules related to MLS be imposed here. I have shown many times in the past that the club holds its history and they even have the year of founding (1974) on their jerseys. MLS doesn't go against this. The fact that Seattle, Portland and other teams don't do so does not mean that Vancouver shouldn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The original Whitecaps folded in 1985 with the rest of the NASL. The 86ers, a new completely separate organization, didn't start until 1986 (go figure).  So even if the Whitecaps are a continuation of the old 86ers, they are not a continuation of the original Whitecaps.  It's interesting that the 86ers are imposing their own POV and re-writing history. KitHutch (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They trace their history back to 1974. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In short the consensus is that this is a different legal entity, but the club has a senior mens team playing their inaugural season in MLS in 2011. It's not a new club and so to state that it was their inaugural season alone is inaccurate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop, Walter, this has been discussed to death. The subject of the article is the MLS team, not the club, and 2011 was their first season. --Ckatz chat spy  18:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has. You're right. You need to stop imposing your POV. The Whitcaps have their history and you should just accept it. 2011 was their first season in MLS as their history indicates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

KitHutch, your comment on the 86ers being the origin on the present day club makes the most sense. I've read a lot of background into Vancouver's pro soccer history from many different sources that seems to affirm this. It is a position I've always silently supported and would liked to see discussed further, but I know many editors are burnt out on the topic. In all the past discussion here, has founding date with the 86ers (as opposed to with the NASL 'Caps or MLS entry) been debated much? --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable Former Players
I'm no expert on editing on Wikipedia so I figured I'd make mention of goalkeeper Bruce Grobelaar as a notable former player (1979-80). The South AFrican born 'keeper represented Zimbabwe/Rhodesia back in the day. When he left Vancouver he joined Liverpool in England where he had huge success, winning 6 League Titles, 3 FA Cups, 3 League Cups and the European Cup. If one of the more senior admins on this page deem that to be good enough then I'd love to see his name included in the list - a list which represents fairly recent players omly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.254.145 (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a disagreement on Wikipedia as to whether the team founded in 1974 is the same as this team. He's listed on the other team's article and at All-time Vancouver Whitecaps roster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC HTML colors
It doesn't do me any good to engage in an edit war with other Wikipedia editors regarding official team HTML colors. Suffice it to say that my opinion is that the official HTML color should be #14284B for Deep Sea Blue, #90B7E1 for Sky Blue, #9A999A for Champion Silver, and #FFFFFF for white. Here are my sources: Color names – http://www.whitecapsfc.com/post/2013/02/27/vancouver-whitecaps-fc-launch-mls-primary-kit; HTML colors: http://static.mlsdigital.net/next/avatars/VAN_avatar-400x400.png (all I did to determine HTML colors was open the image in Adobe Photoshop CC (2015 edition) and use the Eyedropper Tool (I) to click on a specific color. After that, I clicked on the color picker (foreground color) and there was the color info displayed in an HTML code in the middle of the box.) If any other Wikipedia editor has different color information which is from an official source (MLSSoccer.com, for example), feel free to add to this section of the talk page.
 * Sorry, I didn't see this and continued the discussion on your talk page: User talk:Charlesaaronthompson. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC
See this RFC in regards to the use of FC/SC in MLS-related articles (including this one) Bmf 051 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

infobox
When MLS franchises began having their own USL or basically their own Reserve team for player development, I already wanted to place infoboxes like the ones FC Barcelona or Real Madrid have. For this past year, I put a lot of effort on MLS team's here to make it show how good MLS became in these last few years. To have it consistently with the league.

I do believe the infobox is good here. Bluhaze777 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may be the only one. See for one revert I've seen. The Premier League have a similar situation. The Bundesliga definitely does. Fairly sure La Liga does. I would not doubt that every first division in Europe has a second team that goes along with their first division team. FC Bayern Munich has more than just the men's first, men's second and women's first division team, they have others as well and so such a template is appropriate there. While Borussia Mönchengladbach, Borussia Dortmund and others don't. The argument has also been made that Bayern is actually one club with multiple teams. That may be the case with the Whitecaps, but it's not the case with all of the teams you have added the template to. I could be convinced that the MLS's single entity in which each team is owned and controlled by the league's investors make hings radically different though. So if you want it consistent in the league, you should start by removing it from all "franchise" articles and opening a discussion to get input from other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)