From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to add Commissioner's Cup/Regular Season Champions to Infobox

With the regular season championship/Commissioner's Cup win being a significant achievement for any club (arguably more impressive than single game play-off victories), I propose a new infobox parameter be added for this page or similar pages that would benefit from a "Regular Season Champions" parameter (such as the North American Soccer League article). The new parameter could be similar to that of the Current Supporters' Shield parameter created for Major League Soccer. I see there is an existing parameter for Current shield {{{shield}}} holder, however this title has little context. I have limited experience editing templates so if somebody could advise or help with this? Thx. Fhurion ( talk) 00:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Eastern/Western Conferences

Does anyone have any source for the breakout of the 2015 teams by Conference. If not I suggest we maintain a single table until the schedule is released or further official announcement comes from USL. PS if this pic from this article is the only reference - it seems pretty rumorish to me and it is the source of all other news articles I could find. The only thing we know for sure from the Charlotte Independence announcement is that they intend to have 2 conferences. -- Trödel 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Confirmation of rumors by USL http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/home/857836.html. I'm highly curious about the rivalries that they will create. My Guess (I would put the MLS teams into 2 groups to enhance those rivalries - a mostly Canadian group I think would be beneficial [although you lose the Seattle/Portland/Vancouver matchups] - I would keep some long term rivalries in place Pittsburgh/Harrisburg/Richmond/Rochester and Charleston/Wilmington plus the Charleston/Orlando City rivalry was heating up a bit and could be maintained with Louisville):
  1. Austin, OKC, Tulsa, St. Louis
  2. Colorado Springs, Arizona, LA Blues, Sacramento
  3. Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake, LA Galaxy
  4. Louisville, Charlotte, Wilmington, Charleston
  5. Pittsburgh, Harrisburg City, Richmond, Rochester
  6. Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, New York
Any other thoughts? -- Trödel 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

New name

The USL Pro is now simply USL, or United Soccer League. This article and many subarticles (like 2015 USL Pro season) and templates (like {{ Current USL Pro Stadiums}}) will need to be renamed. The problem is that there already is an article at United Soccer League, and a dab page at USL. Thoughts on what the new article title should be? Powers T 15:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

  • It's always best for the full unadorned name to be on the current or most chronologically recent league. I remember when the current NASL was formed and its name originally was 2010–, but they eventually re-arranged it so the current league had the NASL name. As for "USL", that should remain a dab. -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Requested move 10 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Uncontroversial move that has been posted for at least 7 days. -- Trödel 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

– The USL Pro just re-branded to United Soccer League and appears to be the primary topic. – Michael ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael ( talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support I was going to suggest the same. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, though I do think we need to figure out what to do with the United Soccer Leagues article, as the plural isn't easily distinguishable. It remains to be seen what the relationship between the renamed ex-USL Pro and the other leagues under the umbrella is going to be, and if the umbrella organization is even going to keep its name, or if it's going to change it to avoid confusion. Regardless, the men's professional league, as the direct minor league affiliate of MLS is pretty much the only credible claim for primary topic, as it was already the parent organization's main claim to fame. oknazevad ( talk) 05:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    • It was United Soccer Leagues before the name change to USL Pro. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Correction: United Soccer Leagues is the governing body that runs the leagues. USL Pro was created from merging USL First Division and USL Second Division. -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 11:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Exactly. The league formerly known as USL Pro was not known as "United Soccer Leagues" prior. That is the parent organization also oversees the PDL, W-League, some youth leagues, and oversaw the last incarnation of the MISL for some time. It was previously known as the USISL, and it continued after the formation of USL Pro. Indeed the "Pro" was put on the league name to emphasize the professional nature of the league compared to the other leagues under the USL umbrella which are all amateur or semi-pro. I was speculating that they might change the name if the parent organization in light of the name change of the men's pro league to avoid confusion oknazevad ( talk) 13:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
        • No correction is needed, only clarification. United Soccer Leagues is the governing body and it existed prior to USL Pro. There was a league called United Soccer League as stated above. Sorry for the confusion. I understood what I was saying, but it didn't come out that way. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is standard procedure for when a current league uses a previously-used league name. For precedent: When the current North American Soccer League was formed, it was originally adorned with (2010), but eventually moved to just the name. -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 11:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I'm still not so sure that was a good move considering how much more famous the original NASL (and especially the Cosmos) was in its day. The current set up I think exposes a flaw in our use of sources: modern on-line sources are more numerous and accessible than older print ones, but the latter were more widely read than any modern source, and so a straight count of sources to establish primacy can be tricky. There may be more sources using the name to refer to the current league, but the sources using it to refer to the former league were more widely read and so may be a better indicator of what most people think of when they hear the name. oknazevad ( talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, though as @ Oknazevad: states the NASL analogy is a poor one as that appears to be a bad move. Giant Snowman 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Timeline

