Talk:North American Soccer League (2011–2017)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed?

The league itself is not a proposed league at this point. It is going ahead. It has not been sanctioned yet, but the teams are committed to playing. Don't mind leaving it as a proposed league until they play their first game. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.... My gut is telling me that, while the organization is definitely not "proposed," I would call the league itself "proposed" still, until we are guaranteed to see a game played under the league name. While the teams may be committed, we have no clue yet if games are actually going to be played or not. =-/ CyMoahk (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice map, It looks like Vancouver is boing to spend a lot of money on their trips. The league is very east coast heavy. well Vancouver will only play for 1 year any ways, I wonder if this will affect the cascadia cup? or what ever it is called.--Ceezmad (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely will put the Cascadia cup on hold if Portland and Vancouver are in different leagues. They'll have to wait until 2011 when all 3 teams in the NW are back in the same league in MLS. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It could, for the coming year, be like the Voyageurs Cup: inter-league play. The main difference is that the winner of the Voyageurs Cup cup is the CONCACAF Champion's League candidate team for Canada while the Cascadia cup wasn't fully contested in 2009, but I suspect that something could be arrange to have games played so that their league scheduled wouldn't be impacted. The question would be if the USL would permit Portland to play against the rebel Whitecaps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

category section

Could not fix the category section covering the article. --Ceezmad (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Country league is based in

first off i would like to say i absolutely value what the Canadian sides in all levels of soccer bring to the various leagues they participate in. there does however seem to be consistent incorrect information inserted in each leagues article, and the county of origin issue needs to be addressed in each.

FIFA only grants dual nation control over leagues in very few, and unique situations. it has not done so for any north american league, including but not only MLS, any level of USL, nor NASL.

MLS, USL, and now the NASL are US leagues, under the full control of USSF, with no control given or reserved for the CSA, nor does it require CSA sanctioning. the CSA does need to allow the canadian teams to play in the US leagues, but they have no control in the operation of any US league. this is highlighted by the fact that there was no representative of the CSA present in the meetings between the USL, NASL, and USSF in regard to sanctioning of tier II soccer, that it is the USSF dictating the requirements the two rival leagues need to submit to USSF for sanctioning consideration, and that it will in the end be USSF and USSF alone that will make the decision.

it is the same as Major League Baseball. it is a US league, with Canadian teams.

for further review please take a look at the same discussion in regard to MLS and with third opinions offered, and relevant foreign examples give:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_League_Soccer#MLS_is_a_United_States_league_with_a_Canadian_team

this in no way should be perceived in any may as a sleight against the importance of the Canadian teams playing in the league, but we must represent the actual facts. 24.93.148.252 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

i will dig up more supporting information if need be, but here is a link to an NASL team website that states the application of the league was to USSF, as does every article, and NASL press release i've read.

http://www.miamifc.com/article_info.php?articles_id=416

and here's one from sports illistrated citing that is was USSF that has withheld sanctioning:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/soccer/wires/12/30/2050.ap.soc.usl.nasl.0211/index.html

if you have any citation stating that NASL is seeking sanctioning from CSA, it should be made available for review. 24.93.148.252 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Great but incorrect logic.

An application for sanctioning as a Division I League will be submitted to the Canadian Soccer Association shortly and applications to other sanctioning bodies in the region will be submitted as needed. from http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature11100901.aspx It is therefore seeking sanctioning from the CSA and even if American teams are playing in it, the league will or will not have CSA sanctioning. Leave the phrase in the article and honour the wp:3rr --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

by your logic, MLS and MLB are also canadian/us leagues and as with this situation, it is factually incorrect.

you left out the important part preceding what you quoted, "The team owners yesterday submitted an application for sanctioning of the new league as a Division II Men’s Outdoor Professional League by the United States Soccer Federation." i think your confusing what will be sanctioned. the league itself will be sanctioned and governed by USSF, the Canadian teams will then seek sanctioning by the CSA to play in the foreign league.

the CSA itself has stated it is going to let USSF decide on the league before it decides to give its blessing for Canadian teams to play in the US based league:

http://www.24thminute.com/2009/12/nasl-in-trouble-csa-not-ready-to-bail.html

"We are hopeful that the USSF will sanction the league, whether it’s called the NASL or something else,” he said. “Once that happens we invite the Whitecaps and Impact, and any other team looking to be a part of it, to approach us to be sanctioned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.148.252 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken on two front. The first is that wp:3rr does apply and second that according to the article An application for sanctioning as a Division I League will be submitted to the Canadian Soccer Association. They are discussing sanctioning the league, not teams in the league. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

the CSA has been quoted saying it is going to leave the sanctioning of the league to the USSF, than will sanction the Canadian teams that want to play in the foreign league.

Great. Could you provide that quote? And does this fact change anything having to do with the quote from the Whitecaps? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

i don't want to argue really, and am more than open to any reasonable resolution to our differing opinion on what is factual.--24.93.148.252 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, it's interesting to note that the major opponent to the new NASL is the USL which is based in Portland, OR. Isn't that where you're editing this article from 24.93.148.252? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

the link i provided above quotes the CSA. stating they want USSF to sanction the league, here again for ease: http://www.24thminute.com/2009/12/nasl-in-trouble-csa-not-ready-to-bail.html . and no, not posting from portland. opposite coast actually. google "ip lookup location" for better identification of location via IP address.

i'm guessing your implying i am a proponent of USL? i'd like to clarify that i am far more interested in NASL getting sole 2nd tier sanctioning. in truth i'm a fan of MLS and the USMNT first and formost, but am very interested in the development of the sport full stop here in the US. US and Canadian growth seem to be married and that seems to be a good thing. i'm also a regular poster at www.bigsoccer.com, the largest north american soccer related forum on the net, and this discussion of country of origin has come up in the past, been picked appart, and rightfully established in each case as a US based league under the governance of USSF, with a Canadian team.--24.93.148.252 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not sources. I'm not implying that you're a proponent of the USL, I'm suggesting you're an employee. Reverting and adding a source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No need for completely unfounded accusations or attacks on my character/motivations. if you knew how to geolocate ip's it wouldn't be an issue. actually, i don't think you can even make a mistake there and come up with me being in portland, so i'm going to guess you are just fabricating the idea i'm any where near USL head quarters, so you can sling mud at me.

further, if you understood how fifa/global soccer/confederation/federation and league sanctioning worked, this dispute wouldn't even be happening.

i'll gather some links from fifa.com to educate you, and see what i can dig up in regard to USSF being the sole league sanctioning body. worst case we wait until (if) the league gets actual sanctioning and i'll set the article straight then, because there isn't a single league on the planet earth that has multiple governing federations, including those with special exemption status from fifa to include foreign teams such as the SPL and MLS. --24.93.148.252 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I do know how to geolocate, but my source only indicated your IP and it's in Portland. Was wondering if there was a connection. I'm glad you cleared it up.

