Talk:2012 Toronto FC season

Toronto FC was eliminated September 6

My only real source is math and a little web forum.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/2012-mls-magic-and-tragic-numbers.1974203/page-2

There are least four teams TFC can't catch (New York, KC, CHI, and HOU). Since, either DCU or CLB must finish above 42 points (as they play each other later on this season), one of them is uncatchable. That makes five.

Please confirm if we're good; I'm going to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talk • contribs) 00:53, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

No you won't. There are several sources that say your math is wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Columbus Crew have 42 points. Toronto has 7 matches left and have 21 points. That means there are 21 points on the line and so they are mathematically still in, but it's improbable that they will win all of the rest of the matches, Columbus will lose and the other teams between TFC and Columbus will not pick up enough points. However, they have not officially been eliminated so to re-cap, your mat is wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No it's impossible. Your "sources" (many people often get these things wrong) are wrong. Columbus has 42 points but plays DCU who has 41 points. For Columbus to not go past 42 points, they must lose to DCU (who would then have 44 points). If you had responded to my post above with a sound argument instead of citing sources that are evidently incorrect, you would have realized it. If you need a source, see the attached [1], it's obviously more credible than your "sources". This is exactly the same as people who insisted on using the MLS site for tiebreaks, when it didn't know how to compute them. Please refute the point above re: the points if you're going to revert againNlsanand (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please use your head instead of a fan site. They are only 21 points back and if they win all seven as described above, they will be in the play-in for the East. Do not revert or I will report your actions.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/09/11/preview-fire-aim-keep-climbing-east-ladder-toronto: "If Toronto FC fail to take maximum points from any of their remaining matches, or if Columbus ties or wins this weekend, or even if D.C. United wins, TFC will be eliminated from playoff contention." That one is directly from the MLS.

http://www.thescore.com/home/articles/338334-tfc-on-brink-of-playoff-elimination-chicago

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-fc-goalie-celebrates-birth-of-triplets-1.951643

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2012/09/11/sp-mls-soccer-milos-kocic-triplets.html

Your source is probably you and your math is simply wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Read my post above. The sites you cite are not correct. You did not disprove my point. TFC has a maximum of 42 points available. DCU has 41 points, and Columbus has 42 points. Since DCU plays Columbus in the second last game of the season, one of the teams has to go above 42 points. It's simple math. Can you disporve that, as opposed to citing something which is incorrect. MLS site has often got these things wrong in the past. Nlsanand (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Will move discussion to talk page wheer we're editing. Nlsanand (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read your post above. I understand what you're saying, but we go on WP:RS and not fan sites. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Above, you said my math is not right. So do you really understand the point? Furthermore, I have a source which is not a "fansite". [2]. I would argue the fact that MLS has not done the math discredits it as a source. Please confirm if the validity of what I say is in doubt and whether your math you cited is in fact incorrect? Nlsanand (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am questioning your sources under WP:RS under the questionable sources section, as they are easily disproven, and they have a history of lack of attention to detail. MLS site has been to get these wrong. I know you follow the league, so you're aware of what I'm saying. Nlsanand (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If I don't get an answer which mathematically disproves their elimination, I am going to revert and will enforce the 3RR. You can take it to administration if you want. Nlsanand (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

First you misspoke when you wrote the edit summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Toronto_FC_season&diff=prev&oldid=511949812 The entire discussion from my talk page is above and nowhere did I "acknowledge that the source is not correct".

Second, you misunderstand how Wikpedia works and what we have here is a case of WP:OR against WP:RS. I have notified the project to allow other editors to weigh-in on the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You said my math was wrong initally. You actually tried to explain how in your post starting, "Columbus Crew have 42 points. Toronto has 7 matches left and have 21 points...". Above I refuted your point, explaining how they are in fact eliminated. That's why you can no longer say that. So you're trying to take an original research tactic now. But I not above you say, "I understand what you're saying". The clear implication is you understand that they are in fact mathematically eliminated. Are you disagreeing that they're mathematically eliminated? If you're disagreeing, then you're simply ignoring facts and being unreasonable. If you do agree with me, you are acknoledging that your "sources" are "prima facie" incorrect (they can be disproved on the face) and can therefore be called questionable under reliable sources criteria. Either way, you're now being disingenuous, and have yet to acknowledge that you called my math "wrong" based on blind following of an article instead of responding to what I was saying. You may want to call what I said Original Research. I call it self evident. And any source you produce is clearly incorrect. You can't dispute and have not provided any evidence to dispute what I have said. You only point to some article and say, "Well if they said it, it must be true". Nlsanand (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

New discussion, same issue

Prior to the match against the Chicago Fire, Columbus Crew had clinched a tie with Toronto FC. The formula was 34 × 3 + 1 − 42 − (27 × 3 − 21) = 1. With Toronto FC's loss against the Chicago Fire, the formula became 34 × 3 + 1 − 42 − (28 × 3 − 21) = -2. Once another club's magic number over Toronto FC is 0 or less, Toronto FC can't catch that team. In this case, the Columbus Crew, who currently holds the last playoff spot in the east, has a magic number of -2 over Toronto FC. Therefore, as of the final whistle in Toronto FC's match against the Chicago Fire, Toronto FC were eliminated from Playoff contention. Kingjeff (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. The question was whether they were eliminated a week earlier. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the math, they were eliminated on September 12, 2012 against Chicago Fire. Kingjeff (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen Nlsanand was right, Toronto were eliminated one match before that, as out of the teams they were catching, it was impossible for both DC United and Columbus to finish with 42 points or less as they had to play each other. Thus it would have been impossible for Toronto to overtake both of those teams and take the final playoff place. Toronto could overtake DC United or Columbus, not both. All this is pointless now anyway, as they are even more obviously eliminated after their loss to Chicago. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Toronto FC were effectively eliminated; but not officially. The match between D.C. United and Columbus Crew has not taken place. Columbus Crew magic number over Toronto FC was 1 before Toronto FC's match against Chicago Fire. This means that they were not officially eliminated until last night. Assuming all results went Toronto FC's way, they would have been eliminated on October 20, 2012. Kingjeff (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you might want to update the lede to reflect that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Read my post above. On September 6, 2012 (after Houston game) TFC has a maximum of 42 points available. DCU had 41 points, and Columbus had 42 points. Since DCU plays Columbus in the second last game of the season, one of the teams has to go above 42 points. It's simple math. Sorry Kingjeff, I'm not really sure you understand the issue that your formula failed to account for other teams' matches. Unless the above point is disproven, I am going to enforce the 3-revert rule. Also, whoever edited it to September 13....wtf? Nlsanand (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A forum isn't a good enough source for your date of eliminations. Please provide a credible. Kingjeff (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have "credible" source for yours? It can't be credible, since I can disporve it in a couple of sentences. If you're trying to enforce some Original Research crusade, I'll ask you take it to enforcement and see what they say. Once they realize that you are obviously wrong, I think they'll side with me. In the meantime please don't touch the article; I don't feel like correcting your grammatical errors.Nlsanand (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do and I put it in the article. Kingjeff (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Where, it's clearly not correct. How have you responded to the clear point raised above. I am moving this to neutral wording, and we can administer this. Btw, it definitely was not September 13, 2012. Nlsanand (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have. I have disproved you in 2 different ways. Kingjeff (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Look buddy, you're either clearly trolling or ignorant. Both Walter Görlitz and User talk:Delusion23 have acknowledged that they were eliminated after the Houston loss on the 6th (Walter through his silence to my response above). But to appease you, I have reverted to neutral language, despite your clear violation of the 3 revert rule invoked at 2:21 UTC yesterday (see post above). Don't call me a vandal again. Call admin if you want. A source is only valid if it's true. You can clearly see that your source is not true. Nlsanand (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind Nlsanand that I said no such thing. I just didn't feel like getting blocked for edit warring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As for a "credible" source that Nlsanand is look for, I offered four. Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't make it not credible. As I stated, we use WP:RS on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They're quesitonable because they're disproved above. If you choose to ignore it, you're not acting in good faith. You're just being a troll, who doesn't really care about accuracy. Nlsanand (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You realize of course that what you're talking about is not the same thing that Nlsanand is talking about, right? When you actually read what he's wrote, and what I wrote, and understand it, you might be able to engage us in conversation. Until then, I don't believe I will be responding. In short, your point is that they were unable to qualify and so you believe that they were eliminated on Sept. 6. While Kingjeff is saying, that the MLS officially recognized them as eliminated and has a formula (that does not use the points that an opponent may receive) to prove his case. Until you acknowledge the argument of the other editor, without insulting them and belittling it, you're not really discussing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was the above comment aimed at me? The wording is somewhat confusing. I am willing to acknowlege Kingjeff's point to the extent that it was said. I don't feel I've belittled anyone here, except when people have refused to engage in the talk page and I felt the need to call them out. I am asking you directly, without deflecting your answer. After reading my posts above. Do you feel based on your own knowledge that TFC had any chance of making the playoffs prior to the game on Wednesday night but after the Houston game? Nlsanand (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand,

1. I have inserted a source stating that they were eliminated on September 12.
2. I have shown you through a mathematical formula that they were eliminated on September 12.
3. You have claimed that Walter Görlitz agreed with you when he clearly didn't say that.