I setup the timeline with the teams that were continuing the same "USL license" being on the same line. However, with Orlando City announcing a new USL team that will play in Central Florida - I am wondering if we should move that on the same line as the former Orlando City MLS team and put Louisville City on a new line. Basically change the timeline so it tracks approximate location on the same line rather than the official "license" on the same line. I am going to make that change, but am open to other interpretations, so if you don't like it just revert and lets discuss here. Thx -- Trödel 15:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Soccer League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

USL vs United Soccer Leagues vs USL Pro

I disagree with this undo. The company that provides administrative support to USL, PDL and Super Y youth leagues is United Soccer Leagues, LLC (first a George LLC, then a Florida LLC. When we use USL for both the company that runs multiple leagues and for the name of the league itself it is confusing. Now I am not sure that ll of the changes I made are clearly the Company (instead of the League), I know that some of them at least are referencing the company rather than the league. I'm going to go through and edit again more carefully but would prefer that there be a discussion rather than wholesale undo. Thx!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.254.90 ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Interesting point. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Rochester Hiatus on timeline

As the Rhinos are expected to return for 2019, how should this be shown on the timeline? Red Jay ( talk) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  • It seems consistent with showing the three teams that start in 2019 that the Rhinos be shown as returning then, even though it is presumptive. It's better than showing the hiatus continuing. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 21:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

East Bay v Oakland East Bay

There's some confusion here, I'm hoping it's all in WP:GOODFAITH rather than being a slow edit war! It looks that it's going to be called USL East Bay or East Bay, based on the online presence of the organization and the reporting. The confusion is due to news reports of the team being in the "Oakland East Bay area." That's not the same as saying the team will be called "Oakland East Bay" – in the reference I saw someone use to support "Oakland East Bay," you could read further down the story and it refers to the team as "East Bay." Jack N. Stock ( talk) 14:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Teams list

@ Red Jay: Having the list sortable makes the Eastern Conference and Western Conference headers jump around and it looks weird. SportsFan007 ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply

@ SportsFan007: It's a shame that happens. To me it's not a big problem, but fair enough. Red Jay ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree. It's not a big deal. There are ways to solve it, other than removing the ability to sort. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Cincinnati is not "joining" MLS despite what the sources state

MLS is a single entity. Teams are franchises of the entity. So while ESPN states they're "moving", that term is not used by MLS ( [1] [2]). This has been the case with Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal and several other clubs that stopped operation in lower leagues and then started teams in MLS. I won't edit war over it, but it will be clear soon enough. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"The club, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS..." Both the MLS articles say the same thing, that the existing FC Cincinnati is joining MLS, not that a new entity is being created. It's fine to change it if you can cite sources, but these don't support what you're saying. For contrast, consider Nashville, where it's clear the MLS team will be a completely different entity, with different investors than the current USL team. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that you need WP:RS. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply
A lack of history kills. Seattle and Vancouver were initially told that they could not use their former names when joining MLS. They eventually convinced MLS to allow them to. Portland, which joined in the same season as Vancouver, although completed their contract negotiations a few weeks after them, didn't have to fight for it. Montreal, Minnesota, etc. (all teams subsequent to Portland) didn't have to fight for their name. The league is simply stating that they're allowing them to use the same name. No RSes needed. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Birmingham Legion FC

Birmingham Legion FC is a team with a logo, a player, a coach, a general manager, a stadium, supporter's group, and recognition from the United Soccer League, shouldn't that allow it its own Wikipedia page instead of it being just a redirection to the leagues Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.16.109 ( talk) 13:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

What about significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? That's what is needed for an article. (See WP:GNG) Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Soccer Leagues which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Icons for stadium type

A few days ago, I added icons to the "current clubs" table (both here and on 2019 USL Championship season) to visually represent whether a stadium was a ballpark, soccer-specific stadium or multi-purpose stadium. (You can see the table with the icons in this revision of the page.) User:Oknazevad has reverted my changes, citing WP:ICONDECORATION as a reason to revert. I'll copy that policy here:

Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative.