I do understand how FIFA sanctioning works. I also understand that there's an issue now in MLS now that there are eighteen teams and more want in. UK has the only exemption to the eighteen teams per level rule. The fact that there are Canadian teams in an American-sanctioned league is odd and needs explanation in all three articles: MLS, NASL, and USL. The dispute is happening because there is a press release from a Canadian team that backs what I'm saying. All of the first-hand, undocumented information you provide doesn't change the fact that I have acceptable documented proof of what I'm saying and you don't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ahhh, ok, i see the source of the confusion. my ip does indeed show as portland, but if you view the state, you'll see it's portland maine, not oregon. will gather links and post them tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.148.113 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

well i went to gather supporting links, and i think this one both covers the point i was trying to make, as well as show's we will have further supporting information possibly tomorrow directly from USSF:

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/fed-to-announce-deal-on-d2-league/

"Some of the functions of both leagues will be administered by the U.S.S.F., including the construction of a schedule of between 28 and 32 games; the assignment of officials; establishment of rules that apply to the employment of foreign and youth players; and coordination of publicity. It is possible, however, that the federation could farm out those administrative functions to a third party."--24.93.148.113 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They wrote "administered" and we're discussing sanctioning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

interesting. so you think one federation will sanction a league which means it is giving it the full blessing of the powers instilled by FIFA, and is taking full responsibility for the actions and governance of that league, but would then turn over day to day operations to another federation? are you being purposely obtuse? further i've already posted direct quotes from CSA representatives stating they hope USSF will sanction the league. you also claim to be familiar with the rules and regulations of FIFA, yet say that it is a possibility that one league can have two sanctioning federations. we'll just wait until (hopefully as soon as) tomorrow for the official press release and well edit the article to reflect sole USSF sanctioning then shall we?--24.93.148.113 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to create and use an account? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

afraid? i actually feel the revealing of my IP for public access offers up far more available information about me then whatever (user)name, real or not nobodies knows, than cutting off further information about myself. my real name is Mark Ackerman if that makes you feel better. why are you afraid to acknowledge the obvious fact that it is USSF and USSF alone that is talks with both teir II applicants, that only one federation can sanction a league, and that neither USL nor NASL are Canadian leagues? is it because you are Canadian and want them to be Canadian because there are a couple of Canadian teams in play? wikipedia is not a place for personal desires or patriotic wish lists. it is a storage tank of fact, and truth alone.--24.93.148.113 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mark. I'm fine with USSF sanctioning and control of the league. I just wonder why that one source indicates that the CSA is required to sanction as well. I suppose I could walk over to the Whitecaps offices and ask, but I don't want to bother them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

dude, seriously, if you have that kind of access, i'd love to hear what they have to say. they might actually offer some information after an official announcement. as for the source, the CSA does indeed need to give authorization for Canadian teams to play in a foreign league, as they had to do, and did for TFC to play in MLS, but CSA has no role in sanctioning the league itself, nor do they have authority in it's day to day operation. same situation with USL, and would be the same with NASL. i'm a bit confused by the part about applying for two different tiers to two different federations, but i've been told it is to hedge their (NASL) bets so if USSF's final answer was no sanctioning for NASL, but gave it to USL-1, they could still have a league under CSA sanctioning, but they would still need USSF to allow the US teams to play in a foreign league.

I suspect that this is what the CSA is being consulted for. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

we also have multiple sources showing that NASL has applied for tier II sanctioning and been denied by USSF, but no official word on an application to CSA for any tier, nor an official response to any application. closest is that link i posted where they said they want USSF to sanction the league.--24.93.148.113 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More info this weekend- http://www.carolinarailhawks.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=806&Itemid=141 --24.93.148.113 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks to this ridiculous little edit war, now we can't add any information on the new USSF Second Division. Powers ^T 13:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because there wasn't any verifiable information to add. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At the time I posted that, there most certainly was. Powers ^T 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see

1. any citations used within the article to back the claim, and
2. that T actually edited anything in this article.

Excuse me if I missed them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything in this article because it was fully protected. And the lack of citations on the USSF-2 article was just because I hadn't gotten to them yet; that doesn't mean that no verifiable information existed. All the information I had came from an amalgamation of multiple sources. Powers ^T 14:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That just goes to show that you don't understand WP:V. It means that you can point to a source to back your statement up, not that there aren't people or facts who can back your statement up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I could easily have pointed to a source, had I been able to edit this article at the time. Powers ^T 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of time to offer sources. More than a day in fact. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I pointed out two days ago that because this article was locked, it would be impossible to add the breaking news about the new league. You said there was nothing verifiable to add, which is plainly untrue; at the time we wrote, there was indeed plenty of verifiable information available to add, but it could not be done because the article was locked. I'm not sure what you mean by all this talk of "giving" me time to offer sources. Powers ^T 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. We're not talking about the same thing. Sorry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've lifted the protection. Any renewed edit-warring will be appropriately dealt with, so please be sure you only make changes to the article that the other editors would support. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Retire

The league was not approved. We should retire the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "retire"? Powers ^T 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, there is no NASL 2010. The USSFD2 will have an NASL Conference, but the league itself is no longer going to happen in 2010. So someone edited this article instead of the USSFD2 one with the Minnesota change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I know what you mean by "not approved". What do you mean by "retire"? Powers ^T 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the league is not approved, how can we be making changes to it? Is there any new information that we need to add? I don't mean delete. One option would be to merge it into the USSFD2 article to explain how it came about. Suggestions? I just don't see a future for this article, particularly as a stand-alone article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as it is for the time being. USSFD2 is intended to be a one-year stop-gap, and the teams currently aligned to this league have not publicly stated that they intend to return to USL1 in 2011 - so, for all intents and purposes, this league still exists as a proposed league, with 9 member teams, all of whom are currently playing in an interim league with the 3 remaining USL1 teams until things get sorted out. Trying to merge it with the USSFD2 article will just make things messy in the future, especially if we have to disentangle it all if the NASL is sanctioned and plays in 2011. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as far as I know, the league still exists, even if in name only. I believe the owners intend to continue working on a business plan pursuant to USSF approval for 2011. I don't think it does any harm to leave the article; even if nothing ever comes of it, it was a catalyst for the current situation and therefore part of the history of soccer in the U.S. Powers ^T 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood on both comments. However, will it be the NASL (2010) if it begins in 2011? Also, Since USL-1 was down to three teams and one team is leaving for MLS, I suspect that USL will cease operation at that point. Also, one team will likely be leaving NASL in for 2011 as well. Also one of the teams in the NASL has ceased operating, at least for the coming year. Perhaps we need to explain that the teams were all proposed and, to avoid confusion (as happened earlier today) that we indicate that this is not the NASL Conference of the temporary USSFD2 league. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't merge into the USSF D2 article. I personally think this article should be a placeholder, since (AFAIK) all signs are pointing to NASL becoming an official, stand-alone league in 2011. All we have to do is rename the article - say "(2011)" or "(modern)" instead of "(2010)". We already have the expansion sides for 2011, why not just continue modifying the article with the idea that NASL will be official in 2011?