What more do you want to prove that you were not correct that they were officially eliminated before September 12? Kingjeff (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't quote an incorrect source. I have explained to you how your formula did not account for DCU and Columbus not playing each other. I have acted in nothing but good faith. I stated Walter implied that he agreed with me, by not refuting my point above (even after I called him out). Walter, do you believe their first date of elimination (ignoring so-called "sources") or do you agree with me as Del_♉sion23 (talk) did? Nlsanand (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you misinterpreted my silence last time, no. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No to what...the former or the latter? Nlsanand (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the sources show that they were eliminated on September 12. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're deflecting, can you not answer the question without reference to an MLS article, a site which has often got tiebreakers and other info wrong? Stop deflecting. Based on your own knowledge of the standings, do you believe that prior to the Chicago game, but after the Houston game, there was any way for them to qualify, no matter how improbable? Perhaps, you could show an example? Nlsanand (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand, since when is going against a reliable source is "good faith" Kingjeff (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Source isn't reliable when it is disproved, as stated previously. Nlsanand (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because you say so? Please provide a credible source that contradicts my sources. Kingjeff (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Read my post above. On September 6, 2012 (after Houston game) TFC has a maximum of 42 points available. DCU had 41 points, and Columbus had 42 points. Since DCU plays Columbus in the second last game of the season, one of the teams has to go above 42 points. It's simple math. Sorry Kingjeff, I'm not really sure you understand the issue that your formula failed to account for other teams' matches. (Please note this is repeated). Are any the facts mentioned here in quesiton by you? Nlsanand (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I do undestand. However many credible sources are against you. Your date is original research until you provide a credible source for it. Kingjeff (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand,

Please provide a credible source for your date. Kingjeff (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say, "I do understand", are you acknowledging that since this is a black and white issue (it's arithmetic), you are agreeing that they were eliminated on 6 September, however you don't feel it's correct to put without a source?

No, the math says September 12. The math says that the Columbus Crew's magic number must be 0 or lower. This was obtained after Toronto FC lost to Chicago Fire. There are now 4 sources in the article that states that I am correct. Kingjeff (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What? Columbus's magic number isn't zero right now. They're still competing against Montreal, DC (even New England). I think you mean TFC's tragic number must be zero or lower. And again, your tragic number formula doesn't account for other team's matches. It's just a formula that might be useful in determining playoff contenders. Simply put your math is wrong, and the reason why has been explained a hundred times on this talk page. I gotta go right now, but you're out of your league here. Nlsanand (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Columbus Crew's magic number over Toronto FC was +1 before Toronto FC's match against the Chicago Fire. Af the moment the referee blew for the final whistle, it became -2. Kingjeff (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: You're misunderstanding how tragic numbers work. A tragic number of zero is a sufficient but not necessary condition for elimination. This is explained at Magic_number_(sports)#Subtlety. Nlsanand's math is absolutely correct, TFC was eliminated on September 6 for the clearly explained reason above (DC and CLB play each other so both couldn't finish with <42 points). Sadly, journalists seem unable to do this simple WP:CALC. However, since this bit of trivia really isn't important to the article I'm going revert to the stable version before an elimination date was added. Please establish a consensus on the talk page before re-adding. TDL (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do understand. Zero is a requirement of the tragic number for elimination. Nlsanand's math is absolutely wrong. All that match that Nlsanand talked about means that their is an impending elimination. Therefore it didn't happen before September 12. I am arguing that elimination would have happened on October 20, 2012 at the latest. Kingjeff (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, your argument is a logical fallacy. You are denying the antecedent. A tragic number of zero necessarily implies that the team is eliminated. However, the reverse is not true. I tragic number of 0 isn't a requirement for elimination. As of September 6 it was mathematically impossible for them to make the playoffs. Please read the links I posted above as this is all explained there. TDL (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi TDL, appreciate this, I feel like I am talking into a vacuum here. You seem to be a bit more of an expert on the laws of Wiki (I am probably more of a casual user). The WP:CALC section you cited, can I use that as proof. I think I've explained the math fairly simply on this talk page a dozen times. Nlsanand (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Are trying to say that several sources are wrong just because you say so? WP:CALC doesn't apply here because multiple users are taking both sides of the arguement. There is more than "routine calculations." It's a calculation plus the use of logic. WP:CALC also requires the use of consensus. This discussion looks pretty divided at the moment. Kingjeff (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying those multiple sources erred. Others seem to concur. It's evident as it has been proved on this page. They may have relied on one original source. Walter, by the way, agrees with the calculation and acknowledges that they were eliminated prior to the Chicago game. See his talk page at the bottom. The only user who doesn't get it is you. You've refused to acknowledge. It's just that you don't understand the calculation. And that's because you refuse to read the posts that clearly explain it. It's like if I said 15 squared is 225, and you refused to acknowledge because you didn't learn your times tables that high. Nlsanand (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodness Nlsanand. You need to learn how to read you self-serving .... You read what you wanted and not what I wrote. Clear off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's exactly what I wrote: "I think that the sources were correct and MLS said that the were not officially eliminated prior to the Chicago game, but they had no way of making the playoffs mathematcially the weekend before." (emphasis was added by me here only) So I suggest you stop being a dick and admit that for whatever reason, you reverted the page five times in under an hour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay watch, I'm gonna bold the same sentence and you'll see how you agree with me. "I think that the sources were correct and MLS said that the were not officially eliminated prior to the Chicago game, but they had no way of making the playoffs mathematcially the weekend before." What you said is you concur with me that they were mathematically eliminated before but that sources said they weren't. As far as calling me "dick", given you've deleted my posts for a lot less. Watch your civility buddy. You're out of line at this point and I will report you. I looked at some histories, you have a history of picking fights. I've sometimes agreed with you, because you are often right. But looking at the page history, it's kind of clear you simply don't want to admit that you originally said that they weren't eliminated on the 6th, and have tried to flip the discussion. Nlsanand (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand, for a person to claim to have good logic, you seem to easily misquote other users. They did mathematically have a chance to make the playoffs the week before. My logic is this. The D.C. United vs. Columbus Crew match to have had an impact on elimination had to actually be played. It hasn't. The match is scheduled for October 20. Based on your logic, this would be the latest elimination date. The math stated that for Columbus Crew needed a draw to eliminate Toronto FC and D.C. United needed a win or 2 draws to eliminate Toronto FC. Kingjeff (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Kingjeff. The result of the match on October 20 doesn't need to be known to know that it will push one of the teams over 42 points. As long as you know one of those will go over 42 points, then TFC is still eliminated. That's the point alluded to in Magic_number_(sports)#Subtlety. It's an exact parallel in fact. Are you saying in that case the team wouldn't be eliminated. Nlsanand (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said the result needed to be known. All I said is that the match must be played for your logic to be fulfilled. Kingjeff (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, why even note that they didn't qualify until the end of the season. Seriously, if I extend your logic, we need to wait until the table is complete for it to be official. If "eliminated" doesn't mean "unable to qualify for playoffs" then what the fuck does it mean. Nlsanand (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But that would be saying that the match that we both stated that means something doesn't count; which it does. Assuming that all matches goes Toronto FC's way, they math would have supported an October 20th elimination date. Kingjeff (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything since the match result has no impact on whether TFC qualifies. The result ifself has no impact on whether TFC can qualify for the playoffs. Nlsanand (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Nlsanand, re: Okay watch. I went out of my way to agree with both points of view. I side with neither of you because it's Toronto. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC) @ Nlsanand re being a dick, read the linked article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Bro, you deleted several of my posts off this page on the grounds that I called you "editing in bad faith" and you said it was uncivil (even though i explained why i thought so); you really do think you own the board, eh? Then you try and justify calling me a dick by linking to some article. If you wanna just hurl insults, I got a bunch for you as well. Can you give me an hour to create a bhenchod article? Let However, I'll bite and take the link at face value. You clearly are projecting for your own behaviour. Anyone who looks at this talk page can see that your is paralleling the behaviour listed in dick. Nlsanand (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Walter and Kingjeff: You seem to be making a distinction between "officially eliminated" and "impossible to make the playoffs". How do you define these two, and what is the difference? And do you have sources to back up your claim that these two things are different? I've never seen or heard anyone treat these as anything but synonyms. If it's impossible for them to make the playoffs, then they are no longer eligible to make the playoffs and thus have been eliminated. TDL (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The math says that they could have made the playoffs until they lost to Chicago Fire. The schedule for the two relevant teams says no they can't. Therefore, assuming that results went Toronto FC's way, the elimination happens, at the latest, October 20. But since they lost to Chicago Fire,that puts their elimination on September 12. Nlsanand, how did you come up with September 6 as the elimination date? The only match played by the 3 relevant clubs between their September 1 matches and Toronto FC's match vs. Chicago Fire was on September 12 was on September 5 when Columbus Crew lost to New England Revolution. D.C. United hasn't played since September 1. Kingjeff (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand, You don't want to take the sources at face value? Why should I take your date at face value? You clearly stated on the edit warring noticeboard that you misunderstood the 3RR rule. There is the real possibility, irregardless if it's a big or small chance, that you misunderstood the situation. If you carefully read what I've said, you will see that I have used your logic on this and came up with a potential different date than you. I still don't understand how you came up with September 6 since there were no relevant matches that date for this discussion. You say that the elimination occurred when Toronto FC's tragic number went to one. I say it has to be zero or below. You used the magic number article to back you up on this. But a link to that article backs me up; not you. You say that the D.C. United match is relvant and I agreed. But here is where I think we disagree. You think that the match just has to be scheduled for the elimination to occur. I think the final whistle had to have been blown in that match for it to take effect. The result doesn't matter; just the final whistle counts. The schedule effectively eliminates Toronto FC; not officially. There is a difference here. Effectively eliminated means that there is a guaranteed elimination in the future. Officially eliminated means that the elimination has already occurred and tragic number is not higher than zero Kingjeff (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you've just invented this distinction between "officially eliminated" and "effective eliminated". Please provide a source for this difference, or else it is WP:OR. This isn't a place to push your WP:FRINGE theory.