I don't think my use of icons goes against this policy. The icons I added served an encyclopedic purpose -- they show what type each stadium is, in a manner that is significantly easier to read. The footnotes that were used before I added the icons were difficult to read, and made it nearly impossible to see the bigger picture. You had to really focus in on a particular row to figure out what its footnote said, so you couldn't look at the table as a whole and see what every stadium type was at once. I am not the only person who finds the icons improved readability: User:Roberto221 left me a talk page message saying that they found the table much easier to read with my changes.

I think instead, the icons are supported by the first bullet point at WP:APPROPRIATEICONS:

Icons may be helpful in certain situations:

  • Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox. This should only be done if the icon has been used previously with an explanation of its purpose.

The icons are used repeatedly in a table, and have a legend below the table explaining their purpose (I'd be perfectly happy for the legend to be moved above the table to comply with the "used previously" wording). The icons are also fully accessible, as they have hover text explaining their meaning in addition to the legend. @ Oknazevad: Could you please explain why you found my use of icons inappropriate? Thanks, IagoQnsi ( talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that icons should not be used. This is not an infobox. It's a table. There is no ability to hover on a mobile device.
The icons were too small as well. The black blob that was being used to represent baseball had no distinguishing character.
Finally, is there a reason we need to know what type of stadium is being used? Is there an encyclopedic value to knowing it's used for another sport as well? In Europe, Australia, and many other nations, fields (pitches) are used for other things as well (rugby, cricket, Ausie rules football, hockey, and a host of other sports) depending on the facility, yet the articles for leagues in those locations make no mention of the nature of the use. Seems odd that there's a need for it here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Precisely as Walter said. The icons didn't add anything that the foot notes didn't cover by way of information, and used unclear images, all while making the page more difficult to use on mobile. Within the general WP:MOSICON guideline, there's the WP:WORDPRECEDENT portion. While that's specifically about flag icons, the underlying idea, that unclear icons should not be used when simple words will do, holds true here. There's also possible WP:ACCESS issues with using icons instead of simple footnotes. In short, they convey no additional information, and therefor shouldn't be used. oknazevad ( talk) 02:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Orlando City / Louisville team continuity

There has been a discussion on my Talk page with @ Dsides12: about the continuity between Orlando City SC (2010–14) and Louisville City FC (2015–present). When Orlando joined MLS in 2015, they transferred their USL operating license to Louisville. Dsides believes that Louisville's founding/joined league date should be 2008, the year the original Austin Aztex FC were founded (that team would become Orlando in 2010, pre-USL). I argue that Louisville is not the same entity as Orlando City as they are treated separately for statistical purposes (e.g. Lou has just won their 2nd USL title, not 4th) and the fact that there was no roster overlap between the last season in Orlando (2014) and the first season in Louisville (2015). Would anyone care to weigh in? – BLAIXX 21:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Is that sourced somewhere? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes it is Walter...scroll down and there is an article from the Austin-American Statesman (the Austin newspaper) describing the team relocating to Orlando. The second article is from Major League Soccer itself stating that Orlando City SC (the USL team) is moving to Louisville to make way for the MLS expansion team. I had thought, when I posted the sources, this was a done issue. Obviously Blaixx can't let go of needing to be right, even though the facts show he isn't. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Is what? BLAIXX 22:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Um,
  1. The transfer of the operating license.
  2. Anything about Louisville founding and joining.
  3. Potential roster overlap.
Statements can always be batted around. A reliable source to back a statement is harder to refute. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Which is why I posted the two articles showing the facts of the move from Austin to Orlando and Orlando to Louisville. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Well typically the WP:ONUS is on the individual including disputed content to provide proof. Currently Dsides12 has edited the article to show that Louisville joined the league in 2008, despite the league's first season being in 2011. Any attempt to restore the status quo is reverted. When I have time I could provide some sources to aid this discussion. – BLAIXX 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The USL didn't "start" in 2011 either. What we have now is the culmination of league starts and mergers since 1985 with the Western Soccer Alliance, American Soccer League (merged into the American Professional Soccer League in 1990) and then the APSL merged with the USISL which itself started as an indoor league in 1986. It started it's outdoor league in 1989 as the Southwest Outdoor League. The league had a few name changes before absorbing the APSL in 1996--the APSL which had changed it's same after 1994 to the A-League. The 2011 name change was another merger, or more a bringing back together of the USL First and USL Second Divisions under a USL Pro name. The organization didn't start going by United Soccer League (USL) until 2015. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