Also, I know this article isn't for the NASL conference of USSF D2; I made that change earlier since, if you read through the articles in the site I liked to, the NSC Minnesota team does seem to be aligning itself with the NASL crowd much more than with USL. CyMoahk (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave the article as is and move to a new title. This league is still a potential league as the USSFD2 is only a one year stop gap and all the teams listed here are still involved with the NASL. They've just held their AGM meeting and are planning on filing for sanction again in 2011. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that the Whitecaps have any vested interest in the NASL as the owner is taking the team, or at least its name and his money, to the MLS in 2011. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless this Edmonton team really is going to be a formal Whitecaps NASL farm team, in which case I would think they have a VERY vested interest. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That is his stated intent, to leave a team behind in NASL be it Edmonton or another franchise. Vancouver's plan pending MLS approval is to have a farm team in D2 and they're staunch NASL members. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. What should we use as the new title, though? I guess we could use "(2011)", since that's when the league would (hopefully) start playing, but I'm almost leaning more to using "(2009)", when the organization was actually started. (Oh, and can I put the NSC MN team back into the teams list in place of the Thunder?) CyMoahk (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would favor (2011) since that's their stated desired first year and most other leagues that have yearly qualifiers use the first year of play not the year of organization. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If the NSC MN team is physically replacing the Thunder organization, sure.

I would prefer NASL (Current). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Using the years of competition is the standard for disambiguating sports leagues. "(2011)" would thus be the proper disambiguator, although there's not a lot of harm in leaving it at 2010 until we know more. Powers ^T 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Years of competition is fine. Are you suggesting that the new league, should there be one, only encompass a single year's worth of play? You are stating year of first play by changing it to 2011. Perhaps using (Current) or (Modern) or (Active) or some other descriptive adjective is more appropriate for a running league. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe for active leagues the first year is usually considered sufficient, possibly with a dash indicating that it is ongoing. Powers ^T 03:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay - moving page, editing teams list, and correcting links within templates. CyMoahk (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you unilaterally decided to move the page without putting it to a vote. I am vehemently opposed to the move and expact to discuss it further. Move it back until consensus has been reached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Open ended dates have never been used in titles. Either a closed "start" date should be used or as suggested "current" or something similar should be used. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I thought that (besides Walter) everyone was for using (2011-) or (2011), and I just went with the open date... My bad... >.<' I guess I've read more into some of the above comments than I should have.... Again, sorry! CyMoahk (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually support the (2011) idea as that's what the league would be and it's a logical choice since the other NASL's are listed by dates played. The start date would seem logical to me. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it a step further and point out that there's no guarantee that the league will be a reality in 2011 either. Moving it was not only preempting the discussion, it was turning Wikipedia into a crystal ball. Glad it's back.

As for a name, I disagree in having any date in the name. It should be an adjective. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the convention used for sports leagues, AFAIK. Powers ^T 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the convention. Additionally, yes 2011 may turn into 2012... but we can always just move the article at that time. But at present NASL is planning on playing as an independent D2 league in 2011. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the convention for retired sports leagues. Can you point to any currently operating leagues that are using the same name as a prior league where the date range is used? It might make more sense to rename the old league with the date ranges and leave the new league, once it's operational to just North American Soccer League. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, because the only leagues that would use that convention are, by definition, ones that aren't as well known as an older league with the same name. And that's why giving this league the undisambiguated name might not be a good idea. Powers ^T 23:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So is this a convention actively used on Wikipedia or simply your preference? Please clarify. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but you can see several examples in Category:Sports leagues in the United States. Powers ^T 02:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that list, there are several articles that use the open year format, so couldn't we just use "(2011-)"? CyMoahk (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've never seen any articles with a (date-) in the title. I don't think it's a good precedent to set. I think we should either go with just the (2011) or just go with North American Soccer League and move what's there currently to a disambig page. Until the league is for certain starting however we should just leave it where it is located now as it was a proposed league for 2010. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've seen some, It certainly seems like this has been done before, and while I would still prefer an adjective such as (modern), (current), or even (21st century), (2011-) doesn't seem completely out-of-place. I would still caution turning Wikipedia into a crystal ball and changing this article's title before it is officially sanctioned though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Name

Discussion of the article's name is getting too mixed with whether this page should be moved/deleted...

North American Soccer League (2010) is not the best name for the article no matter when the league starts. Since the league was founded in 2009 and is projected to begin play in 2011, "2010" is not a good descriptor. I'd propose "North American Soccer League (present)", "North American Soccer League (2011)" (or whenever the league begins. I'm not a fan of something open ended like "2011-"), or "North American Soccer League (second division)". --Blackbox77 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed above. I requested an adjective. North American Soccer League (present) would be my preference of the ones that you suggested since we're not sure that they will be starting in 2011 either. I think the reason that it's 2010 is that the association was formalized late in 2009 and they were hoping to start play in 2010. I don't think that North American Soccer League (2011) is appropriate at this point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I seoncd (third?) the notion for North American Soccer League (present). CyMoahk (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. No other article in Category:Sports leagues in the United States uses an adjective for disambiguation; we always use years. There is no compelling reason to change that convention for just this article. Powers ^T 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1. There are only three examples of current leagues. Most of the examples are defunct leagues.
2. There is no consistency between those three current leagues. One is United Football League (2009) and the other two are All American Hockey League (2008–) and Midwest Football League (2002–). Since there is no consistency in the naming conventions, that tells me there is no uniform policy and as such, no compelling reason to consider that there is any convention at all. If there was consistency, I would agree that we should use a year.
3. I love being a reasoned precedent. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They all use a year; that's the important part. And I don't think we can discount the non-current leagues so easily, either. Powers ^T 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can easily discount it since there is no consistency. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What in the world do you mean? The non-current leagues very consistently use their years of operation as disambiguators. Powers ^T 14:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