It was impossible for TFC to make the playoffs on September 6th. (Houston won on September 6th to go from 42 => 45 points, thus TFC could no longer catch them and were eliminated.). Whether the CLB vs DC game has been played or not is irrelevant. If it was impossible for them to make the playoffs, then they where eliminated. Here is a more thorough explanation of a similar situation: [3]. In particular: "If we examine the standings in the American League East division after the completion of play that night (Table 2), it appears that Detroit has a remote chance of catching the first-place New York Yankees since they have 27 games remaining and trail New York by only 26 wins. It is possible, however, to show that Detroit is in fact mathematically eliminated from first place using some simple information regarding the remaining schedule of games between teams in the division." TDL (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't invent anything here. I and Walter Görlitz have provided several credible sources that say September 12, 2012 is the elimination date. One of those sources is the league that Toronto FC plays in. But yet no credible source has been provided to contradict me. Therefore, I haven't violated WP:OR. Kingjeff (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Effectively eliminated means that there is a guaranteed elimination in the future. Officially eliminated means that the elimination has already occurred" - These are your words. Please provide a source to back up this claim. Otherwise you've just invented this distinction. TDL (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Those words are not going to be in the article at all. The only sources needed is for the date of elimination which will be making it's way into the article. Kingjeff (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your entire argument hinges on this distinction. You've started making things up to support your date, so your argument really doesn't hold any water. So, any sources to support your claim that "official elimination" and "effective elimination" are different? TDL (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No. I have several sources that back me up which you refuse to acknowledge. Kingjeff (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Which sources says "Effectively eliminated means that there is a guaranteed elimination in the future. Officially eliminated means that the elimination has already occurred"? TDL (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources including Major League Soccer say September 12. Kingjeff (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but which sources says "Effectively eliminated means that there is a guaranteed elimination in the future. Officially eliminated means that the elimination has already occurred"? Please answer this question, otherwise you're just making it up. TDL (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already told you that your quote there is not going into the article. Therefore it doesn't need to be sourced. The date has to be sourced since it's going into the article. The date is September 12. Multiple Sources state this. :::::WP:VERIFY states "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." September 12 is verifiable. Your date has yet to be verified. Kingjeff (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...consensus is determined by "quality of arguments". Your argument is that they were eliminated on the 12 because "Effectively eliminated means that there is a guaranteed elimination in the future. Officially eliminated means that the elimination has already occurred". However, as you've obviously just made this definition up that's a very bad argument.

WP:V doesn't say we have to include every common misconception in an article just because someone else has reported it. I've provided you with numerous sources which explain why your argument is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, you are either unable or unwilling to understand the point so I don't see how further discussion is going to overcome this fundamental stumbling block. There is clearly no consensus to add the 12 September as the date of elimination to the article, so please don't when the article is unprotected.

And for the record, I never suggested adding the 6th to the article. I removed the date entirely because it was unnecessary trivia. TDL (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a misconception from my part. I believe I do understand the point. I actually argued that they were eliminated on September 12 because their tragic number reached 0 or below. The "effectively eliminated; but not officially" quote was an argument against September 6. The thing I don't understand is how you're are arguing against a date that is backed up by extremely credible sources. I'm sure everyone who is critical over a source's credibility will tell you that the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, National Post and CBC are all credible sources; which have stated September 12 as the elimination date. I have asked for credible sources backing your date up; but it has yet to be shown. Kingjeff (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you think you understand the point. However, since you keep claiming that they weren't eliminated because their tragic number wasn't yet zero, in spite of the fact that I've provided you with numerous sources which prove that such a conclusion is logically flawed, it's obvious that you don't understand the point (or perhaps you just haven't bothered to read the sources.) Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm not going to keep going round and round in circles trying to explain it to you. I'm done with this discussion. There is no consensus to add the 12th so please don't. TDL (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does this matter?

Why does it matter when they were eliminated? In the big picture all that matters is that they didn't make it. Don't we all have better things to do than argue about the date that they were eliminated? Just because you believe something is WP:TRUE, doesn't mean it is WP:NOTABLE. TDL (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A precedent could get set here where you're not allowed to contradict a printed source with simple math. There is a principle here. Also, Kingjeff now says he's gonna edit the magic number article to reflect what he says. Plus these guys have been nothing but douchebags to me here. So I am probably now taking it a litlle personal. I'm human. Nlsanand (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A printed source? It's multiple sources plus the league itself. I haven't edited the magic number article since this topic has started. But it could use a few sources. Kingjeff (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More sources

Here is another source which defines elimination from first place as "no matter what the outcome of the remaining games, they cannot finish with the most wins". They show that a team can be eliminated before their magic number reaches 0. The book points out that this is a common misconception which is often reported in the media incorrectly. [4] TDL (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First tiebreaker is goalsscored. Kingjeff (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with anything? TDL (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"they cannot finish with the most wins." is an irrelevant statement since goals scored is the first tiebreaker. Kingjeff (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to predict how many goals a team will score during the rest of the season, so you can't tell who will win that tie breaker until after the season is over. Therefore, the only way a team can be eliminated is if they can't finish with the most wins. If they can still finish in a tie for most wins then they aren't eliminated yet. TDL (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But fact is that is what the first tiebreaker is goals scored irregardless of how predictable of it is. Kingjeff (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you read the source before responding. The example they use ranks teams by "wins" as opposed to "points" (like in say in baseball). You can think of the sentence as saying "no matter what the outcome of the remaining games, they cannot finish with the most points" if it helps you understand it in the context of soccer better. Tie breakers have nothing to due with it. TDL (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation, and one that I'm glad I found my way into. On one hand, we have the reliable, secondary sources who say one thing, and on the other, we have almost irrefutable routine calculations that say something else. Now, quoting from WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic...is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is...[a] meangingful reflection of the sources." I think this seems pretty clear that, regardless of what the math actually says, to use math to contradict sources runs afoul of WP:OR.