[1] This is the article about the Austin Aztex FC moving to Orlando. Dsides12 ( talk) 23:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

[2] This is the article from MLS about Orlando City FC moving to Louisville. It's all the same team. Dsides12 ( talk) 23:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I do see your point, there is some continuity between those three teams. However, the teams are treated by the media as separate clubs and I believe Wikipedia should reflect that.
I believe this to be a similar situation to when the San Jose Earthquakes unambiguously moved to Houston in 2005/6. Despite this move, Houston is considered to be a seperate team that first played in 2006 and does not receive credit for championships won in 2001 and 2003 in San Jose. BLAIXX 01:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dsides12: Yes I do pay attention, do you have any response to my above comment? I fully understand your logic and it has some merit but you are ignoring mine and not discussing in good faith. Furthermore, you are creating inconsistencies in this article. The "Joined" column of the table you are editing indicates the first year the club played in USL Pro/USL/USLC. This cannot be 2008 as the first USL Pro season was 2011. BLAIXX 21:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20120901/Aztex-leaving-Austin-for-Orlando
  2. ^ https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2014/06/04/orlando-citys-usl-pro-franchise-move-louisville-2015-will-become-mls-teams-affiliate

It's not even close to when San Jose moved to Houston. That move was established by the league that all history was staying in San Jose and the Houston team, though taking all the players and coaches, was a new team. If you read the references I posted, one from the Austin newspaper and one from MLS itself, you would see that the "media" did not and does not consider all three teams separate which is obvious by the article detailing the move of the club from Austin to Orlando and Orlando to Louisville. It isn't just my logic---it's documented history of the club. It seems you can't handle being wrong, as this issue was laid out weeks ago with the documentation. All "three teams" are in fact ONE TEAM. It's not even a real debatable topic. You are deliberately misleading readers...STOP THAT. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