addressed above. Points 1 # 2. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Point one dismisses the defunct leagues, and point two points out inconsistency among the current leagues, but neither one explains why you dismiss the defunct leagues. You said "since there is no consistency" but the only lack of consistency you pointed out is among the current leagues, not the defunct leagues. Powers ^T 17:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency is, precisely, no consistency. No consistency implies we don't have to follow their ad hoc naming scheme. Since we don't have to follow their ad hoc naming scheme, let's suggest a more logical scheme. Logic demands it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is consistency. They all use dates. Period. Powers ^T 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But you contradict yourself. First you say "point two points out inconsistency among the current leagues" and then you say "But there is consistency". So which is it? I say there is no consistency since they don't use the same format and therefore since they don't use the exact same format that there is no reason to follow their inconsistent naming conventions and use a much more logical naming convention. Period. Case closed. Any suggestion that we must use "dates" (when you mean years--and you previously indicated years, so you're not even consistent, so it's no wonder you don't see that the format is actually inconsistent, but I digress) is moot since the existing categories (they're not even articles) don't have a consistent naming approach (One is year of inauguration the others are an open-ended range) and as such, one more deviation from this inconsistent approach will not hurt. One thing you miss is that defunct leagues use years of existence and current leagues use the name. I suggested that the original league, albeit much more popular, should use the date range and the new one, when it is actually operational, should use the name without any parenthetical information. That was my original suggestion but someone suggested that we wait and see....which is what I'm saying now, since there's no guarantee that this league will actually ever be sanctioned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Why must it be black or white? Obviously, there are some parts of the schema that are inconsistent, as you note, but that doesn't mean that there is "no consistency". Indeed, you will note that every time disambiguation is utilized, it is done via reference to years of operation, whether open-ended (in the case of current leagues) or a closed range (in the case of defunct leagues). Every time! And not just the categories -- the articles as well. The fact that some of the current leagues use a dash and some do not is a point so minor I simply cannot fathom that it affects your perception of general agreement on this issue. It's as if you said, "Well, some people say 'tomayto' and some people say 'tomahto', so since there's no consistency, let's call it a 'squishimato' instead." Powers ^T 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Now 'squishimato' is just ridiculous, but using an adjective isn't, and it's just as consistent as one category. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Powers, I understand your point when you say there is precedent to using years in article titles. It is a good convention. However the new NASL technically doesn't exist and is only real in name only. Since it's neither a current nor defunct league and instead a proposed future league, maybe this is an instance where breaking precedence makes sense. If and when the league materializes, its first year of existence might be a good year to include in the title. Discussion aside I think we call all agree "2010" is meaningless. When the league comes to fruition, maybe then it will be time to go by convention and give the article a more established year-marked name. In my opinion, it feels appropriate to temporarily name it "North American Soccer League (proposed)" or something similar. Thoughts? --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So with kickoff about 2 days away, are we all good with this thing being called North American Soccer League (2011)? --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be okay with updating the title to reflect the year the league actually started playing. oknazevad (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the 2011 qualifier. JonBroxton (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why. It was founded in 2010 not 2011. I still think North American Soccer League (present) or North American Soccer League (current) is a better choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if the league ever folds, it will no longer be "current" or "present" and then the article will need to change and all the internal links will have to be changed, or go through a redirect. Surely it's better to not even have the potential for that to happen by simply having the year that the league begins playing as the dissmbiguation? JonBroxton (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This league was started in 2009 with plans for the 1st season in 2010 before USSF stepped in for a year. It seems to me the inaugural year the league actually started playing soccer is a more notable time reference for an article title. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. JonBroxton (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support changing it to the year they actually started playing and leaving one to read the text to figure out all the 2009/10 drama. --Trödel 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if the league outlasts the original NASL, we'll have to switch both articles around and no one is complaining about that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's revisit that in 2028, when it might be a problem ;) JonBroxton (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already a problem. I am frequently hearing and reading "the old NASL" and rarely "the new NASL". It's at the point when this league becomes the WP:COMMONNAME, but I think your point was for purposes of hyperbole, not serious discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to be funny. JonBroxton (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta Silverbacks

I removed the team from the "proposed" list of teams for 2011 and beyond because they are no longer on the NASL website as a potential team (also not in the application sent to the USSF from NASL) and may never play again.

If someone can remove them from the League Team Map, that would be helpful. FireBird1138 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

While NASL has announced Atlanta is proposed to return in 2011, there is no evidence that it is the Silverbacks' Ownership (not on their website). Should we say Atlanta Silverbacks in the "proposed" team section or just Atlanta??? FireBird1138 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The NASL needs eight teams to be considered a league. With Atlanta back in, it's eight. I suspect that the management at Atlanta has a few larger concerns than updating their web presence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand NASL needs 8 teams (they still appear to not meet other requirements set forth by the USSF with Div. II, but that's a different point and we just have to wait and see what the USSF's verdict is, I hope NASL is approved) It appears it will be indeed the Silverbacks Ownership, but they do appear to be the "FC New York" of last year. I'll be more surprised if ATL returns next season over AC St. Louis, and I don't think AC St. Louis will be playing again. FireBird1138 (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

North American Soccer League (2010) Name Change

Name Change: Hey Walter, perhaps you will know more about this than I do, but I believe the North American Soccer League (2010) entry should no longer require the "2010" tag and should be the primary article to pop up when "North American Soccer League" is searched in Wikipedia, rather than the now-dissolved NASL of 1968-1985. If nothing else, a search of "North American Soccer League" should lead to a disambiguation page to allow users to select. Considering the new NASL has been sanctioned by the USSF as D-2 for 2011, it is the main entry people will be looking for. How would you go about doing this and, if you decide to make the changes yourself, please let me know how it can be done for my own knowledge. Thanks Fhurion (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation page makes most sense at this point since the new NASL still isn't the primary subject for NASL. The other league ran for nearly two decades, but it is becoming a fading memory. Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support a disambiguation page. While both NASL pages are relevant, I don't think the (2010) in this article's name helps people who are seeking information about it find it easily. If this is the case, I think it would require the existing North American Soccer League article to have it's name changed to North American Soccer League (1968-1985). This would leave both leagues/articles described by their accurate years, allowing users to choose the one they seek. Thoughts? Fhurion (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. The 2011 NASL season is now underway. It easy to imagine that people seeking information about the current league would get confused being directed to the league that folded in 1985. --Wilsonodk (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The hatnotes already cover it, I think. And the original NASL is still likely the primary topic, as the new league is too recent to be the primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

tortuously

It's a real word... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But given the context they should have used tortiously as in the legal concept of tortious interference with a business relationship. Tortuously means "winding or twisting" which does not fit the context of the quote. My guess is that spell check corrected it to the wrong word and the drafter didn't know there was a difference. --Trödel 03:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