I don't know, as you say the math is irrefutable that the sources are wrong. At minimum, it would be wrong to quote a source which has been proved incorrect by basic math, no? But I really think it's not Original Reseatch with a calculation that can be proved in a couple of sentences.Nlsanand (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what the policy says. The policy (WP:CALC) is that routine calculations can be used as long as they are a "meaningful reflection of the sources". Right or wrong, I think our hands are tied. Achowat (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you at least concur that the sources in question are no longer credible, given that they're incorrect? Nlsanand (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also would you consider the distinction above between "officially eliminated" and "mathematically eliminated" what they call in academic circles "horseshit"? Nlsanand (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're thinking about this wrong. The job of an encyclopedist is only to collect and filter what the Reliable, Secondary Sources say. And Major League Soccer Soccer.com fits that description to a T. There's no such thing as "eliminated", academically, officially, or otherwise. It's a social construction that is only relevant for the 1-2 months that a team is "eliminated" but the tournament hasn't started. I would question the relevance of noting the specific date of when it happened. In 2035 when the next crop of Red Patch Boys go back to read this page whether it was September 8th or 23rd isn't going to be a relevant piece of information. I'll leave that editorial decision to the regulars at this article, but if a date must be reported, it needs to be the one listed in the Relibale, Secondary Sources. Achowat (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was more, the MLS site no longer seems reliable if it can be disproved on its face. As you said, you need to filter the sources. In this case, it's clear the MLS website cannot be used as a source. And I would disagree that "eliminated" could be anything other than, "When a team no longer has an ability to qualify for the next round." But obviously you sound unconvinced. I agree the date doesn't need to be there, as it's not notable (if it was the earliest date in league history, it could be). But we sure as hell can't let an incorrect date in the article. Overall, I think (WP:CALC) still applies as the "reflection of the sources" criteria is met in that the calculation here is a reflection of the source (the MLS table), not some article by a writer for the site who probably doesn't know how to do math.Nlsanand (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well reasoned, now I'm torn. We have official sources about who scored what goals and how many points you get for a win...You've got me on your side. Per WP:CALC, it's more than acceptable to add the earlier, correct, date. Achowat (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just one source; it's many. WP:CALC states that "routine calculations do not count as original research." Yours is a calculation plus logic. Once you use logic in addition to a routine calculation, it's no longer just a basic routine calculation. MLS site will not lack credibility just because one person says so. In fact they're in agreement with several other sources on this topic. Kingjeff (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you doubting the math? (I'm not saying that's your only valid contention; I'm just trying to wrap my mind around your argument, so bear with me) Achowat (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The math alone states that September 12 is the elimination date; which is also supported by the sources. The math plus the logic states the elimination date would occur between September 12 and October 20 when both math and the logic would agree. Kingjeff (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being dense (long day at work), but I really don't understand what you'd like to see listed on the article as the Elimination Date (if it's to be listed at all). Achowat (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 12 as the elimination date. Kingjeff (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Thanks for putting up with me. (Y'see, TFC or my Revs are going to end up with the Wooden Spoon, so I'm never really sober these days). Achowat (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kingjeff. Let's be clear September 12th is not the elimination date, the MLS website is wrong. And the reason it's incorrect has been explained a hundred times on this page, Kingjeff. I am happy to omit the elimination date from the article altogether, but if you re-insert you'll be violating the consensus on this page. Please stop stating they were eliminated on September 12th, or that any math supports you. It's simply bad faith comments. As you have already agreed above, there was no way for them to make the playoffs after Houston lost to RSL on September 6th. Until you can show that any source distinguishes between mathematically eliminated and "officially eliminated", please don't attempt to mislead other users. Nlsanand (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand, when Houston won on September 6, your logic puts the elimination date between September 12 and October 20. The math and your logic of September 6 doesn't agree. Kingjeff (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Kingjeff, I'm going to explain this one last time. After Houston beat RSL on 6 September, Houston went to 45 points (meaning TFC could no longer catch Houston). TFC could achieve at most 42 points (they had 21 points with 7 games remaining. Columbus and DCU had 42 and 41 points and were in 5th and 6th respectively. However, Columbus and DCU play each other on Oct 20 meaning that one of those teams would have to be above 42 points at season end. Therefore, even if TFC won the rest of their matches, they could not make the playoffs (by finishing 5th or above) under any set of results in other matches. You have acknowledged this yourself at some point. By anyone's definition, that means they were mathematically eliminated.

You have conjectured about a distinction between "mathematically eliminated" and "officially eliminated". But that is not just Original Research, it's incorrect Original Research. I think any neutral observer would not give that distinction any credence.

I think a consensus definition for elimination date would be, "The date at which team is no longer able to qualify for the playoffs under any possible set of results." Are you disputing that definition. If so, please explain.

Again, the MLS website did not account for DCU and CLB playing, that's why they got it wrong (just like you and Walter did). So do not come here and say, "The math says the 12th." It is simply not true and it's been explained here several times. Several posters have explained why your magic number explanation was ignoring a subtlety that is in fact explained on the Magic number (sports)#subtlety section. You have not responded to that.

I am going to assume you will respond to the above points in good faith one more time. If you're disputing the definition of eliminated, please explain why? I think it would be fair to engage in conversation on that. However, please don't revert to the magic number argument, beacuse it's been disproven, and please don't site MLS as "backing you up", as any reasonable person can now see that they simply made an error. If you're disputing the math, please re-read the first paragraph three times. It really seems like you haven't.

If you're not gonna engage the discussion, I think we can legitimately call you a troll at that point. Nlsanand (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are closer to meeting the definition of trolling than I am. We're not talking about just the Major League Soccer]] website. There are multiple websites that vlaim their elimination as September 12. The math backs this up. WP:CHALLENGED states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." I have provided sources for my date. You haven't for yours after being asked for one. Kingjeff (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so there are some hot heads here, so I'm going to be open. I agree with Nlsanand here. King Jeff IV, could you explain the issue you have with either A. The definition of eliminated being "When no result or combination of results could lead to qualification" or B. The math Nlsanand used to come up with hir preferred date? Achowat (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With Houston Dynamo's win, the only teams that Toronto FC could catch up to was Columbus Crew and the clubs below them. Columbus Crew's magic number over Toronto FC on September 6 was +1. This means that D.C. United needed only a win or a draw to eliminate Toronto FC or Toronto FC only needed a loss or a draw do this to happen. This happened on September 12. Now Nlsanand brought up a ligitimate point at the beginning of this conversation. Columbus Crew and D.C. United, who with a win could have mathematically eliminate Toronto FC with a win, play on October 20. The issue is that Nlsanand is saying September 6 is the elimination date and I'm saying is that the elimination date would have to be between September 12 and October 20. Although the logic of bringing up the October match between Columbus Crew and D.C. United is correct; the date is incorrect. For an elimination to occur, the magic number would have to be zero or below. We know this would have happened on October 20 at the latest. Therefore, both logic and math would agree that the latest elimination date wouyld have been October 20. But Toronto FC lost to Chicago Fire on September 12; bringing Columbus Crew's magic number over Toronto FC to –2. Therefore, as of September 12, there is absolutely no way that Toronto FC can catch Columbus Crew or D.C. United. Kingjeff (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kingjeff, the "elimination date" you refer to above. Wouldn't that date be when, "The date the team no longer can qualify for the playoffs." Why would it not be that date?

Just to clarify the math, this happened on 6 September because TFC could no longer catch Houston and therefore had to catch both DCU and Columbus. That's why it was that date as opposed to any other. Again, you've sited the magic number of Columbus over Toronto, even though we've explained several times why the magic number fell flat. I am going to explain to try and explain it to you in that framework (though I don't need to, as the article itself explains the subtlety). You can't use Colunbus's point total of 42 to calculate TFC's tragic number. Rather you must calculate it based on the lowest point total the 5th place team could have. In this case that number would have been 43 points (if Columbus and DCU were to tie). That meant TFC had to make up 22 points with only 21 "points available" to them. That makes their tragic number 0 on September 6, 2012. Nlsanand (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

But Houston was not in the last playoff spot; Columbus Crew was. The policies that support me are:

• WP:OR: It states, "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I have supported my date with multiple sources.
• WP:VERIFY: It states, "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source." I added source 1, 2 and 3. Walter Görlitz provided source 4. I believe that these 4 sources that back up my claim are credible sources. Anyone can check these out and most people won't challenge my date. This means that these sources are credible to a wider community. This policy also states, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Nlsanand has failed to live up to this. I have asked him to provide sources. He has yet to do so. Whereas, a week ago, I provided a source for my date. Then the next day, I added 2 more sources to further support the date. Walter Görlitz added a source to further support the date. So, my date is backed by multiple sources. Is there any source to support September 6?
• WP:CALC: It states, "routine calculations do not count as original research." My date comes from a routine calculation. Nlsanand is doing a routine calculation and adding logic to it. Once he added logic, it was more than a routine calculation.