based on the sources that Dsides12 has provided that the "franchise" relocated and it is continuity. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Although the organization we know as the USL started in 1986 and not 2011, I'm fine with the compromise that is listed for the Louisville franchise of founding in 2008 and "joining" in 2011. It isn't all the way correct, but it's much better than what it was when I began correcting the info. Not to put too fine a point on my vehement disagreement that Austin Aztex FC (2008-10), Orlando City SC (2010-14) and Louisville City (2014-) are separate teams, both the Austin Aztec FC and Orlando City SC wikipedia pages have lines stating each moved and became the next. I will take solace in that I got the origin year in place. Dsides12 ( talk) 19:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dsides12: It is true that Louisville City FC's USL franchise rights were originally Orlando City's and Austin Aztex FC's before that. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that we should consider all of these to be the same team. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and all sources seem to consider Louisville City FC to be a new team that simply obtained its franchise rights from Orlando City. To cite a few:
  • Official/primary sources
  • Secondary sources
These are just a few; I could keeping searching for more, but they would surely indicate the same conclusion. Pretty much every source that is covering Louisville City considers it a club that was founded in 2014 and began play in 2015. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 22:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The sources Dsides provided are both from before Louisville's first season before the scope of the team transfer was known. The final outcome was that Louisville had a new majority owner, new manager, new roster ( 2014 OC – 2015 LC), and the fact that newer sources (such as the ones I included above) refer to Louisville "franchise history" beginning in 2015. However, if we are to consider OC and LC to be the same franchise, should we not be consistent on this page and indicate that that franchise has won 4 USL Cups? BLAIXX 22:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The "new" owner of the team was a minority owner when the team was in Orlando. (Wayne Estopinal) [1] Dsides12 ( talk) 21:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above message by User:Blaixx was originally posted below User:Walter Görlitz's message from 05:05, 29 November 2018. I am moving it here to maintain the sequential order of messages (per WP:REFACTOR). – IagoQnsi ( talk) 22:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dsides12: I reject your accusation that I am "deliberately misleading readers." I understand you have strong beliefs on this topic but I urge you to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle and WP:assume good faith, both now and in the future. BLAIXX 22:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Dude, it doesn't matter what fansites like soccerway have to say. I know those guys....fans yes, but not they don't know everything. "Louisville taking Orlando's spot.." means the team MOVED. The sources I provided were as the moves were happening. To say Louisville FC has its first ever season in 2014 is to say the Los Angeles Lakers had their first ever season in 1960. The franchise has won 4 USL cups. It's the same in other sports...we don't say the San Francisco Giants have only won 4 World Series, they have 8--New York is included. You are misleading readers by making it seem the franchise sprung up out of thin air in 2014 when in fact it has been in constant operation since 2008. Even the wikipedia pages atest to this. You are the one acting in bad faith and it's getting fairly childish and ridiculous on your part. You just can't accept that someone knows more than you--that you aren't right about everything....classic case of keyboard cowboy. I expect better from people who, from what I have seen on your talk page, is an avid contributor to good pages here. YOu have to admit in this case, you're just wrong. The Austin newspaper and MLS articles as well as the Austin Aztec FC and Orlando City SC wikipedia pages ALL seal the deal and it's irrefutable. You need to learn to let go and accept reality and the facts that are there and not try and create your own. Dsides12 ( talk) 01:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
This is basically the definition of WP:UNCIVIL: personal attacks, rudeness, and disrespectful comments. You need to step back and engage in a proper manner. If you have an issue with an editor, this is not the place to have that row. Jay eyem ( talk) 01:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
It is not a personal attack. What I'm doing to showing a blatant disregard for facts. When editors continue to make erroneous edits with no regard for established sources, THAT is quite disrespectful and rude. When those who are ignorant of facts can't accept what is true, they will never come to an agreement. I have accepted the 2011 joining year, even though it's incorrect. The 2008 founding year edit was not made by me, so it showed an consensus. When someone reverts back to the 2014 founding year, that is rude and disrespectful others. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I've sent an email directly to Louisville City FC. Here's hoping I get a response soon. If and when I do, I will post the franchise's response. For now, let's keep the consensus where we have it with the founding year of 2008 and the joining year of 2011. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dsides12: There is no consensus for 2008 or 2011. The implicit consensus which has stood for years is that Louisville City FC was founded in 2014 and began play in 2015. When you changed it, it was promptly disputed, so the prior consensus still stands.