incorrect information added

This edit appears to add incorrect information. The federations did not sanction this league did they? It's my understanding that only the USSF did. Linking to the other federations is therefore not correct, although I understand why. Perhaps the other federations have to allow participation in the foreign league. Is there some reference that somehow verifies one of these positions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No indication that there is sanctioning from Canada or Puerto Rico so their federations should not be linked. We need proof not assumptions. The league is sanctioned only by the USSF. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Walter is right. My (admittedly hazy) recollection of Brian Quarstad's excellent posts about the whole NASL thing over at MinnesotaSoccer is that only one of the three federations needed to sanction the league, and that when USSF finally did, Canada and Puerto Rico didn't need to do anything. I think sanctioning from both Canada and Puerto Rico is *implied* (clearly, as they allow their teams to participate), and had the USSF not given the go-ahead Canada would have stepped in, but from a *legal* standpoint the USSF did everything themselves, and they are the only ones who granted the formal sanctioning. JonBroxton (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So to respect the edit, how do we link to the countries without implying that the federations have given approval? I don't like either choice now (linking to the country or the federation). Jon, you watch a lot of other leagues. How are other international leagues linked? MLS immediately comes to mind, but I believe that the French first division has room for Monaco. Are there any other examples? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There are only a handful of leagues where teams from other countries participate - the Welsh clubs in England, English club (Berwick Rangers) in Scotland, AS Monaco in France, FC Vaduz from Liechtenstein in Switzerland, and MLS of course. The Swiss Challenge League (where FC Vaduz plays) links to the country of Liechtenstein rather than the Liechtenstein Football Association. Ligue 1 links to the country of Monaco. Scottish Football League Third Division links to the country of England rather than the FA. So, IMHO, if we follow their precedent, we should just link to the countries involved rather than the FAs, and then explain the sanctioning process in prose. JonBroxton (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Too busy at work to check. I suspect that gives us the answer then. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet we still link to two feds in the MLS article, no? --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We should change that since it appears to be the only article that does. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets not be so hasty to immediately label something "incorrect" just because we may at first disagree. I don't think my edits necessarily implied three separate feds sanctioned one league. Further editing may be needed to clarify, but what did happen was the CSA and Puerto Rica federation sanctioning (giving permission) individual teams to play in a foreign league. I too followed the NASL formation as it broke so I think I have a basic idea as to what went down based on the reports of others. From the 24th Minute, a reputable source on Canadian soccer, see here and here for some of the language I'm looking at. From CSA general secretary Peter Montopoli: "We are hopeful that the USSF will sanction the league... Once that happens we invite the Whitecaps and Impact, and any other team looking to be a part of it, to approach us to be sanctioned." Sounds like CSA takes clubs on a case-by-case basis and sanctions them individually for entry into NASL. The second article notes that the CSA put a moratorium on the sanctioning of further clubs in non-Canadian leagues and that FC Edmonton still has permission to join NASL. From these and other articles scattered about online, I think it's clear that when it comes to foreign leagues, the CSA sanctions the clubs and not the league. As for the Islanders, I'll admit I've got nothing concrete. Maybe what I'm looking for is in Spanish? But I'd find it surprising and highly unlikely if the Puerto Rican fed doesn't have a say in which leagues its affiliated clubs are allowed to play. Also since Puerto Rican refs are used for home Islander games, that's a strong enough connection to show the PR fed is formally involved with not just the Islanders but NASL as well. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but I don't understand the point you're making. The precedent set by other leagues where teams from more than one country participate is to link simply to the article on the country in question, not that country's football federation. Which, if we follow precedent, makes your last post correct, but moot. See, for example: Football League Championship, Conference National, Ligue 1, Swiss Challenge League, Scottish Football League Third Division, USL Premier Development League. MLS seems to be the odd one out and needs changing. This one should just link to the country. JonBroxton (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 for Jon's comment. There appears to be approval, but certainly not referenced officially, of the federations, but we shouldn't be linking to the national federations here or at the Major League Soccer articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the only point I'm making is that there is an official level of sanctioning preformed by all feds involved to even allow their teams to participate in the NASL (and MLS). These federations are directly involved with this league through their teams and refs even if its not their league. Unless there is some larger consensus and discussion on this elsewhere, not linking to fed articles in this manner just because of precedence isn't enough reason by itself to not do so here. One day a couple editors could make cited changes to those other league articles in the same way I've proposed here and then this argument wouldn't have any merit. But if its just a matter of the "Countries" section of the infobox is meant to link to country articles and not fed articles, then that's a different point entirely I can agree with. --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The template has parameters for the country |country = and the confederation | confed = . There was a request on Template talk:Infobox football league dated 7 January 2010 to add federation. Feel free to extend that discussion. It appears clear there that the usage for |country = does not include the sanctioning federation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing the Canadian Championship under "Domestic Cup(s)"

To be clear, listing the Canadian Championship under "Domestic Cup(s)" is not trying to imply the NASL is a Canadian league. It seems the info line is asking what domestic cups (no matter where they are domestic to) do clubs in this league participate? NASL, being an American league, is still apart of two different countries' pyramids meaning it will naturally be associated with two different cups should the American teams ever one day be allowed in the US Open Cup. In the infobox we already list the multiple countries the league exists in and the multiple soccer pyramids. Listing the Canadian Championship as a domestic cup some teams participate in does not have to imply all the league's teams participate in it. --Blackbox77 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Why is the Lamar Hunt Cup being removed along with the removal of the comments. The PR cup should also be included. My concern was determining why it was commented in the first place, although I don't disagree with it being removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume the Open Cup was inserted assuming one day it would need to be included. I only removed it because it seemed unnecessary at the moment. If someone wants to revert that, I don't mind. Do we know the Islanders participate in a Puerto Rican cup? --Blackbox77 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They do. They have represented Puerto Rico in the Champions League. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A reduced Islanders team played in the Supercopa DirecTV 2010, which was effectively the Puerto Rican championship and determined the CCL participant, but it was basically a glorified knockout tournament and took place entirely during the 2010-11 USSFD2/NASL offseason. That competition is not a cup, though, it's the actual league championship. There is no US Open Cup equivalent for Puerto Rico. The PRSL was having financial and infrastructure issues and did this reduced season while they re-organized. The Islanders are not playing in the PRSL in 2011, though, so I'm not sure what do do about it. *Technically*, they are eligible to play in the league - River Plate Puerto Rico, Sevilla FC Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico United are pulling double duty and playing in USL Pro and the PRSL simultaneously - but the Islanders have chosen not to. JonBroxton (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jumping the gun on Baltimore

This is relevant to the league article but I originally brought up the issue on the Crystal Palace Baltimore talk page.

Claiming there will be a future Baltimore NASL team borders on original research and crystal balling as there are no verifiable sources announcing this is definitively happening. The only primary source I've ever seen is dated December 2010. It states CPB has an "intended re-launch" date for 2012 but makes no grand announcements about the future of the club. This is an important distinction as it makes no promises that there really will be a Baltimore team. As a result, we should not be renaming this article anything other than "Crystal Palace Baltimore" until we know something more definitive. Getting rid of the brand could mean reestablishment of a new club (and thus a new article) for all we know. We also should not be listing it as an official expansion team until it actually becomes just that. Until we have all the facts, nothing should be a forgone conclusion. --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This team has neither undergone a name change (although it still intends to) nor been confirmed as a future NASL team. Just because the ownership intends to reenter NASL does not mean they officially are coming back. These changes need to be sourced. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

MSL Reserve League

Where in the pyramid should we include the MLS Reserve Division? 2nd along with NASL?--Coquidragon (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does the CSA put them? Find a reference and you're good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The MLS Reserve League is not part of the pyramid. JonBroxton (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 Season Edits

I believe it is time to edit the page to show the participants in the 2012 season. As we all know, Montreal will leave the league to join the MLS in the 2012 season and the San Antonio Scorpions will fill their spot. I move to edit the participants chart and the locations on the map. Montreal will be moved into the former clubs sections. We can debate to leave Montreal on the Map. IncredibleSE (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2011 (CST)

Should be removed, but you've missed the point of my discussion on your talk page. There's an edit summary field at the bottom of the edit page and you're supposed to use it when adding, removing, or changing a page or section. Not doing so makes your edits appear suspicious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Even more suspicious when you haven't created a user page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving this page to North American Soccer League (2011-)

I moved the North American Soccer League page here due to our general conventions. See Talk:North_American_Soccer_League for more. The move to plain old North American Soccer League wasn't completed anyway so we had talk pages all over the place. Hopefully everything should work better now. Main point is that the "current" nature of this league doesn't mean it should get the main article name. MISL is an excellent example of what I mean. Most links to North American Soccer League is for the original. When you say North American Soccer League to most, they will think of the first one, not this one. So a disam page is a good option per this page. I'm working to fix all of the incorrect links to North American Soccer League as I write this. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

... okay, but why the dangling hyphen? Powers ^T 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