Achowat, do you believe that the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, National Post and a Canadian Press article on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website are all credible sources? Kingjeff (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, you didn't answer my question. Achowat (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@KingJeff, your sources aren't reliable on this issue on this matter because they've been proven incorrect.

WP:CALC does not seem to make any adjustment for adding logic (as you imply in your post), and any common sense reading of the rules would dictate that logic is a clear extension.

To say that your calculation is supportable is not true, because it's been disproved. This is not a subjective matter where two points of view are equal; it's a binary calculation.

If you don't want to include my date, I won't fight you on it, and I'll leave the article at the neutral wording (as per the wishes of other posters). Nut your date is simply not true. It's factually inaccurate and my "calculation AND LOGIC" are not that hard to undestand.

It is my contention that my explanation has met the WP:CALC, but I'll withhold (so long as no precedent is acknowledged by any other parties. However, your unwillingness to compromise seems to indicate a lack of understanding.

The calculation must be an "obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." It is certainly not obvious and we are currently debating if it's correct and you certainly haven't provided any sources. Kingjeff (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious, it's obvious to those who aren't daft or too fucking busy to read the explanation. Obvious means the explanation is obvious, not that realizing it would be obvious.

Correct, if it's incorrect show any form of counterproof. You can't call it incorrect, because you refuse to agree. The point made is not refutable. The proof is provided several times on this talk page. Several users have understood it. It's only you who seems to either be choosing not to read the talk page, or is simply too thick. It's like if I said, "Women can get pregnant from rape." and one of your tea party buddy said, "No they can't" He can't disagree, but it's still obvious that he's wrong.

Meaningful reflection of the sources. The sources in this case don't need to be an article, rather the source is the MLS table and the remaining schedule. Based on those sources, one can see that TFC could no longer qualify for the playoffs. It's a meaningful reflection of the facts. Sept 12 would be nn incoorect reflection of the facts. You understand that, right? One is correct, and yours is not correct? And there's no room for judgment. Do you get that. Because, you're becoming frustrating. If you're saying it's too OR, I'll have that debate. But don't keep saying that somehow Sept 12 is correct. It's not.

By the way, how come you never answer questions that are directly asked? Nlsanand (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It can't be obvious. You are adding your own logic to the calculation. I believe your date is incorrect. Under your logic, the elimination date is between September 12 and October 20. Since Toronto FC's tragic number was -2 after their match against the Chicago Fire, September 12 would have to be the elimination date. By using the Major League Soccer table and the remaining schedule, You are violating WP:SYNTHESIS. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There are 4 sources in the article alone that state September 12 as the elimination date. Kingjeff (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Y'know what, Jeff. You've swayed me. I'm back on the September 12 bandwagon. Report what the sources say, per WP:TRUE. Achowat (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, no the "elimination date" is the date when they no longer could qualify for the playoffs. Why is that any date but September 6th (you've never responded. I have explained several times why the magic number example breaks down (so the magic number article explain it). Again, don't point to sources we know are incorrect. You have acknowledged that they're incorrect above.

Achowat, you're saying Wikipedia is best served by reporting info that's incorrect? Again, we know it's incorrect; it's not a subjective matter. Nlsanand (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it being true isn't a valid source. We are a tertiary source and we report what the secondary sources say. Achowat (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"the "elimination date" you refer to above. Wouldn't that date be when, "The date the team no longer can qualify for the playoffs." Why would it not be that date?" Of course the date I referred to would be the elimination date. Toronto FC's tragic number fell below 0 on September 12. WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CALC, WP:SYNTHESIS and the correct logic all support me. Kingjeff (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Achowat, we may be a tertiary source, but then the info still needs to be accruate. Inserting info that you know to be inaccurate (you do agree that the date was not the 12th, right?) is so clearly against what Wiki stands for, I don't think you need to cite some weird section of Wikilaw to disprove it.

Jeff, the magic number does not determine the date at which a team is eliminated. It is a tool that may help you determine when a team is eliminated. It is not a robust mathematical proof as discussed under magic number (sports)#subtlety; it fails in some circumstances like this. Therefore, it actually does not prove your point at all. The date at which a team is eliminated is when they can no longer mathematically qualify. In this case, it's September 6th for the reasons outlined above. If you're saying it's Original Research for me to say it....okay, no other jounralists have written it. Of course, their BAs from Carleton didn't teach them how to count. But to state that it's anything but true is invalid and to propose any other day is an outright fucking lie. Are you willing to go on record that the date that TFC went from being able to qualify for the playoffs to not being able to qualify was September 12? Don't respond with a magic number argument because it's been disproved about 100 fucking times on this talk page alone. You are really being a troll, and I'll write you up for this. There's a reason I survived the 3RR challenge. It's because you've refused to engage in any consensus building, or read anything anyone else writes. Please note, Achowat has readily responded with decent posts on this, I just may not agree with him. You just refuse to listen to anyone.Nlsanand (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlsanand, I have no idea why you quote magic number (sports). The article you refer to multiple times violates WP:VERIFY. Therefore, we have no idea if original reasearch is an issue in that article. Anyone could come along and challenge that article. I don't completely agree with that section. I don't discredit that the magic number must be zero or lower and I don't discredit that the schedule plays a role. Therefore, we can put an elimination date during a time period. In Toronto FC's case, we know that the time period was between the the final whistle on September 12 against the Chicago Fire and the final whistle for the D.C. United and Columbus Crew match on September 20. The sources seems to back me up on this. You survived the 3RR ruling because an admin used his discretion and thought that wasn't an appropriate punishment. Neither one of us can avoid the magic number arguement. This is because the magic number plays a role when a team is eliminated. If Toronto FC's tragic number was at 10, this wouldn't be a discussion right now.

Now there is a couple other issues that also must be addressed. Your language is becoming an issue. You are swearing; Which doesn't settle well with some. Actually, between the two of us, I am the only one who has conceded anything. I have conceded the fact that the match you referred would at some point have a bearing; just not on the date you provided. The other issue is that you have called me a troll. I have stated what I think the correct date is. I've tried to clearly state my logic and I've provided reliable sources and Wikipedia policies that have backed me up. So, I don't think I'm a troll. The definition of trolling is not disagreeing with you. There are users on Wikipedia that could take this as a personal attack. But I understand that you are just frusterated. Kingjeff (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Read above...you keep saying and I quote, "TFC's tragic number went below zero on Sept 12, so that proves they were eliminated on Sept 12." You're the one who keeps citing magic number in every explanation as a mathematical justificaiton for your argument. Now you're trying to discredit the concept. Fine, then just refute the example as explained and don't talk about magic number. The thing that violates WP:VERIFY is you. You just make shit up when you get caught in logical fallacies. Like when you

Re: my language, it's only because you've refused to engage in reading anyone else's comments on this page. Every other person on this page has agreed that the elimination date was the 6th (i.e. TFC could not qualify after Houston defeated RSL). It's just you. That's why you're getting the language. It's becuase you're trolling and refusing to acknowledge the obvious. My theory is now because you're just not that bright when it comes to nunbers. If you want to redeem yourself, please answer the following question: on September 6th, when TFC had 21 points, CLB had 42 points, and DCU points...was there any way that TFC could make the playoffs, if so please provide an example? If not, then will you confirm that they were eliminated of that date?

Personal attacks are sometimes necessary when someone is simply "refusing to get it" as TDL referred to you.

If you dodge this question, I've only got one word, it starts with b and ends with d. But I'll tell you later.

I am gonna take this to remediation, as you refuse to acknowledge basic math/logic. You are over your head. Nlsanand (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The formula itself can be referenced.