When you say things like, "You are the one acting in bad faith and it's getting fairly childish and ridiculous on your part. You just can't accept that someone knows more than you--that you aren't right about everything....classic case of keyboard cowboy."... you're no longer talking about the issue at hand, you're making attacks against other editors. Name-calling and condescending messages are hurtful and uncalled for, and they lead to everyone being unhappy. We are all just humans trying our best to make an encyclopedia. I don't care if I'm always right or if I "win" in every discussion; I just want to build the best Wikipedia, and I assume you do too. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, I want a better place to get information, but I want that information to be correct. There are those on here that just refuse to accept any changes, even when presented with verifiable facts. Those folks are acting in bad faith and quite childish. Just because one doesn't like what is posted, even if it's right, doesn't mean they get to stomp their feet and ignore facts. It's rather insulting for valid sources I posted to be ignored. Not every hasto agree on things, and no one will ever all agree on much of anything. However, when there is an article from the local paper of the team moving to Orlando and from Major League Soccer of the team moving to Louisville and the wikipedia pages from both the Austin and Orlando teams posts of each move as well, to still ignore the information is malicious, intentional and disrespectful to the creators of those pages, the Austin newspaper, Major League Soccer and Louisville City. It really should be this hard to take the facts as they are presented. Dsides12 ( talk) 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
More evidence the team relocated from Orlando "Estopinal, a longtime minority owner in the Orlando City Soccer Club, started his push to relocate that franchise's USL Pro operation to Louisville late last year, when MLS included Orlando in its expansion plans." [2] Dsides12 ( talk) 21:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
From the MLS Orlando City team history page "Orlando City SC was formed in 2010, when Phil Rawlins purchased the USL PRO rights for Central Florida and moved the Austin Aztex organization to Orlando. [3] Dsides12 ( talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
From the Austin Business Journal Oct 26, 2010, 1:45pm Headline reads After just two seasons in Austin, the Aztex soccer franchise is moving to Orlando, Fla., officials announced Monday. [4] Dsides12 ( talk) 21:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The Austin to Orlando move posted in SBNation with the headline Austin Aztex Officially Announce Plans To Move To Orlando, Play In USL-Pro [5] Dsides12 ( talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
From SBi Soccer on the move from Orlando to Louisville Orlando City's USL franchise to rebrand, relocate to Louisville [6] Dsides12 ( talk) 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dsides12: I don't think those sources necessarily contradict the claim that Louisville City was established in 2014. The Austin Aztex franchise moved from Austin to Louisville to establish a new club called Louisville City FC. Same franchise/organization, but new club. It's similar to how we consider Milton Keynes Dons a separate club from Wimbledon F.C. The franchise moved to Milton Keynes and formed a new club. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ IagoQnsi: No, no it isn't anything like Wimbledon's move to Milton. It's not like San Jose's move to Houston. It's not Cleveland's move to Baltimore. Reading the article it's obvious Austin Aztex FC moved to Orlando to become Orlando City SC--Same Team. Orlando City SC moved to Louisville to become Louisville City FC--Same Team. Minority owner in Orlando takes majority position in Louisville. It's the same team. All one has to do is accept the facts that are presented. It boggles the mind how folks here can't do that. If the franchise/organization is the same---the club is the same, just in different cities. Dsides12 ( talk) 03:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dsides12: How is Louisville unlike Wimbledon or San Jose or Cleveland? You haven't made a persuasive argument as to why this move was different; you've just made more insults. The issue here is not that the rest of us don't understand the facts. We all agree that there was a USL franchise in Austin that then moved to Louisville; the disagreement is whether we should consider Louisville City FC to be a new team, which is more a matter of perspective and opinion than one of fact. There is no objective universal standard which determines what constitutes a new team vs a moved team; we have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, the rest of us have looked at the available sources and facts, and largely agree that Louisville City is a new team. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 05:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ IagoQnsi: Dude---READ. The Austin newspaper and Bizjournal articles clearly state the team moved to Orlando. That isn't like Cleveland or San Jose because when Cleveland moved to Baltimore and when San Jose moved to Houston, all the history, records and stats stayed in Cleveland and San Jose and didn't follow the team to it relocation city. The same goes for Wimbledon. When Wimbledon moved, so did the history and stats. Nothing stayed behind. The universal standard of when a team moves is when multiple news articles from each of the cities says the team is relocating. It's such basic journalism 101. Read the article. It says the team is moving to Orlando. From the MLS site and SBi soccer is clearly states the team is relocating from Orlando to Louisville. I continue to fail to see the difficulty in comprehension. I've listed multiple sources to show the relocations of the club. Dsides12 ( talk) 22:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ /info/en/?search=Louisville_City_FC
  2. ^ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/soccer/2014/06/03/louisville-pro-soccer-club-unveiled-wednesday/9909685/
  3. ^ https://www.orlandocitysc.com/club/history
  4. ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2010/10/26/austin-aztex-moving-to-orlando.html
  5. ^ https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2010/10/22/1767728/usls-austin-aztex-appear-to-be-moving-to-orlando
  6. ^ https://sbisoccer.com/2014/06/louisville-expansion-franchise

