Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Southsiders

I like the current state of the paragraph. While supporters groups such as the Southsiders are not unique in football, they are unique in the USL. Not sure what will happen when they go MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone created an article in their userspace [[1]]. It is against userpage guidelines but I am hesitant to delete it since I assume there is significant coverage out there. ANyonefeel like jumping on this? Let me know if anyone needs a hand.

Also, the group's logo would be fine there. However, it is a very liberal interpretation of the FUR guidelines. Many editors would not accept it since the article is not about the group. And a logo isn't that necessary anyways. The section also already has two perfectly fine images but they are already problematic since the text is sandwiched. A third isn't helping. I was going to nom this for deletion but wanted to wait and see if someone was creating an article for the group.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The page in question was removed when originally presented as an article, with the relevant conent merged to the Southsiders section here. The user has maintained the page in their userspace, although it is largely trivia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it might meet GNG with The Province, again, and again, RDS, The Sun, again, and again, and National Post. Most are only passing mentions, but the first one mentioned is in depth enough to give it some umph. I probably won't do it though so unless anyone plans to I am going to be noming the userpage over at WP:MFD. Keep a couple of the sources in mind for the future though.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

After some thought I recreated it with sources. All self published sources and unverified info has been removed. The logo needs to be removed from this article still.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the new sources. However, the material still does not appear to warrant a stand-alone article. I have merged the relevant details into the "Fans" section. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded over at the other talk page with reasoning and a reply would be appreciated. You also tagged sourced information as not sourced during your merge so I question how hard you really thought about the merge and the new sources.Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge. -- Cmjc80 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Since the new team has the same name, same ownership, same office staff, the two should be a single article. The only difference is the league in which they are playing. The current article shows that the franchise has successfully transitioned between seven franchises already, I don't see why a new article is required for the MLS franchise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I hate the new logo. Ick. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, the merger. This team is a new entity distinct from the USL/USSF Whitecaps just as the pre MLS and MLS Sounders were different teams that we've kept separate. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It has the same entity. They will maintain the same ownership (Kerfoot and Nash) adding an investor. They will maintain the same office staff. They are the same team. You have no facts to back your position. The fact that the news conference was given in the USSF-D2 team's offices should tell you that the team is one. (see http://www.whitecapsfc.com/ and http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/06/08/bc-whitecap-logo.html) When Toronto FC started, they did not come out of the Lynx franchise. They were two distinct teams. This is not the case in Vancouver and you honestly don't know the facts of the situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please keep a civil tongue and stay away from personal attacks. Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So editors should let other editors lie just to keep up the appearance of civility? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is lying? Under the MLS system each team is an extension of the single entity league. Under the USL the Whitecaps were a completely independent franchise playing under the USL banner. While most of the staff will remain the same under the MLS Whitecaps, legally they are a new entity, hence when they were created initially they were Vancouver MLS 2011. The new MLS franchise has adopted the USL team's name, nothing more. The MLS history books and league office will not be recognizing any honors, awards or records of the team from prior to their first game in March 2011, just as they didn't for the Sounders, Toronto, or any of the teams that had long NASL histories prior to the formation of MLS. That enough support for you? Gateman1997 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and I think this is the strongest argument for not merging the articles.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The USL Timbers and MLS Timbers have two separate articles as well. Same situation as Vancouver, so let's keep them two distinct pages. Tom Danson (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So merge the Timbers articles! I don't understand how N.A. should be distinct. European teams have undergone change for the better part of the century. They've entered and created new leagues. Some have been steps up while others have been steps down. I'm not referencing relegation and promotion, I'm talking about wholesale changes. Keeping the articles separate even though the franchise has not changed is flawed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Care to cite any examples from Europe to back that claim? Gateman1997 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Half of the clubs in the Bundesliga have undergone major upheavals not the least of which was a war or two. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I say again, care to cite any examples? Gateman1997 (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I care. Please see some below. —WiJG? 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Walter. Unlike the Sounders, this Vancouver team is keeping the history of the USL team, has the same owners and investors, and is essentially the same team moving up a division. However, I do think we should wait until the 2010 USSFD2 season is over to do the merge, so that readers don't get confused. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The argument for a merge here is cogent, as are the replies to the opposes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The USL Sounders and MLS Sounders have two different articles and were two separate entities. The D2 Whitecaps and MLS Whitecaps are two different teams. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious argument. The fallacy being that the Whitecaps are not two separate entities. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Care to back up your argument with links to reliable sources? Because I'm willing to change my position if you can convince me to. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Already have: see http://www.whitecapsfc.com/ and http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/06/08/bc-whitecap-logo.html The current USSF D2 franchise is the hosting-ground for all the MLS Franchise. Same offices. Same ownership group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that specifically says that this is the same team. Sure it's the same ownership group and same front office, but does that mean it's the same team? Seattle Sounders FC shares ownership with the USL Sounders, but the team is considered a new entity. I will agree that the overall organization is the same, but thus far I don't see that translating to the club that takes the field.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