More important, why no discussion? It was working fine the way it was and no clamour to change. Seems odd, sudden, and arbitrary. I would argue that the primary use of the term these days is the new, not the old league. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Walter that a bit of discussion would have been preferred. And to further what Powers said, why end in a hyphen? The Manual of Style clearly states in regards to title punctuation format that the "final visible character should not be a punctuation mark unless it is part of a name." Parentheses aside, this article name ends very awkwardly. Pointing to the MISL article as the sole source of naming precedence doesn't carry much weight either. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'll revert it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily looking for a revert - just some discussion. Honestly I wasn't a huge fan of the former name either. In my opinion, the original NASL is historically significant enough that it deserves the "North American Soccer League" slot. I think a name like "North American Soccer League (present)" or "(second division)" would be more appropriate here. It doesn't make sense to tag a date on the end of an article title when the subject matter is still in existence. If the new NASL ever folded, then it'd make sense to call it "(2011-whatever)". --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, can the current talk page on "North American Soccer League" be deleted so this "North American Soccer League (2011-)" talk page be moved too? Keeping all this seems important. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving this page to North American Soccer League (2011-)

I'm actually going to follow the lead of the MISL/Major League Soccer League pages and make some switches. Why? Because Major Indoor Soccer League (and NASL) go to a disam page and so should this. There are several thousand links to North American Soccer League and many are for the original. MISL/Major Indoor Soccer League is a disam page. American Basketball Association actually goes to the original despite a successor league. And it's for the same reasons as this. I'm creating lots of work for myself by doing this. :) It causes a disam nightmare but this should have been done awhile ago instead of what was done. NASL points to a disam page so this page should as well. Even current franchises' templates like the Vancouver Whitecaps only refer to the North American Soccer League. Looking at the links, a good 90% are for the original NASL not this one. If anyone objects enough that you want to take it to Requested Moves, I don't have a problem with that. I posted this at Talk:North American Soccer League (1968-1984) as well because that page was never properly moved. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Split Season

Created that section, we Still no sure what they are going to call each half season "Opening/First/Spring/ect" Ceezmad (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Future stadiums

All but one are referenced. That's a good thing.

The Atlanta stadium plan is now at least six years old and likely not to happen. The others all appear to be in various stages of planning or proposal.

I have to admit it seems entirely speculative. While WP:CRYSTAL is about not creating articles that may or may not happen, the idea certainly applies here and adding information about stadiums that may never be build seems to be a waste. I propose either removing completely, adding a column to indicate their current status (proposed, in approval process, build, etc.), or removing individual entries until they are individually notable as is the case at soccer-specific stadium. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is probably a better link for the Cosmos' proposal: http://cosmosstadium.com/about . According to that page, it has been presented to the Empire State Development Corporation on January 11, 2013 and no update since. Have there been any news stories about the approval process or the give-and-take? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No. And the whole thing is pretty pie in the sky now that the Cosmos haven't been selected for the second NY MLS team. Also, the whole repeating of stadiums already on the list is pointless. The purpose of a stadiums chart is to give an easy reference and navigation to each individual article. No need to repeat that just because a stadium was built with the idea that it may be expanded in the future. Especially since any such proposals are dependent on factors so far off in the future that it truly does run afoul of the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. But it seems the adder has already begun to edit war here. He seems to be doing that a lot.oknazevad (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but we should steer clear of discussing editors and focus on the content the way your response started. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Woosnman Cup

The links I found are just blogs, so I guess we can hold off untill maybe NASL.com writes something about it.

http://www.woosnamcup.com/

http://www.recklesschallenge.net/the-woosnam-cup-a-dream-of-a-nasl-supporters-shield/

Ceezmad (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First is a WP:PRIMARY source and not a WP:RS. The second, as a blog, is also not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

From NASL.com the official website of the NASL.

http://nasl.com/index.php?id=3&newsid=5824

"With a 2-1 victory over the San Antonio Scorpions (3W-1T-10L, 10pts), the Carolina RailHawks (7W-2T-5L, 23pts) captured the Woosnam Cup, that awards the team with the most points over the Fall and Spring Season." Ceezmad (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

NASL attendance

Not sure the best way to handle the attendance listing in North American Soccer League, the league does not publish single sourced attendance figures in any regular fashion. That blog and other blogs are sourced from individual game by game match summaries and are cited in other articles. The blog like other blogs, use the official league published data and manually track. I could source off a season page on Wikipedia by club but that doesn't seem to fulfill the requirement of having a source even though each individual team is sourced from individual match reports. Mak888 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that reliable sources need to be used. The blog doesn't even cite where the match stats are from. So perhaps, the attendance numbers should be removed as unreliable instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems better not to cite a source since someone can obtain the sources from other Wikipedia pages as is the case with Major League Soccer attendance Mak888 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That article has many references. Only the historic average attendances section is unreferenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Players

Stop the edit war, the foreign players section is most certainly relevant as there is a limit of 7 foreign player slots for non citizens/residents. If you believe any of the player listings are in error you can debate that. Mak888 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 00:01, January 5, 2014‎ Mak888 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,272 bytes) (+3,243)‎ . . (Undid revision 589243121 by ArsenalFan700 (talk) if you want to discuss do so on page talk but keep as is. Only foreigners not the green cards are listed. You can debate individuals) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:56, January 4, 2014‎ ArsenalFan700 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,029 bytes) (-3,243)‎ . . (The A-League table is different to this one. In the A-League the limit is 5 + Aussie/NZ citizens. Here it is different. Here it is 7 foreigners + US residency/green card/citizens etc. The Cosmos have 13 foreigners... you cant have them all here!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:51, January 4, 2014‎ Mak888 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,272 bytes) (+3,243)‎ . . (Undid revision 589242513 by ArsenalFan700 (talk) so what are you arguing. The section is there like the A League section to identify players using the spots) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:48, January 4, 2014‎ ArsenalFan700 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,029 bytes) (-3,243)‎ . . (They can still be considered foreign players regardless though. For example, a Jamaican green card holder in the US could represent Jamaican national team while playing in the NASL... he is still a foreigner despite being a holder.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:46, January 4, 2014‎ Mak888 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,272 bytes) (+3,243)‎ . . (Undid revision 589237682 by ArsenalFan700 (talk) except your reason is wrong. Yes residency counts and if you read the description you would see it.) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:55, January 4, 2014‎ ArsenalFan700 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,029 bytes) (-3,243)‎ . . (But... but... but.... I did... I did provide a reason... what... the... hell.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:20, January 4, 2014‎ Barryjjoyce (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,272 bytes) (-144)‎ . . (→‎Competition format) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 20:27, January 4, 2014‎ Mak888 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,416 bytes) (+3,243)‎ . . (Undid revision 589189044 by ArsenalFan700 (talk) vandalism, removing a section for no reason) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:46, January 4, 2014‎ ArsenalFan700 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,173 bytes) (-3,243)‎ . . (→‎Foreign players: There is a foreign player limit but due to US residency laws etc teams could have more (like the New York Cosmos).) (undo | thank)

I do not believe the issue is whether there are players listed in error but, from the ArsenalFan700's comments, it may be possible to have more foreign players than would normally be considered foreign to a player.

My concern is whether other leagues with foreign player rules list them. I know that both Major League Soccer and Canadian Football League have foreign player rules and restrictions and neither article lists them, but there is a List of foreign MLS players, but not for the CFL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1. ArsenalFan700 removes
2. Mak888 restores
3. ArsenalFan700 removes
4. Mak888 restores
5. ArsenalFan700 restores
6. Mak888 restores
7. ArsenalFan700 removes
8. Mak888 restores
9. And then my removal to before this started. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the NASL rules which are cited in the article there is a hard limit of 7 foreign players that are not residents (green card holders). Based on the research I did I believe the players listed are correct but several could be wrong since some source material was a bit dated. I can ask the league to publish a current list.

