Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (USL)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the USA and Canada task force.
Vancouver Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.


Contents

[edit] Spilt Pages

should the this page be split in 2 the orginal and the current whitecaps

NO. I can't believe that you did this! Now you have to have a separate page for the 86ers. --Walter Görlitz 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No they won't. The 86ers and new Whitecaps are the same franchise in the same city so they can stay together.


Perhaps you could mention the Whitecaps all time starting 11?

Source http://whitecapsfc.com/teams/mens/alltimestarting11/

which just goes to show that the in the mind of the current franchise, the "old Whitecaps", the 86ers and the "current Whitecaps", and the team that will be an MLS franchise when the new stadium is completed are a continuum. It's a bad idea to separate them. Look at the various other sports franchises that have a long history. They trace their roots back to early professional teams in the regions. This is a bad, bad idea. --Walter Görlitz 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of league

I've removed the text "the largest system of national soccer leagues in North America" from the lead section for discussion here. Chriswonky had added "second" to the line, which I removed as there was no reference or details as to what the largest might be. He has since asked to return it, but after researching the articles on the two systems, it appears to me that the USL is the larger system. I'm basing this on the fact that Major League Soccer has thirteen teams in total, while the United Soccer Leagues encompasses three men's divisions, the women's W-League, and a youth league. The MSL is the top level of professional soccer in the United States (and will be in Canada when Toronto starts play), and perhaps that is what Chriswonky is referring to. However, the text would need to be rewritten to make that point. (The other option is to leave it out, as I've done, since the league articles are linked.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead to incorporate the second-tier status, using language from the Portland article. I've also cleaned up the text a bit and removed a redirect. Hopefully this will address Chriswonky's concerns. --Ckatzchatspy 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fans

"The two biggest supporters' groups.....both of whom often chant and sing" - unless North American crowds are radically different from those here in Europe, I wouldn't say that the fact that they chant and sing is especially unusual for fans at a football/soccer match, does it really need to be mentioned? ChrisTheDude 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Most American fans are passive at Football/Soccer outings. --Walter Görlitz 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oldcapslogo.gif

Image:Oldcapslogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there's no longer copyright over such photo. I checked to the Canadian office for the Intellectual Property and learnt here that Whitecaps' old logo seems to be actually abandoned - so not protected by any copyright. Could "no copyright" be a fair rationale use? :) Sergio (146.133.254.83 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Page move

The page move/split was *not* done properly... first off, it should have been discussed. Secondly, the edit history is now with the "old team" page, when it should have gone to the "new team" page as that is where most of the edits are from. I'm posting a notice at the move page to see if an admin can fix this properly. --Ckatzchatspy 06:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

AGREE! - I 100% agree with this. The fact that was not discussed is the most disturbing part. --Walter Görlitz 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes and I don't understand why. I wrote the Italian article and kept all in one article only. Sergio. (146.133.254.85 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
Sorry for the delay - I've just filed for a repair at the "Requested moves" page. --Ckatzchatspy 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the USL page redirects to Vancouver Whitecaps, this page has been restored to the non-split version, and I'm going to tweak the move request so that this article is returned to Vancouver Whitecaps. --Ckatzchatspy 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Moving the article as per this request. Dekimasuよ! 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... it is certainly appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of operations

I do agree that the Vancouver Whitecaps page should reflect both the old and new teams, but I think the page order should be different; at least, the year-by-year stats should go at the end of the article. Currently, the order is Honours - NASL History - NASL Players - NASL Year-By-Year - NASL Attendance Statistics - 86ers History - USL Whitecaps History - USL Whitecaps Year By Year - Rival Clubs - Other Teams [in the organization - Fans - New Stadium - USL Squad - Record Attendance. I think the article would be a lot more coherent if it went History (all clubs, this can include the bit about the new stadium) - Rivals - Fans - Current Squad - Honours (all clubs) - Year by Year (all clubs) - Notable Former Players (all clubs) - Attendance (all clubs). If nobody is in opposition, I might affect these changes.

Another problem, and more important, I think, is where we plan on noting that this article concerns mainly the men's side and doesn't have a lot to do with the women's or youth teams. In the header? In a subsection, as it's currently done? DamionOWA 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Separation Proposal

There should be two pages for the Vancouver Whitecaps. One for the NASL team and one for the USL team. They are two distinct franchises. Other franchises that are named after NASL teams have separate pages. Why should the Whitecaps be different? For examples, see Baltimore Bays (ASL), Baltimore Bays (USISL)]], Detroit Express (ASL), Edmonton Drillers (NPSL), Edmonton Drillers (CMISL), Fort Lauderdale Strikers (APSL), Fort Lauderdale Strikers (USISL), Las Vegas Quicksilver (USISL), Portland Timbers (USL), San Diego Sockers (2001-2004), San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders (USL), Toronto Blizzard (1986-1993), Tulsa Roughnecks (USISL), and Washington Diplomats (APSL). I can get more examples if needed. KitHutch 13:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the original was a major league NASL team that is now defunct. The current team is minor league and took the NASL name after years of going by the name 86ers. These teams have nothing in common other than the name/city. Definately split them -- Cmjc80 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposed as per the last attempt at splitting this page by Cmjc80. --Ckatzchatspy 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Several issues come to mind here. First off, I've reverted the addition of the template. It should be placed, given this discussion, but it was incorrectly applied and messed up the article. Feel free to restore it correctly; if no-one has done so, I'll try to get to it tonight. Second, please note that this is the second attempt to split the article in recent months; the first one failed because there was no support to do so. Third, both attempts were done incorrectly through the use of cut-and-paste moves. If this page is eventually split, the changes *must* be done properly in order to preserve edit histories. --Ckatzchatspy 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at other sports besides the soccer examples listed above, there are many other precedents where pages are split along franchises. Examples include Washington Senators, Washington Nationals, Milwaukee Brewers, Cincinnati Reds, Baltimore Orioles, along with Denver Nuggets (original) and Ottawa Senators. Its very confusing to have the histories of two unrelated teams on the same page. These pages are going to have to be split to get in line with the formatting of other team pages. Once split, a history merge request will be made to move the page history to the USL team's page -- Cmjc80 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there has been no additional opposition, I kept the USL Vancouver Whitecaps on this page and moved the NASL information to Vancouver Whitecaps (NASL). KitHutch 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverted, for now, os there is no overwhelming consensus for such a move. (It's not just a numbers game, and given that the last attempt failed, there is no rush. Plus, any split should be done properly; we still have to look into how to properly preserve the edit histories before any possible split is done.) --Ckatzchatspy 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Having one article for both Vancouver Whitecaps teams goes against every other Wikipedia sports article. These are two separate teams. The only thing connecting them is a common name. KitHutch 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)