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

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)