Talk:2009 Women's Professional Soccer season

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's sport: WOSO

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Football: American & Canadian / Season / Women's football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Statistics, etc.

With so much of the article currently left blank, I can understand why Grant.Aluph (sp?) deleted most of the stuff. I just wanted to say I had originally included all of that since season articles for other leagues - like the '08-'09 EPL and La Liga - had similar stuff, and I liked the attendance charts from the A-League. So, I thought I'd open discussion on what stuff we want showing and what we deem unnecessary. CyMoahk (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on your talk page. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the cleanup, but I still think we need at least a line explaining the playoffs. The playoff system in WPS is pretty unique, and it's not mentioned anywhere here or on the WPS article. Eightball (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in the competition details before the results table and standings and whatnot. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have some, I'm gonna add some of those statistics back in, since I feel like just having the leading goalscorers is kinda bland.... I know, not the best reason, but I'm definitely not bringing back everything you originally took away, since I can see now more than half of it definitely was excessive/unneessary. =-) CyMoahk (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may have gone a little overboard there.... just maybe. If you want to dis-include stuff, though, could you put it in the !-- <brackets> instead? I put a lot of work into all that stuff ^.^ CyMoahk (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you can always go back into history and get stuff that is deleted, so don't worry about that. Second, where did you find all of that stuff? -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right.... I guess I just find that a bit tedious. As for where I got the stuff, it takes some digging, but WPS has boxscore pages for every match. You can also find that kind of information on the WPS matchtracker, but it's not in nice tables like it is in the boxscores and some of the matchtracker stuff isn't 100% accurate. CyMoahk (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we have the European-style "fastest/latest/most __ in a game" stuff? If anything, I would much prefer having the WPS article mirror those for European leagues more than the MLS season articles. And, along that line of thought, then if nothing else, I say the goals and assists should be counted in separate tables. I always thought combining them like that the way MLS articles do is unwieldy and like comparing apples to oranges anyway. CyMoahk (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just looked up the Manual of Style article for Triva and Handling Trivia. If I understand correctly, the way the European articles do it, it is not considered trivia because it is logically ordered and selective about what information is included. Heck, the Handling Trivia article even says for sports that a 'statistics' (or 'records') section is an acceptable grouping of that type of information. CyMoahk (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the goals/assists issue, I think that we should stick with the MLS format unless/until the league creates something like what is linked to in this section of MLS season articles. We use those two tables because they are direct copies of what is on the MLS website. If WPS breaks them into seperate sections, I would have no problem with using whatever they use. Does that make sense? As for the random string of dubiously important information, I would argue that it is trivia because they are random pieces of information that have little value within the context of the article. Who scores the first goal of the seaon has little impact on who the best team/player in the league is, like the goalscoring/goalkeeping leaders tables do. Things like long winning/losing streaks are a different story. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we should strive to stick to what MLS has already done. It's unwieldy an, in my opinion, not good stats to combine together in the same table. I won't mess with it again, though, unless we get a third opinion in this discussion saying otherwise. As for the European-style statistics, though, even if you view them as trivia, I don't see anything in the two articles I linked above that puts them in a 'to be avoided' state, so I don't think you have enough reason to be eliminating them, especially considering their accepted status in other articles. CyMoahk (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to take out the fastest goal scored, first yellow/red card, etc. stats, especially since EPL also has them listed and there doesn't seem to be any public outcry over them. If the league keeps track of fastest goal, or fastest yellow, then I think they hold relevancy to the article. Just because MLS is the other professional U.S. soccer league doesn't mean that WPS articles should mirror the MLS pages, stat by stat. BUT, I do think having one table for goals/assists is more than adequate and attendance figures are always shaky, even when they're official. I also think that perhaps people should lighten up a smidge when it comes to handling such arguments. Especially when the 'offender' in question is the one doing most of the work. I know Wikipedia brings out the anal retentive worst in all of us, but such arguments are why committed editors just walk away. I would rather have an extra stats table than an article no one has bothered to update. Just my two. Ragnhild16 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results listing