A good example of how players can be identified is Diomar Díaz, see ref 1 in his article.[1] "The 5’7” attacking midfielder becomes the 15th member of the Cosmos and third international player on the roster. NASL rules allow up to seven internationals on a club’s roster at any given time." The article reinforces both the limit and provides support for the player listing.

If you believe this should be a separate article or be included in the current seasons page I can accept that, but this is clearly an area that impacts the competitiveness of teams. The ability to sign foreign players within these limits provides teams the ability to sign talent that may not be as skilled as MLS would require of their foreign players but may well be more skilled then many domestic MLS players. Also knowing the number of slots taken directly impacts potential future signings or at least necessates further action by either helping obtain a green card for a player or by transfer an existing foreign player out. Mak888 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read my take on it? It's not that I doubt that the players exist or don't, it's that no other league includes them. Move it to a separate article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You can mention how many foreigners who are not card holders are allowed but you dont need a table... it is just way to confusing for the reader. You mentioned the A-League... fine... so do you really think a line with 13 different players will look good at all? The rule should be added and explained but the table is not needed at all. Our rules are not as tough as the Asian leagues (where these tables are common). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

the A-League which has similar rules. The List is simply an historical listing on their page. Again, the limit is a hard limit of 7, your imaginary 13 number doesnt hold water. as explained multiple times the limit is 7, period. The hometown of a player has no relation nexessarily to them counting in the foreign player total. If your view if is you believe it doesn't belong in the main league article. Should it be in a list article which is directed from the main article or within the current season or both? Separately, next time provide real feedback and a suggestion instead of a bs edit war. Mak888 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That article is of terrible quality, so don't hold it up as an example of anything good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, that was feedback... I did not think the table was needed so I got rid of it and provided my reason. As for my imaginary number... go check on it, I did not make that number up off the top of my head. As for the hard limit, fine, that has been established but the point is that there are still way more than seven in the NASL and other American/Canadian soccer leagues. It is worth a mention but not worth a table... it would just end up messy and overall ruining the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreign-born players or those with green cards? Just like MLS and CFL, players who have naturalized are no longer considered foreign. I don't think that anyone is pulling the wool over fans eyes by stating that. And I do agree that it's worth a mention, but not a table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Club honors section

This section needs more thought, the Spring and Fall titles are formal honors with a trophy as is the Soccer Bowl. As currently presented the Cosmos show one honor. The current math doesn't work. Mak888 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Have updated this section to reflect new NASL playoff structure: http://www.nasl.com/article/uuid/19mjcfxw5twlf1kav40nm9i7w8/nasl-clubs-to-compete-for-the-championship

Team names

Mak888 (talk · contribs) would like to see this section included and has added some sources, but it seems to be WP:OR to a few editors. Is it worthwhile or aggrandizement? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreal. Once again. When the Rowdies were founded "again" it was 2008 with clear intentions to be a part of the USL. The Cosmos have been flirting with bringing back the Cosmos since the 90's, Metrostars tried desperately for the name, Pinton refused. The Strikers rebrand was brought back because of the Rowdies success, this was a no-brainer "No Other Reason"! As for the MLS teams they were all resurrected before they're entry to MLS. To even think that the "New" NASL or MLS made name strategy's is not only false but laughable. I agree, they were strategy, just not "League Strategy" You do realize that the MLS shunned this idea for many, many years and to think people are crediting them makes football historians like myself sick. I remember going to a Mutiny game in 2000 and guess what? They were wearing Rowdies jersey's. A throwback nod at a time of NIKE's iron fist. San Jose went through the same dilemma with clash. I can go on for hours on this BS but i think you get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywouldz (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hollywouldz, if you care to review my edit, I revised the wording as it definitely wasn't a 100% defendable view based on the sourcing provided. We can debate how or why names or chosen and when, but it is partially subjective given the league hasn't made a completely definitive statement saying they want to be directly linked to the old NASL, the thesis seems pretty legit but it is circumstantial, i.e. name, Throwback Thursday, etc. My original revert was in support of Walter's original revert that you undid. He then flip flopped his view after my revert at which point I revised the wording to purely point out the linkage of names to past clubs

The beyond sharing the same name as the original NASL, several of the clubs are named for or linked to earlier professional soccer clubs in their markets such as the 1970s-era original Tampa Bay Rowdies and Tampa Bay Rowdies as well as the original Fort Lauderdale Strikers and Fort Lauderdale Strikers<ref>http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-04-07/sports/fl-strikers-season-preview-0408-20110407_1_miami-fc-coach-daryl-shore-traffic-sports</ref> and most recently with the rebirth of the New York Cosmos sharing a link to the original New York Cosmos.

Minnesota United FC joined the NASL originally as the NSC Minnesota Stars after the collapse of the Minnesota Thunder following the 2010 season. For 2012, the team was rebranded the Minnesota Stars FC and subsequently rebranded again for 2013 as Minnesota United FC once Bill McGuire acquired the club.<ref>http://nasl.com/index.php?id=3&newsid=4144</ref>

Walter failed to review the change and simply reverted at which point I reverted again and added even further support from this article in the NYT quoting then NASL Commissioner Downs when the Cosmos announced they would join the league. <ref>http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/cosmos-to-play-in-n-a-s-l-in-13/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1</ref>

"We are extremely proud to welcome the New York Cosmos to the North American Soccer League,” Commissioner David Downs said in a news release. “As we continue to expand the league and help grow professional soccer in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean, the Cosmos brand and their strong ownership group are a perfect fit with us.

“The history of the Cosmos and soccer in the New York City area are intertwined. Bringing the Cosmos into the N.A.S.L. is a logical next step as we embrace the heritage of our own past and now reunite the Cosmos, Strikers, Rowdies and several markets with ties to the N.A.S.L.’s early days. Most importantly, we look forward to the Cosmos enhancing the quality of our league both on and off the field.

This section is relevant just as it is on the MLS article. There are 10 active teams in the league and the section talks about 3 with common name / entity histories linked to the original NASL (similar to how the MLS article is presented) and also separately discusses that it is notable that Minnesota United FC has gone through two separate rebrandings since joining the league, not counting the fact that they were the direct successor to the Minnesota Thunder. Other less notable points could have been mentioned but I didn't feel they merited specific mention. Mak888 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Names in list

We need to hammer out how we're writing the names of the teams. As it was there was inconsistency between the way the team names are written in the article text and how they appeared in the list of teams. I've now made the list match the article text, which in turn match the titles of the actual articles. I think that's the appropriate way to present them; if the titles need to be changed they should be changed at the articles themselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

...and it was reverted. Any reasoning?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that in at least the case of Jacksonville Armada FC, the "FC" is part of the common name. The team was just named last week and so far most of the available sources call them "Jacksonville Armada FC", not "Jacksonville Armada".[2][3][4][5][6] As such, removing it replaces the common name with an invented one - and as I already pointed out, it introduces an inconsistency between the table and the forms actually used in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning? This has been established already at WP:Football that we should not show the "FC". How about that? Look at Premier League or La Liga if you want examples from soccer pages mate. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