USL Buffalo

As per this link https://www.uslchampionship.com/news_article/show/1065804, They will be an expansion team. I was looking through the edits and someone removed them from the expansion list. I was going to undo it but I figrue I would see what everyone else thought before I did it. Joker4lifead ( talk) 04:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

"The awarding of the franchise is contingent upon the construction of a soccer-specific stadium in Buffalo, and completion of economic feasibility studies." I assume this line could be the point of uncertainty. BLAIXX 12:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I see that the Rhode Island team has been added to the page is this not the same thing? For that matter, isn't Boise and Des Moines in the same situation? If they build a stadium they get a team? Should they all be added? ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC

From the RI press release: "The club’s rights have been acquired by Brett M. Johnson, who currently serves as Co-Chair for the Championship’s Phoenix Rising FC". The implication is that this club is now official although the location is pending the construction of a stadium. The Buffalo article seemed to indicate no rights had been purchased yet. BLAIXX 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Fresno FC

Now sure how to work this in the article, but the team is relocating. https://www.fresnofc.com/news_article/show/1072823 Joker4lifead ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Until we know the details, what you've added is sufficient. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

So it looks the ownership did move to Monterey as speculated. Joker4lifead ( talk) 04:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply

New Player articles standards

Figure this is a good place to put this since it probably has a lot of page watchers. For those unaware, there was a recent RfC which basically came to the conclusion that simply playing a pro match (in any league) is not enough for an article anymore. That is, articles which are basically sourced only to stats pages/game reports/etc are not enough and meeting WP:FPL is no longer a thing. They should meet GNG and have a couple references of significant coverage beyond routine mentions per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#To_those_upset_with_sports_coverage_on_Wikipedia. There are a couple discussions in the recent archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football about it too. Basically an article would need more than citations to league match reports/soccerway/etc. Basically, it's okay to create an article after one appearance, but it just requires a higher quality of sourcing now to prove it meets notability guidelines. RedPatch ( talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

"Potential" future teams?

Is there a reason we are including "potential" future teams? The only teams we should have listed here are the ones officially announced by the league themselves; everything else is conjecture. The teams that have been confirmed by the league should remain in the table and the others should be removed until such time that they are officially announced by the league. Jay eyem ( talk) 19:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply

It's not complete conjecture as there are reliable sources indicating that these teams are working towards joining the league but I do agree that it's confusing in the context of the article and should probably be removed. BLAIXX 20:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I suppose not, but that doesn't really feel appropriate for the page. I think removing the ones without official league approval makes the most sense for the article, because as it is now just creates needless confusion. Jay eyem ( talk) 04:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Anything else is just speculation and WP:CRYSTALBALL issues. Even if it's not our speculation, it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which is not a rumor mill. oknazevad ( talk) 05:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Alright, so which of these are done deals? On a cursory look, the only ones that seem to be properly approved are Queensboro and Iowa. Jacksonville, New Orleans, and Milwaukee all seem to be entirely based on rumor at this point, while Rhode Island seems to still be constructing their stadium. I figure definitely include Queensboro and Iowa, and maybe we will see more information on Rhode Island soon. Thoughts? Jay eyem ( talk) 02:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Just the ones with formal announcements from the league. Anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. oknazevad ( talk) 03:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks Jay! Totally agree only officially announced ones should be included -- Trödel 18:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply
While the "potential expansions" do not belong in the list of official expansion clubs, I do think official prospective bids, the ones announced by USL itself, belong in the "Recent History" section. This cuts down on speculation but also reflects the history of where USL intended to place teams, even if it didn't work out in the end.
Another strategy would be including an "expansion" or "expansion history" section which could be eventually made into its own article, such as is the case for similar leagues like Major League Soccer with Expansion of Major League Soccer and National Women's Soccer League with NWSL expansion. Christiangamer7 ( talk) 02:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
That's not an awful idea. I am hesitant to start an entire article for a lower league just because teams in flux is the nature of these leagues, but I agree I think it would be totally appropriate to mention prospective markets in the prose for the history section. I also didn't know there was an article for NWSL expansion, might have to take a look! Jay eyem ( talk) 04:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I wasn't trying to imply it's something that needed to be done, but could be done if it felt like there was too much info in the article. I think USL's story of expansion is quite interesting with the MLS interlude, but true that the nature of American minor leagues is expansion and contraction.
I've done small work on the NWSL one, it needs cleanup/reorganizing but is a pretty good summary of the league's history of having quite many suitors (including Barca!) but nothing coming to being until recently. Christiangamer7 ( talk) 05:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:USL_Championship&oldid=1204229536"