Results are normally listed as 'visiting team score - home team score' right? CyMoahk (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For American results, yes. -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to 2-0; having both scores listed as 0-2 is extremely confusing, and any reader who is not intimately familiar with the American way of writing scores would be hopelessly lost. I think using the international soccer scoring method (winner's score-loser's score in the winner's row; loser's score-winner's score in the loser's row) in this table makes the winner and loser immediately apparent, regardless of who is home or away, which is the point of the table, right? Then, if the reader wants to figure out who was home, they can delve into the color codes. If you disagree, feel free to change it back. Concertmusic (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The color of the cell makes the winner immediately apparent. You also seem to be misunderstanding what the international format is. The international format is Home-Away, which is just as arbitrary as the American format and requires just as much familiarity to read (i.e. for people used to the American format it is "backwards"), so since the vast majority of people looking at this article will be American, we should use the American format. Also, if we used the international format, you would have to change both collumns so that they read Home-Away, which just shows that you don't seem to understand the international format. I think what you're really advocating that we list the score of the team whose row we're in first, but that means each game is listed twice, and using a different score, which also creates confusion. Because WPS uses an unbalanced schedule we can't do the normal results grid found in other articles where each game is only listed once, and home teams are rows and away tems are columns. I think that is what confuses people, but if you look at the 2009 Major League Soccer season, we've been using this format for 3 years now and it works fine. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, change it back if you want, and you did, which is fine. As you say, the table is not a balanced score cross table, in which case the method I proposed would have been correct (in a cross table, the score is listed based on winner-loser, not home-away, since home is indicated by the fact that the team is listed at the head of the row, and the away team is listed at the head of the column). Most importantly, these scores are being tracked and made available. Concertmusic (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, friend. In the table on the Premier League article, for instance, score is Home-Away, and color indicates home or away win. The way you describe it would not give any indication as to who won the game. Since you know who the home team is and who the away team are, you can see which score is for who. I think you misunderstand the way these types of tables work. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well - not to beat a dead horse: Have a look here [[1]] or here [[2]] - that is the type of table I am referring to. It appears that some countries use the table as seen in Germany and Spain, and others use the additional color-code - both make sense, and it's quite clear who won and lost. Enough said - both are good options in my mind. Concertmusic (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are mistaken. Look at the table in the La Liga article you linked to, in the top left corner both the Atlético Madrid v. Athletic Bilbao and Athletic Bilbao v. Atlético Madrid games had away winners. The only way you know that is because the second team in the Home-Away or international format has a higher score. This table doesn't use color, but it definitely doesn't list winner-loser the way you seem to think it does. In fact, if it did so without using color, as I said before, you would have no way of knowing which team won. If I list the scores the way you think they are listed, and give you scores of 2-1, 3-0, 4-2, etc. but don't use color to say whether that was a home win or an away win, you'd have no idea which team won. I think you have been misreading these tables. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the Bundesliga table you linked to. There are many instances of away wins, which are indicated by the second score being higher. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading your original comment, I feel the need to explain that in leagues with balanced schedules (where each team plays every other team twice, once at home and once away) each game is only listed once. The row with Manchester United and column with Arsenal intersect at the cell that shows the score for Manchester United (home) v. Arsenal (away). The row with Arsenal and the column with Manchester United intersect at the cell that shows the score for Arsenal (home) v. Manchester United (away). While it is possible for Both games to be 1-0 wins for Manchester United, which would give the appearance that the game was listed twice (once as 1-0 and the second as 0-1), each individual game is only listed once. When the home team wins the first score is bigger, and when the away team wins the second score is bigger. Color is just used to more quickly identify whether a team has won its home games, etc. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I hope you don't take it that wayk, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in every way it matters, and while I think I have given the impression that I don't understand the tables, I have simply been doing a very poor job in explaining just what I meant. The table originally in question for WPS works the way it is just fine, and so do all of the other tables we have looked at. There is no need for you to waste any more time on this on my behalf - I am clear on it. Concertmusic (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come the realization that every WPS scoreline - on the WPS site, on FSC, etc. - is done in the Home Team Score - Away Team Score format. I vote we switch to that (meaning reversing every scoreline currently showing). CyMoahk (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. This is an article about an American sports league, and so it should use the American format, as was agreed upon by consensus regarding MLS. FSC specifically does this with MLS, despite the fact that MLS uses the Away-Home format like ESPN, etc. They broadcast mainly foreign games, and that is the international format, so they stick with it for MLS as well. Every other American league, soccer or otherwise, uses this format, and it would be incorrect to change it just because WPS does. Frankly, I'm about this close to disregarding WPS's website as a reliable source until they get their act together, but that's another story entirely. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why we should stick to an "American Format" whether the league is American itself or not; the article should be written in the manner that makes the most sense and is true to what it is representing. As for the WPS website, even if it is unreliable at times (which I strongly disagree with that notion), it is currently the only main source on anything WPS, unless you want to start relying on BigSoccer or the WPS Fansite. I haven't found any other sources that could remotely be considered official, and any coverage of WPS I do find (on FSC or on local sports stories/reports from reliable news sources in cities that have/could have WPS) has it as WPS already has it - in the issue of scoreline reports, home-away format. I understand the logic behind wanting 'consistency,' but I think adhering to it blindly is detrimental to the article here simply considering the nature of the subject matter. CyMoahk (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we have to stick with an American plan. As an American who has traveled a lot oversea's, there's a lot more out there. This is a new league, let's do things correctly and better than what is already here in the states! It seem's like you're being a brick wall and not listening to reason, just expecting everyone else on here to go away so you can do it yourself. Am I wrong? Espihir (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "correct" or "incorrect" about it. There are two different formats, one that is used by every American sports league, and one that is used throughout the rest of the world. The United States and Canada are allowed to be different, especially since this is a well established format used in tens of thousands of articles already, not to mention all of the mainstream American sports media. Oh and overseas doesn't have an apostrophe, you dimwit. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's nothing correct or incorrect about either way, but that doesn't change the fact that you are currently the minority opinion and are not being true to what WPS is currently doing, so therefore you should not be changing the article to the way you want, at least at the moment. Also, that comment about apostrophes borders (if not is) a personal attack and should not be used in Wikipedia article discussion, and if anything reduces the amount of respect you and (by extension) your arguments have. Please avoid such namecalling in the future and, until you have majority opinion, do not change the scorelines in the results table again. (btw They'd been that way since last weekend's results came in) CyMoahk (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. The established consensus on American soccer format is evident in every American soccer article. WPS isn't different or special. I'm more than willing to work with you on most of what you want, but the change in format will only confuse people. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Thing is, unless I've really misunderstood something, Wikipedia counts information as more reliable if it comes from an official source than if it comes from other Wikipedia articles. That's the main reason I think it's more appropriate to use the format WPS uses than whatever the popular consensus is on Wikipedia already. Sure, the casual Wikipedia browser might get confused with the Home-Away format when they first get here, but it's really not hard to read the table based on the background colors. Also, I really think articles should be made for those who are genuinely interested in the article's subject matter as opposed to those casual surfers, so it'd be more appropriate to stay true to what WPS is doing than what all the other US sports articles are currently like. CyMoahk (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When people are on Wikipedia, there are certain expectations of format. When you are looking at American sports articles, regardless of the sport, the Home team is listed second, and standings are given in W-L-T format. WPS isn't special or different. It is one of many, many American sports leagues, and should be treated by Wikipedia the same way as any other American sports league. As for the statistics, rather than forcing the reader to go through and compile the statistics just like you did in order to WP:VERIFY what you've done, why not use the one page summary the league already provides? -- Grant .Alpaugh 07:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also get a better idea of what the league considers to be the important stats, rather than the few that you decided to highlight. Now that WPS is putting out a one page summary of their stats, we should use that. After all, that is what we do with MLS. -- Grant .Alpaugh 08:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the debate about the Home-Away format, I say we should do as the WPS does. That's just my voice on the subject, but I'll go w/ the majority. But I do have another issue w/ the Results chart--I'm confused by it! According to the WPS site, Sky Blue was Home team vs. Sol; but doesn't our chart say that Sol was home? Or am I reading it wrong!?!?Rhodesisland (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, when I first saw it on the MLS pages, I was confused too. It's correct the way it is: in LA's row, the NJ box has the light away background, and in NJ's row, the LA box has the dark home background. The darker 'home' background refers to the team whose row it's in, not the team whose initials are in the box. Think of it as "<row team> is at home hosting <team initialed in box>" (and, conversely, "<row team> is away at <team initialed in box>"). CyMoahk (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New WPS website