1. I haven't violated WP:VERIFY at all. I added 3 sources to the article. So, my date can be verified by many sources.
2. I don't agree that everyone has agreed. Walter Görlitz never agreed. In fact you have misquoted him in this discussion.
3. Your question is getting into the definitions of what effectively and officially are. According to Oxford Dictionary, effectively means "actually but not officially or explicitly." Notice the words "not officially". According to Ocford Dictionary, offcially means "in a formal and public way" So, the official elimination comes when the tragic number equals zero.
   1. Do we agree that Toronto FC's number was +1 before the match against Chicago Fire on Sept 12?
   2. So, we know that if all results went Toronto FC's way, the match on October 20 would have brought that number down to zero or below? Correct?
   3. So, the logical answer is the official elimination would have to occur between September 12 and October 20; not September 6.
   4. When you calculate the tragic number, it went below zero on September 12. This is backed by many sources. Therefore WP:OR and WP:VERIFY was met.
4. I have not refused to acknowledge math and logic and I do believe I get it. In fact, I have acknowledge your logic that the October 20 match means something. In fact, you have refused to take a look at my logic here.
5. There is no need to get hostile and use nasty words. Kingjeff (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You dodged the question again that was directly asked again...bhenchod. How could TFC make the playoffs under any circumstances on Sept 6th? Was there any way? Answer the question. There's a reason I'm hostile, it's because for all the posts you put on this talk page, you haven't said shit, and refused to read anyone else's posts. If your answer is yes. Please give an example of how this could be done. Nlsanand (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did answer the question in point 3. Kingjeff (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you answered the question, "How could TFC make the playoffs under any circumstances on Sept 6th? Was there any way?", point 3 was your answer? That simply isn't an answer. Answer the question with a response that directly addresses the question.Nlsanand (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is my answer. It's just an answer you don't like. Are you saying that Toronto FC were officially eliminated on September 6? Kingjeff (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am. More specifically, I am saying there's no way they could qualify for the playoffs once the game between Houston and Real Salt Lake finished. Are you saying they could qualify after that game or are you not? If so, please explain how that could have happened (based on actual match results). You did not answer this question yet. You just said other irrelevant items. Answer the quetion. It's bolded. Nlsanand (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, at that point TFC had 21 points and 7 games remaining, CLB had 42, and DCU had 41, and DCU and CLB play on Oct 20. CLB was in fifth place.Nlsanand (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Nlsanand, you claim to be a Chartered Accountant on your user page. So, I know that you should have some critical thinking skills. So, I would like you to take a step back here and use some of your critical thinking skills. So, lets do some reasonable and reflective thinking here.

1. One of the requirements for elimination is the magic number must equal zero.
   1. These two equations are tragic numbers prior to Toronto FC vs. Chicago Fire on September 12.
      1. 34 × 3 + 1 - 42 - (27 × 3 - 21) = +1 (Columbus Crew's magic number over Toronto FC.} Can we agree on this?
      2. 34 × 3 + 1 - 41 - (27 × 3 - 21) = +2 (D.C. United's magic number over Toronto FC.) Can we agree on this?
   2. Purely from a mathematical point of view, the elimination hasn't happened.
2. Nlsanand, here is one point where we agree. The final result from the Houston Dynamo and Real Salt Lake match makes the D.C. United vs. Columbus Crew on October 20 relevant.
   1. You believe that only the fact that it was scheduled makes Toronto FC eliminated.
   2. I believe that either Toronto FC would have to draw or lose between September 12 and October 20 for a formal and official elimination to occur.
3. I have a question for you. What is your thoughts and definitions on effectively eliminated and officially eliminated?
   1. My thought is that when a league and media reports an "elimination", they are reporting the definition of an official elimination.

To answer your question above I will create a table o show you. Kingjeff (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your premise above is faulty. It is not a requirement that the tragic number be zero for a team to be mathematically eliminated. The magic number (sports)#subtlety explains why. Any source that says that (which I don't you've provided anyways) is not reliable as we can clearly see examples where it would not be true (like this one). Your logic here is circular. A tragic number of zero only assures that a team is eliminated. I understand magic numbers; you just don't get that it's not a foolproof way to determine whether a team has been eliminated.

Should I take the fact that you did not provide an example of how TFC could have made the playoffs on Sept 6, are you acknowledging that they had no means of qualifying for the playoffs after Houston won? Are you acknowledging that (if you are, I think we can at least move forward with the discussion to the point below).

There is no distinction between mathematically eliminated and officially eliminated in common speech. No source has ever made such a distinction. Please show me a source that explicitly makes that distinction. No league has ever done that. The reason MLS called TFC eliminated on Sept 12 was merely a calculation error on their part, because they've assumed like you a simple mathematical formula rather than a more accurate analysis. If you want to shift to the discussion to whether there is a distinction between mathematically eliminated and officially eliminated, we can have that. But you first have to acknowledge that TFC had no way of qualifying after Houston won on the 6th. Nlsanand (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That article needs to be sourced and that section in particular needs to be sourced. Kingjeff (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The best Toronto FC could do
Date	Clubs involved
	Columbus Crew			D.C. United			Toronto FC
	Scheduled matches	Magic number over TFC	Note	Scheduled matches	Magic number over TFC	Note	Scheduled matches	Note
September 6	—							Toronto FC are effectively eliminated after Houston defeats Real Salt Lake.
September 12	—						vs. Chicago Fire	Toronto win
September 15	vs. NY Red Bulls	+1	NY win	vs. NE Revolution	+2	NE win	vs. Philadelphia Union	Toronto win
September 19	vs. Chivas USA	+1	Chivas win	—
September 20	—			vs. Philadelphia Union	+2	Philadelphia win	—
September 22	vs. Chicago Fire	+1	Chicago win	—			vs. LA Galaxy	Toronto win
September 23	—			vs. Chivas USA	+2	Chivas win	—
September 29	vs. Philadelphia Union	+1	Philadelphia win	vs. Portland Timbers	+2	Portland win	vs. NY Red Bulls	Toronto win
October 6	—			vs. Toronto FC	+2	Toronto win	vs. D.C. United	Toronto win
October 7	vs. Sporting Kansas City	+1	Kansas City win	—
October 20	vs. D.C. United	Between +1 and -2	Win or draw officially eliminates Toronto.	vs. Columbus Crew	Between +2 or -1	Win officially eliminates Toronto.	vs. Montreal Impact	Toronto win. Toronto FC is officially eliminated.
What actually happened to Toronto FC.
Date	Clubs involved
	Columbus Crew			Houston Dynamo			Toronto FC
	Scheduled matches	Magic number over TFC	Note	Scheduled matches	Magic number over TFC	Note	Scheduled matches	Note
September 5	vs. NE Revolution	+1	NE win. Columbus fail to officially eliminate Toronto.	—
September 6	—			vs. Real Salt Lakee	-2	Houston win. They effectively eliminate Toronto FC.	—
September 12	—						vs. Chicago Fire	Chicago win. They officially eliminate Toronto.

Some other important points Source #1, 2, 3 and 4 all use the world "officially".

• Source 1 from the Toronto Star states "The Reds fell 2-1 to the Chicago Fire at BMO Field Wednesday night to officially be eliminated from the Major League Soccer post-season for the sixth straight year."
• Source 2 from the Toronto Sun states "TFC — finally — officially eliminated from playoff contention" in the article title.
• Source 3 from the National Post states "Although a foregone conclusion in a season that has been slipping away, the loss officially eliminated Toronto from playoff contention for the sixth straight year, while also extending their winless skid to eight regular season matches dating back to July 18."
• Source 4 from the Canadian Press article located on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website states "Toronto FC went out with a whimper Wednesday night, officially eliminated from MLS post-season contention in a 2-1 loss to the visiting Chicago Fire."

I agree that there is no distinction between mathematically eliminated and officially eliminated. But there is between mathematically and effectively. Kingjeff (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could Toronto qualify for the playoffs before the Chicago match was played on the 12th, yes or no? Nlsanand (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

[5]Here's an article. from October 25th, 2009. It refers to DC United being eliminated. On this date, DC United's tragic number was 1. It was slightly more complicated because the tiebreakers were against this favour. They were tied on 40 points with two other teams for 7th in the leauge with New England (on 39 points) still having to play on the 25th. This is a parallel situation where DC had a magic number of 1, there was no result in the New England match that could result in them qualifying. Nlsanand (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

[6] Another one from Euro 2008 explaining how Switzerland was eliminated after matchday 2. This was despite having a TN of 1 using your formula. Notice how the sources use the word eliminated. It also notes that Portugal qualified; this was despite them having a MN of 1 under your formula. Portugal had 6 points, Switzerland had 0. Turkey and Czechs had 3 points, but were playing each other Nlsanand (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason noone cared to look into it for TFC is cause, noone gives a flying f*** about it. Nlsanand (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically yes they could made the playoffs; effectively no. The whole point I'm trying to make to you is that there is a clear difference here. The magic number going to zero is a formality for elimination. I never said that you were wrong about the October 20 match. What I am saying is that the Houston-Real match that you have quoted effectively eliminated. Where is the article? You subtract one in the magic number when a team wins a tiebreaker. That's in the magic number article that you love to quote. Are you clear what I'm trying to say in the table? Kingjeff (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF?? They could not make the playoffs. There was no means for them to make the playoofs under any future results, You understand that?