ArsenalFan700, are you going to respond to my comments, or are you just going to keep reverting? I've already explained that the table is inconsistent with the actual article, and in one case (and probably more) it's going against the common name used in the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I just replied to you. And I am reverting because a consensus on names has already been long established at WP:Football. If you want a change than take this there because this is what you are fighting for anyway... a change in how we have teams named. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. However, that reasoning simply isn't adequate for the reasons I gave. Jacksonville Armada FC is the common name that appears in the available sources; we can't just invent a name to conform to a WikiProject's internal preference. And you haven't commented on the problems of consistency between this table and the actual article it appears in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The common name for many European teams includes the FC, yet we still pipe them out. Sorry. You're not going to win this argument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about European teams, we're talking about the teams named in this article. Regardless of how Europeans do it, we're dealing with names that are rarely found without "FC", and articles that include it in their titles. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR are policies; handwaving responses about some WikiProject preference aren't going to cut it. And no one has responded to the fact that names (correctly) including "FC" already appear in the article - this fixation on consistency with other countries' soccer leagues has resulted in inconsistency within this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You may not be talking about European teams but the rest of us are.

We're not talking about how Europeans do it, we're talking about how all football articles are done.

There is no original research here at all just like there are no RSes. What we have is glorified press releases for Jacksonville as the team has not played yet and so it's too soon to see what their common name will be. And your sources disagree. Some say that they are going to be called "Jacksonville Armada FC" while others indicate "Armada FC" (and can you blame them for not wanting to be associated with the city?) and one source indicates both "Jacksonville Armada" and "Jacksonville Armada Football Club". So WTF is the common name you're seeking? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty clear: most sources currently available are referring to the team as "Jacksonville Armada FC". In those that call them something else, it's usually in addition to "Jacksonville Armada FC", and "Jacksonville Armada" isn't even more common than other variants. So there's no real justification for preferring that version. Forcing it to be "how all football articles are done" is not reason for ignoring what the sources use and the way "all articles period are done" on Wikipedia.

In the event the common use changes we can move the article and then update others accordingly. And for the third time, what do you have to say about the inconsistency your version introduces into the article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you were very clear, but the sources are not. Shall we rely on your OR or do you have RSes to support the supposed common name? It's clear that there is still no single common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources are clear if you actually read them. But let's say you're right and "FC" isn't part of the common name, or otherwise isn't needed. Why is it in the article title? What's the sense in having the articles at one title but then using a different title in (some references in) other related articles?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. "If I actually read them." I'm not sure how I could get the information I provided above without reading them. Do you have some RSes that agree on what the common name of the team will be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

URL	Headline term	Jacksonville Armada FC	Armada FC	Armada	Jacksonville Armada Football Club
[7]	Jacksonville Armada FC	2	5	2
[8]	Armada FC	2	2	1
[9]	Jacksonville Armada FC	8	3
[10]	Jacksonville Armada				1
[11]	Armada FC	2	2	1

I've done one better, statistical analysis of the breakdown of terms from the select sources provided. We still don't know the common name. When we have more sources than the name announcements, we;ll know for sure. For the record, I'm not opposed to leaving it as you have it now provided that "it's been like this since the team announced their name" is not a future argument if it's clear that they drop the FC or something similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have a better picture when more sources appear, but in the meantime we take what we've got. As you've shown, "Jacksonville Armada FC" is evidently the most common, and "Jacksonville Armada" isn't the most prominent among the other variants. "Jacksonville Armada FC" is also the team's official name and the name of the article on it. I certainly don't see the need to insist on using something else here, especially in only one place and not the rest of the article, and especially when the topic's article is still using the full name. Jacksonville's just the example I've researched the most; the same holds for the others. What's the sense in enforcing an alternate name in only one place in the league article, and not the rest of the article or at the teams' actual articles?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Most common because that's what the company wants to be known as, but not certain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Until more sources appear, it is certain. There's certainly no reason to use some other form in only one place, and not the rest of the article, and not at the subject's article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't go there. You are the one who fought for this in "only one place" and I let you get away with it there based on your argument that it was their common name, but it's just as easy to make it uniform. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? My position has always been that we should use "Jacksonville Armada FC" consistently. Because it's the WP:COMMONNAME. What possible reason could there be for using another, less common form in just one place?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

At Template talk:North American Soccer League. I backed down from your bullying and let you have your way there but it's just as easy to make them consistent here, there and everywhere. Find RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. The article is at Jacksonville Armada FC, the rest of the uses in this article are to "Jacksonville Armada FC", and your own analysis indicates this is most common in the available sources. Why should this one mention in one list use a different, substantially less common name?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that I'm a brick wall.

My analysis indicates that there is no common name although some sources prefer one name over another. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, what is your reasoning for insisting on a less common spelling in this one instance in the article and not the rest, and not at the main article itself?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to start over. Would you object to changing the names in that box to the way they appear in the articles themselves, and in the rest of this article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you show that they are the common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "Some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.)" Your own analysis showed that it's more common, and that "Jacksonville Armada" is relatively uncommon. If you don't think it's the common name, propose to move the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Virginia's start delayed because of the building of their stadium or because they can't find an alternative?

This edit and others like it before that, would have us believe that the phrase "With a number of variables regarding our stadium and having exhausted numerous alternative Northern Virginia venues, it is best for the team and the League to wait one more year to begin play". The other cite names the field" supports that the delays in construction of Edelman Financial Field somehow equates to their delay when the source clearly indicates that the reason is that they can't find an alternate field while that stadium is being built.

I won't offer any OR as to what I read between the lines here, but I will state that what the article is saying and what the sources state do not agree. They don't mention the construction of the field. They don't mention delays in its construction. They don't say anything about it at all. Also, it might be better suited to discuss actual delays in the team's article and simply leave a high-level discussion that they were delayed in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Virginia's start delayed," not Jacksonville. But thank you for explaining what the problem was, much more productive than just reverting and templating. The edits were an attempt to update the section, which still claimed Virginia was lined up for 2014 and that they "plan to play in the new Edelman Financial Field", which still isn't finished. The Post source indicates that the stadium construction was delayed and that the status of the Cavalry (and the associated baseball team) was firmly tied to the stadium project. The press release indicates they rescheduled for 2015 due to these issues. I felt my edits were a reasonable summary of those sources as much as it's relevant to this article, or at least that it could be corrected easily with wording improvements. Other sources I've found confirm the same.[12][13][14] The only thing the press release adds I didn't include is that the Cavalry failed to find an alternate venue, which of course wouldn't have been necessary if the stadium that was their reason for being was completed. At any rate I'm sure we can come up with wording based on these sources that effectively explains the Cavalry in light of the league's expansion. I'll take another stab at it tomorrow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Virginia Cavalry FC are also scheduled to join in 2015. The Cavalry were originally announced as a 2014 expansion team to be based in the planned Edelman Financial Field in Ashburn, Virginia, but construction delays and failure to find a suitable alternative venue set back their debut", using the above sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead added this material. Presumably it's not controversial as there's been no opposition for several days and lengthy discussion continued above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)