Just FYI, WPS completely redid its official site today. Looks a lot like the MLS site now, I guess. Anyway, I don't have time at the moment, but with the new information and such, I'm going to give this page a major overhaul within the next two days if someone else doesn't beat me to it. =-) CyMoahk (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking priorities?

Since we're early in the season, there are a lot of 'equalities' out there, so I was just wondering if I got these ideas correct:

When ranking teams in the standings, (1)Pts (2)GP (3)GD (4)GF

For ranking keepers, (1)GAA (2)SHO (3)SVS (4)MIN

Right? CyMoahk (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your statistics? I think some of this violates WP:OR. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the website, unless they are watching every game - then it's OR. Grsz¹¹ 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crosses is nowhere on this list. That is WP:OR. We should use the stats and format that WPS uses, as that is what we do on the MLS articles. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPS has two statistics pages, the one you just cited and the one I cited in the article at the bottom of the 'leaders' section - this one. If picking out the leading stats from the seven team lists counts as OR, I'll take it out, but the information as it is presented is directly supported (to use the words from the OR article (second intro paragraph)) by the page I've cited. CyMoahk (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR, just a bit tedious. But hey, it's your time, and if you want to do it that's up to you. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that the week4 stats are coming in, I'm finding that out... ^.^' btw What does 'cm' stand for (in your edit summaries)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyMoahk (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced original research. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just made a cleanup ro the article and wanted to explain some of the things I did.