Alright, here's another example where the tiebreaker can't be adjusted. It's from 2010 World Cup...Cameroon had a MN of 1 on June 19, the second matchday and refers to Cameroon being elimited. Your distinction is original research. [7]. Again, the reason Cameroon is considered eliminated is the table was Netherlands 6, Japan 3, Denmark 3, and Cameroon 0. That makes Cameroon's magic number 1. However, because Japan and Denmark were playing each other...well you know (well maybe you don't). Nlsanand (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Any result" is not accurate. Toronto FC only needed one result not to go their way. From a technical/mathematical standpoint they could. But we both know, from a logical standpoint, the reality of the situation is the October 20 match plays a role irregardless of the score. If Toronto FC had got to October 20, both our logic and the math would be in agreement I'm trying to explain to you that it was a matter of a formality. The article doesn't say a word about the magic number. No, it doesn't make the magic number one. If you read that Magic number article that you hold in high esteem, then you'll read that the +1 in the formula is specifically for the tiebreaker. Kingjeff (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

To which article are you referring, the Cameroon one? [8] It makes no reference to a tiebreaker. The tiebreaker in world cup is goal difference in all matches. However, Cameroon could have won 100-0 versus the Netherlands and still not qualified. Why because Denmark was Japan, and one of those teams had to get at least one point. Are you saying Cameroon's tragic number needs to be adjusted for the fact that the teams it's chasing are playing at a future date? Nlsanand (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's was not a tie-breaking situation. It's the same situationas this. The author of the article knew about the impending elimination on matchday 3. Kingjeff (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet he referred to them as "eliminated". This situation was exactly like the TFC situation. Did he make any distinction? Or did he just say they were eliminated as their elimination was assured? Nlsanand (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And what paragraph are you quoting from? Kingjeff (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The title says, "African team out". The final paragraphs allude to them playing for pride. Without using the words eliminated, it clearly uses synomyms for eliminated. Will you only accept it if there's the word eliminated.Nlsanand (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You quoted the word eliminated; not out. Kingjeff (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're definitely on the defensive here. So I'll concede, it does not use the word eliminated. I was paraphrasing. Since you're going to be such a dick about it. How about this one from the same day...[9] or this one [10] or this one [11] or this one [12]. Sorry do you want more....there are a million. Will you concede your distinction is not valid? Nlsanand (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your silence speaks volumes. Nlsanand (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's called verifying the articles you reference. I'm hesitant. Your sources don't distinguish the difference for Cameroon atthe World Cup. My sources, that are relevant to this article, do distinguish the difference. Don't assume I'm on here 24/7. Kingjeff (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Where do your articles distinguish between "officially eliminated" and "effectively eliminated" (a distinction I have repeated does not exist. As I have always said "eliminated" means "can't make the playoffs". It doesn't really matter if you're hesitant. It matters if there's anywhere that makes that distinction that you are speaking of explicitly. Cause right now, it looks like your sources just made a mistake.Nlsanand (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources actually says [13] "As a result, Cameroon is the first team eliminated from the 2010 World Cup. They sit on zero points in Group E and face the Netherlands in the group's final round next Thursday. The Dutch are on six points, three ahead of both Japan and Denmark, who play each other, guaranteeing at least one of the teams will gain points and finish above Cameroon." This is the same reason why I state for why TFC was eliminated on the 6th. Nlsanand (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My sources use the word "officially" with the word "eliminated". What is the definition of "officially"? Kingjeff (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. My assumption (and most people's reasonable assumption) would be that officially implies there is not even a remote chance a team could qualify. In other words, goes from highly improbably to impossible. Of course, that was true for TFC on Sept 6. There was not even a remote chance they could qualify because of the DCU-CLB game. Your postulation is that there would be a difference between two different sets of impossible. So in Cameroon's case, it would be impossible but they were only "effectively eliminated" whereas I'd just call them eliminated (but I'd also call them "officially eliminated".

Of course, that assumes that those sources always use the word "officially" in front of the word "eliminated". [14] The MlS artcile just uses the word "eliminated" without the word "officially". Read it in the article. Is it possible they just forgot about the distinction, or is it possible they just did not know? I think we're done here. My team is getting its ass kicked again right now. I try and write something about them that's factually accurate, and you come on here making up facts. You're clearly out of your league. Can you please just stop this shit? You're just making up facts. Nlsanand (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Look earlier in this debate. I quoted the sources I was talking about. According to Oxford Dictionary "in a formal and public way." So, we can say on September 12, Toronto FC were formally eliminated. According to Oxford Dictionary, the definition of effectively is "actually but not officially or explicitly." Therefore, we can say, Toronto FC were effectively were effectively eliminated on September 6; but not officially. Kingjeff (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

They were eliminated just like Cameroon was eliminated. So we could just say they were eliminated. Since it's the exact same situation. You're now creating a distinction that's just original research at this point. No one makes this distinction in any of the articles you've cited. And to be honest, it just seems like horsehit. By the way, you wanna apologize for having it wrong when you said your sources used the word officially. A "My bad" never hurt. Nlsanand (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we could just state eliminated. I think we completely agree up until we state our dates. Kingjeff (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean we could say eliminated on September 6th. Just as Cameroon was declared eliminated on June 19, 2012. I actually disagree with you on officially eliminated being any different from eliminated. I think that language would equally valid. However, I am trying to compromise. But I really don't care as long as you don't put the date of the 12th in this article as it's wrong. And you don't bring your original research to any other sports article. If so, I will not insist the date get mentioned here.

However, I gotta ask that you apologize for even taking this far. I really think you've been making up distinctions which at best were some formality that really only exists in your head.

It may be debatable whether my analysis was Original Research since no jounralist bothered to look at it that way. But you implied that somehow I was wrong despite knowing the facts. Nlsanand (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There really is no need to apologize. We've been going at this for over a week now. I know you were frustrated. The exact elimination date I'm not sure if I can do anything about. Because there are 4 sources against your date. But, what I think we should start to do is to take a look at the match report and the major Canadian newspapers and for Houston's match on September 6 and see what they say. Kingjeff (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ifwe can't find anything, maybe just leave without a date. Kingjeff (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I will already tell you I could not find a source noting TFC's elimination on that date (unless you count a bigsoccer forum as a source). The only way to include this is the application of WP:CALC, on the basis that the calculation reflects the table on September 6 as a source and is just a logical conclusion of what the table was. However, I am willing to forego that discussion, as I just don't give a flying f*** right now. So long as you admit the four sources you cited were simply wrong. Not that they were making some bullshit distinction that is clearly not evident and not supported by similar situations like the Cameroon one. Sept 12 was not the elimination date.Nlsanand (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CALC applies here because your date is more than a calculation. You are using a routine calculation, the MLS schedule and analyzing them both to come to a conclusion. I have challenged your date. So, your date should be sourced. Kingjeff (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Without questioning your right to question my sourcing, why do you care to question my calculation? I have proven it's correct. They had no chance of qualifying after Houston. Is this a question of you just being pushy? Why do you care about not having accurate information in the article? What pleasure did you get for being such a dick the past week to push your distinction that apparently did not exist? Nlsanand (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am disputing that WP:CALC does not apply, but am choosing not to discuss it here, as the date of elimination probably isn't important in this article. Do not cite your phoney distinction between "math" and "logic" in any other discussion. It does not exist in real life much like your distinction between "effectively eliminated" and "officially eliminated". I do reserve the right to refer to your lack of "street cred" by citing your incomprehensible viewpoints stated here. Basically, I have given up on the good fight because life's too short not because you've been reasonable. Nlsanand (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CALC states, "basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." It certainly doesn't reflect the sources. You have failed to provide any sources that link the Houston Dynamo vs. Real Salt Lake match on September 6 to Toronto FC's elimination. I don't believe it's correct. It certainly not obvious or we wouldn't be debating this a week and a half after the discussion. The only thing obvious is that all the editors that have debated this topic is the formula for the magic number. But the answer to the formula by itself contradicts you. What is phoney about my distinction between "math" and "logic"? There is a distinction between "effectively eliminated" and "officially eliminated". I gave you sources from a dictionary that shows you the distinction. How are my viewpoints incomprehensible? I feel that I have been reasonable. I have even said that you were correct on some points. Kingjeff (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

NLSanand, you keep falling back on the "It needs to be in the sources, but it also needs to be right" argument. Which, frankly, holds no water here. Per WP:TRUE, we are here to report what the sources say and nothing else. There's no point, really, in continuing this discussion. WP:V is a policy, WP:OR is a policy. The conversation is, for all intents and purposes, a settled discussion. Achowat (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Achowat, WP:V is merely a threshold for including material, not a justification. Just because a RS says something, that doesn't imply we must include it. We still have to exercise WP:Editorial discretion to determine whether the content warrants inclusion, and of course whether something is true is a pretty important consideration. If I found a RS that claimed 2+2=5, that doesn't mean this must be include on addition. The fact that the claim of elimination on the 12 is obviously mistaken, it's reasonable to exclude it, especially since it adds so little to the article. This is especially true when we have RS that point out that the media often don't consider the full picture when declaring a team eliminated ([15]) and thus get the date wrong.