# Is it up to you to see that the franchise is the same or is it up to the club? They consider themselves to be the same.

# Assuming that we need to convince you, what would it take? Remember that the 2008 Whitecaps dismissed half the starting team and likely more than half the bench before the start of the 2009 season but there isn't a different article. So unless you stipulate exactly what you consider it to be the same team it's impossible to meet your requirement. And then there's the 2006 Juventus F.C. scandal where half the players left when the club was demoted two leagues as a result of the Serie A match fixing scandal. We don't consider them to be a different club. Honestly, what is the fixation with the MLS that makes so many people think it's sacrosanct and each team that enters it requires a new article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What would it take? How about a link that says they're the same team? Because the ones you've posted so far don't indicate to me one way or the other. And why do you keep bringing up the players? That they dumped half the team in an offseason has exactly nothing to do with the argument over whether the MLS incarnation is different from the D2 incarnation.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you can't read. WhitecapsFC.com is the site for the USSF-D@ franchise. Why would a franchise that is about to be defunct announce the team that is going to replace them? The CBC site shows that the announcement was made from the offices of the current Whitecaps franchise. Again, no reason to do so if it's a different club. They're obviously the same team and you have not given any concise information to fulful your desire to prove that it's the same team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Why would a franchise that is about to be defunct announce the team that is going to replace them?" I don't know...to get the fans to support the new team when the old one is decommissioned? Attracting fans seems like a good strategy for a business. And as the one trying to make a point, the onus is on you to convince me. If you want to convince me, do it.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But if the "old team" has no vested interest in the "new team" it wouldn't. See Toronto Lynx as a simple example. It had nothing to do with the Toronto FC. No I'm sorry. I have given you convincing proof, now it's your job to show that they're not the same "team" whatever that means. You can't because there isn't any. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Walter Görlitz on condition that the MLS Vancouver Whitecaps are explicitly the same club as the one contending in the USL division and not a newly created franchise with the same name and owners. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What would that look like? Same coach and coaching staff? What percentage of players moving forward? Considering that that six of the starting eleven who won the 2008 USL championship were sacked before the start of the 2009 season, I don't know how fair a measure it is. The ownership group has been explained. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