First, just like MLS, we should only use the stats that the league is tracking and compiling. This avoids WP:OR, not to mention potential arithmetic mistakes you might make doing it yourself.
For stats that had a large number of ties that went longer than the top 10 WPS provided, I left them off, which shouldn't be a big deal once more games have been played. We should still do top 10 plus ties, but I don't know where the cutoff is for those other spots, and like I said, it will be taken care of naturally.
The other statistics are unsourced and poorly updated. The Premier League sections are all sourced, and until this section is similarly sourced, it remains WP:OR.
Finally, the format of the results table is not up for discussion, at least not here. This is an American sports article, and must comply with the formats expected for those articles. One person regularly editing one article and one person making one comment cannot overturn that.

I don't want to edit war on any of this stuff, but I do think that this is all pretty common sense. Sorry for what might have been misunderstood to be a rude edit summary before, by the way. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Crosses" isn't on the actual WPS stats page, would it be better to replace that with Cards (both cautions and ejections could be in the same table), since that is on the WPS stats page? I'm also wondering if it wouldn't also be easier to switch the "Minutes Played" for each stat with Games Played, since minutes aren't listed with stats, but as a separate category? These are a couple of thoughts I came up with, would like to hear some other opinions. Mtndrums (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of these stats originally, while available on the boxscores WPS put out, were compiled by hand, which is why Crosses were included (they were in the boxscores though are no longer officially tacked by WPS). We also used "Minutes played" as a secondary ranking system, back when you had seven or so "scoring leaders" all with two goals each. X-P For next season's article, we'll probably drop that in favor of GP. We can also drop the "Crosses" stat for "Shots on Goal". (As a side note, I don't think "Minutes Played" should be a stat we include on its own, since it doesn't take into account call-ups, etc.) CyMoahk (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also switched up the Standings table to be more in line with other soccer standings tables (as far as I know the MLS Standings table format is the only one using that format, the other American soccer league pages use the same format European leagues use). If it gets changed back to the previous format it happens, but I think it looks much cleaner and less bulky than the previous format. Mtndrums (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I kinda liked the other format, but we can stay with this one for now. I guess I thought it looked cleaner b/c I don't like the colored background so much, and I viewed the "bulkiness" as it sticking out from the article instead of blending in too much, which it is now IMO. But unless someone else weighs in, we can keep it like this. =-) CyMoahk (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics versions

For the display of statistical leaders, CyMoahk has provided the following reference:

full stats page

This reference is a compilation of every statistical category tracked by the league, sorted by team. It is not a statistic-by-statistic list of leaders leaguewide. This makes the WP:VERIFY requirement very hard to satisfy for the user, as they have to sift through the data themselves to verify the accuracy of the tables compiled by CyMoahk. Furthermore, in choosing a handful of categories from that list to reproduce in the article, CyMoahk is essentially saying "here is what the league considers the most important statistics" when that might not be the case.

WPS provides a one page summary of 9 statistical categories:

one page summary

This reference compiles the league leaders in Goals, Assists, Shots, Shots on Goal, Yellow Cards, Red Cards, Goals Against, Saves, and Clean Sheets. I think that since this summary is concise, leaguewide, and easily to replicate in Wikitable format without any further tinkering, we should present these statistics, and only these statistics in the article.

We follow the same practice on the 2007 Major League Soccer season, 2008 Major League Soccer season, and 2009 Major League Soccer season articles because MLS provides a Golden Boot table and Goalkeeping Leaders table that we simply reproduce in Wikitable formats for the article.

MLS stats page

Thoughts? -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that neither document was available.Rhodesisland (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results color change?

Maybe it's just because of my laptop, but I've always thought the background colors in the table for results were a bit light - I'd have to tilt my screen away to differentiate between the light blue, light pink, and light yellow used. Can we change the colors to make them just a bit darker? Like, for wins, change DFE7FF to BFC7FF, losses FFDFDF to FFBFBF, and ties FFFDD0 to FFFBB0? CyMoahk (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on 2009 Women's Professional Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]