Kingjeff, I've reverted to the stable version before an eliminate date was included. Please don't WP:EDITWAR your desired content into the article when there is clearly no consensus on the talk page for your edits. TDL (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the actual date of elimination need not be included, but the rest of your argument is crap. Editorial discretion is an essay. I could write an essay that could be exact opposite of that and then point to it to counter your argument. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd write an essay saying that we shouldn't exercise "editorial discretion developed via consensus"? That we should have to included any reliably sourced statement? That doesn't seem like very reasonable logic. If you dislike essays, you can take a look at WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".

If we agree that the date doesn't need to be included, can't we all just move on to more productive pursuits? TDL (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TDL, do you realize we're talking multiple sources here? Kingjeff (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, well aware. There's still no policy that says if 4 sources claim something we must include it. TDL (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, four is only the number of sources in the article. We could add more. If you are going to give links to show users, you should make it where people see more than like yellow rectangular boxes. How am I suppose to see if it's credible or not? By the way, it takes more than one edit to editwar. I will only agree not to put it in because the sources don't state any significance on the elimination date. When using edit summary, you shouldn't be including statements like "this factually incorrect trivia" when it's clearly debatable if it's incorrect or not and debatable if it's even trivia. Kingjeff (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Nls, we do need to excercise discresion. So the question we should be having is between including the Verified Date or not. No value should be given to any other date. Achowat (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Achowat, What do you mean the Verified Date, I assume you mean the date, Sept 12, which has been shown to be factually inaccurate? Why is there even a debate on putting the 12th in. It was clearly an error on the part of the sources sited. Basically, what I'm saying is to use something as a source, the source has to be credible. When the source can be disproved on its face, it loses credibility on the subject matter. Even if the information was warranted to be included, putting the 12th would be factually inaccruate. I am going to ignore the fact WP:CALC could be cited as a legitimate reason to incldue the 6th.

Kingjeff, I'm glad to see you basically ignored the board, and made a factually incorrect edit. Your distinction between "effectively eliminated" and "officially eliminated" was shown to be bullshit in the context of Cameroon's elimination at the 2010 World Cup. You citing the dictionary as an example was also incorrect and drawing a conclusion that doesn't relly exist. "Effectively eliminated" generally has the meaning of "all but mathematically eliminated". So TFC was "effectively eliminated" on the 5th (it was highly imporbable they would qualify). How is your definition anything but (shoddy) Original Research given the Cameroon example. Nlsanand (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRUE. It doesn't matter what's "right", it matters what has been reported by the reliable secondary sources. (Which, regardless of what you say, includes Major League Soccer Soccer.com). We're in WP:IDHT territory now. Achowat (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRUE refers to the inclusion of unsourced info, not the exclusion of sourced factually incorrect info. So it doesn't really apply. And with some editorial leeway, I'd say the policy sited refers to matters which are much more subjective than the matter at hand. That's why WP:CALC would likely trump it. Nlsanand (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's "factually correct", the reliable sources do. Achowat (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I did show it above. Are you disputing the logic that the source is wrong? How does WP:TRUE pertain to discrediting sources? It only says you need a source, not that you can't discredit sources. Read the policy. You've incorrectly linked two arguments. WP:TRUE "Because it's true, is not a good reason to include it". What you're saying is "Because the source says it, it is obviously true", that's not what the policy says. And don't imply MLS is a reliable source in this matter, how can't it be unreliable when it's evident that they've made a factually incorrect statement.Nlsanand (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:OR are policies, and can't be changed on your whims alone. The date, as verified, is the one listed in the Reliable Sources. MLS is a reliable source for, among other things, MLS. Stating any other date, or chosing not to report a date that is otherwise notable just because you disagree with it, is original research. I don't know what is left to talk about on this issue. Achowat (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The policies you site don't discuss the right to question a source (to dispute its accuracy). In this case, the source can be proven to be 100% incorrect. If you're questioning whether my date could be included, that's one thing. But it is very clear those sources were incorrect. That's agreed here. You even agreed above. Anyways, if you're done I'm done, given the date won't be included. But factually inaccurate is the correct term for September 12. If we set a precedent that sources aren't quesionable, it's a dangerous precedent. I didn't know Wiki was full of people of unquestioning minds. If the NY times had a typo, you'd then say it's a correct spelling of the word, because by your logic it's unqeustionable. But I guess that speaks to someone's views on critical thinking or their ability to do so at all. Nlsanand (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a typo and you know that. The source is right from a certain point of view. So the question then becomes, what do we do. We can report the verified date, we can report your date, or we can report know date at all. You seem to be lobbying for the second one, which is the only solution to this issue that is explicitly against policy. So then the question becomes "Do we report the verifiable number, or not?" Now, to me, this is an easy choice. You agree that the date of elimination is worthy of inclusion, so we include it. We shouldn't keep a fact out of the article because your own research disagrees with the reliable sources. Achowat (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said that it's worthy of inclusion. I have said specifically, it's not. However, if it was, yes I would lobby for my date. All I'm saying is the sources used are wrong. That's a "Verifiable fact" using simple math. Your path seems to incorrectly imply this is a matter of opinion. It's not. It's a matter of math. You can't report incorrect info. None of the policies you've cited have said, "Sources are infalable". So the date of the 12th must be excluded, as we know (for a fact) that they were eliminated on the 6th. However, I agree we can exclude it, because it's not notable. Nlsanand (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

[16] By the way, I'll include another attached article which discussed how APOEL Nicosia qualified on Matchday 5 last year, because Porto and Zenit were playing each other on matchday 6. The logic that teams playing each other must be factored in whether a team is eliminated has been used consistently (except by the MLS website which happens to be staffed by people who aren't too good at math).Nlsanand (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin help

Toronto FC vs. Chicago Fire from September 12, 2012

Here is a photo I would to add to the article. This could go into the "Review and events" section. Kingjeff (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Question: What additional value to the reader does this photograph add? The players strips, player numbers and faces are unclear, no particularly notable action appears to be taking place - I'm afraid I can't see any particular reason to include this. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not seeing any consensus to add this photo to the article at this time. If a consensus is found to add it after further discussion, then you are welcome to reactivate the edit protected template then. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It just shows Toronto FC in action during a match during the season. The photo fulfills the request at the top. I suggest that we use this photo. If someone comes along with a better photo, I would be happy to use it in this photo's place. Kingjeff (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A better photo is certainly needed but I would have thought it would be silly to use a poor quality picture till then just because it's the only one there is. The only thing you can really ascertain from that picture is there is a football team wearing a blue kit and one wearing a red one are playing football. It could be from any match anywhere on the planet at any time, what's to say that's this season? Photo's aren't really necessary in season articles either, Man Utd get by without any in the vast majority of their season articles. Narom (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. But I was just trying to fulfill the request. Kingjeff (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is September 12th in early September?

See John Molinaro's latest article which references the team's playoff elimination in early September, supports September 6th. Nlsanand (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2012 Toronto FC 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430101816/http://www.mlssoccer.com/2011-mls-roster-rules to http://www.mlssoccer.com/2011-mls-roster-rules
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023124915/http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-04-28-rsl-v-tor/recap to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-04-28-rsl-v-tor/recap
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925101800/http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-26-tor-v-phi/recap to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-26-tor-v-phi/recap
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701013838/http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-06-27-mtl-v-tor/recap to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-06-27-mtl-v-tor/recap
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719223836/http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-07-18-tor-v-col/recap to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-07-18-tor-v-col/recap
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807182657/http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-08-04-chi-v-tor/recap to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-08-04-chi-v-tor/recap
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808213346/http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-23-tor-v-van/recap to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-23-tor-v-van/recap

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)