oppose The two teams are distinct entities that share the same name. Same ownership and front office staff does not make it the same team. Vancouver was awarded an expansion franchise by MLS. That means a new franchise is being created. The Whitecaps were not promoted to MLS; that would mean that it is the same entity. Our precedent on Wikipedia is the Sounders. They had the same ownership, name, and front office as the USL Sounders. However, when Sounders FC were granted an expansion franchise in MLS (with additional investors), it was a new team. KitHutch (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If the same ownership and office staff doesn't make a team no teams are the same team. Vancouver was not awarded the franchise, Kerfoot and his group of backers were offered the franchise. The fact the Sounders do not have the same page is just as ignorant as keeping these two teams the same since they're the same team. Our precedent is not the Sounders it should be the Lynx and TFC. It should be the teams I mentioned. Making the Sounders two separate pages was a mistake. Making the Timbers two separate pages is a mistake. Making the Whitecaps two separate pages is a bigger mistake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see your arguement here. The Lynx and TFC have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. How come Toronto Blizzard (NASL) and Toronto Blizzard (1986–1993) have different articles despite the same name and ownership? It's because the NASL Blizzard ceased operations with the end of the NASL and the ownership group purchased a new franchise in the NSL. When the new Blizzard moved to the CSL and later the APSL, it was explicitly stated that the same team was moving to a new league. The same thing happened with the original San Diego Sockers (1974-1996) when they moved from the NASL to the MISL and then to the CISL. Same team explicitly stated as joining a new league. That is not what has happened with the Whitecaps. It's a new team with the similar ownership and the same front office. Why is it so hard for you to see that this is a new franchise? We are not putting down the great soccer history of Vancouver. We are simply stating the reality of what is going on. KitHutch (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the Blizzard. Do they have the same ownership? If they do, perhaps they should be merged as well. Again, common in European leagues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But this is not Europe. North America has different standards. What examples from Europe can you cite?KitHutch (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right it's not Europe. They know how to build cars better and to run Wikipedia better as well. Examples already given. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All the examples I have seen from you are about teams being sold and releasing players. That is not the same thing as new legal entities being set up. Please give examples from Europe where are team ceased operations and a new team with the same name operating in a different league came into existence. (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Whitecaps have not been sold. There is no indication how many players will be retained and how many will be released. that means your example is not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Re:KitHutch) Here are some stories I remember, and I'm sure there will be plenty if you dig well:

The club was promptly re-established in August 2002 as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina e Florentia Viola with shoe and leather entrepreneur Diego Della Valle as new owner, and was admitted into Serie C2, the fourth tier of Italian football. The only player to remain at the club in its new incarnation was Angelo Di Livio, whose commitment to club's cause further endeared him to the fans. Helped by Di Livio and 30-goal striker Christian Riganò, the club won its Serie C2 group with considerable ease, which would normally have led to a promotion to Serie C1. However, due to the bizarre Caso Catania (Catania Case) the club skipped Serie C1 and was admitted into Serie B, something that was only made possible by the Italian Football Federation's decision to resolve the Catania situation by increasing the number of teams in Serie B from 20 to 24 and promoting Fiorentina for "sports merits". In the 2003 off-season, the club also bought back the right to use the Fiorentina name and the famous shirt design, and re-incorporated itself as ACF Fiorentina.

— A.C. Fiorentina#Della Valle era

On 21 May 1986, the club called in the Provisional Liquidator and shortly afterwards, the club was wound up. In August, Rioch and 29 other non-playing staff were sacked by the Official Receiver and the gates to Ayresome Park were padlocked. Some players left, while others stayed under Rioch and coach Colin Todd. Without the £350,000 capital required for Football League registration, the death of the club was announced on Tyne Tees Television, and it seemed inevitable that the club would fold permanently. However, Steve Gibson, a member of the board at the time, brought together a consortium involving Bulkhaul Limited, ICI, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and London businessman Henry Moszkowicz. With ten minutes to spare, Middlesbrough F.C. avoided missing the deadline and completed their registration with the Football League for the 1986-87 season with both a change of crest to the current version and a change of name to Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Club (1986) Ltd. With the gates to Ayresome Park having been closed by the baliffs, Middlesbrough were forced to play their opening game of the season at Hartlepool United's home ground, Victoria Park.

— History of Middlesbrough F.C.#A near death experience (1986)

One thing further. The paradigm to use is not the Seattle Sounders, it's the Edmonton Oilers, the New England Whalers, and the Winnipeg Jets which all moved from the WHA into the NHL. They kept the same front office staff, same management, and some of the same players. the only difference between the Caps and these clubs is that they also kept the same arenas while the Caps are moving into a larger arena. They wouldn't have to do it if they had been granted their Whitecaps Stadium however. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually your examples are not applicable here. The Oilers for example were founded as a member of the WHA, however the current franchise is the same franchise that was founded in the WHA. The WHA was merged with the NHL and those same WHA franchises continued into the NHL including taking their history etc... That is not the case here. The USL Whitecaps, Sounders, Timbers are all shutting down and ceasing operations as legal entities. There are then 3 new teams that happen to have similar or identical names being started up by MLS that happen to have similar ownership. However there is no continuity of history between the USL clubs and the MLS franchises that is recognized by the MLS. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fact that the Oilers are the same franchise today as the the WHA franchise is exactly what I'm saying and that's what the Whitecaps have been saying for the past two years. You need a citation to show that USSF-D2 Whitecaps are shutting down operations. They aren't. They're becoming the MLS Whitecaps. That is the continuity between the two franchises. Same offices. Same office staff. Same coaching staff. Some of the same players. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter, do you have any sources that can verify that the two clubs are the same legal entity? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Only the ones I've posted. Do you naysayers have any that show that they're two different legal entities? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if they were, there are many franchises, The Vancouver Canucks, who are owned by multiple legal entities over their life. Should we have a different article based on the owner? You guys are all grapsing at straws. Legal entities? What a crock. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. None of the same players will be moving on as the Whitecaps will have to acquire their players via the expansion draft, superdraft, etc... just as Seattle, Philly, Chivas all did. As for them "becoming the MLS Whitecaps" you're also mistaken. The MLS Whitecaps will have a founding date of 2009 and a first game played in 2011. And strictly speaking as part of the single entity MLS the new Whitecaps are owned by the league, not the owners. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Partially correct. They don't have to, they may. They will be keeping a few players. The Whitecaps don't have a founding date of 2009. That's the date that the expansion franchise was acquired. That was a nice WP:V source you offered. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature09120802.aspx http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature072508018.aspx http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature12100901.aspx Two different franchises? Not according to the franchise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you deicde to spin this to your incorrect view I'll quote the salient section:

"On July 25, 2008, Vancouver Whitecaps FC officially announced their intention to bid for one of the two Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion franchises, which are set to begin play in 2011. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Where were those WP:V documents indicating that the two clubs were different? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment As someone who has been adamant that Sounders FC is a similar but separate entity, I do actually see some reasoning here. Obviously more secondary sources from those saying "yes, it is the same" and from those saying "no, it isn't" would be useful. From five minutes of poking around, I think the proposal has some merit. Reasons for a split: New business license(? assuming), partially new ownership, size of the article (that is more of a Wikipedia thing than an actuality thing), and there is no actual promotion. Keep wise, it looks like it is being marketed as the same thing. And if everyone in the FO is just getting new business cards then I can also see it.Regardless, Seattle Sounders FC is WP:FA. Surely we can get some wins in 2011 to really rub it in, Vancouver :) Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are all secondary. They are newspaper articles reprinted on the 'Caps site. A search for MLS reveals many such articles. Those are the best of the first page of results. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: still waiting for the WP:V documents that show that the two clubs are actually different corporations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And still waiting for documentation that says they are the same company. From what I can tell, the ownership group is different (larger), but I haven't seen any press saying that a share of the current 'Caps organization has been sold to the new owners.That would suggest a separate corporate structure. --Ckatz^chat_spy

Read what has been written and you'll see it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Walter Görlitz. The two pages should be merged, let alone the NASL one should be too. It seems we have certain people south of the 49 deciding what our club here in Vancouver is. I've emailed the Whitecaps FO for the appropriate information on the subject so hopefully they get back soon. This is up to the people opposing the merge of the two pages to prove they shouldn't be, not the other way around. It's ridiculous. Until then they should be merged. How does this work around here? We have a bunch of people that can't prove the Whitecaps are the same club and a bunch of people that have given some evidence they are. Yet the people who agree with the page Merge outnumber those against. Surely the pages should be merged until proof changes that. Harryzimm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all of the editors opposing the move are from the US. I believe that Ckatz is from Vancouver Island. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well technically I said south of the 49;) But it does seem most of them are from the US.

If you don't want people from the States commenting then you should follow a team in a Canadian league ;) I am seeing the recycled argument that some teams are merged articles while others are not. There are both sports articles and business articles that could be pointed to to support either merging or keeping it separate. When it comes to MLS though, there is a precedent to have separate articles. I don't mind if Vancouver bucks that trend too much. I'm still on the fence personally since they are marketing it as the same thing.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fact is though regardless of how they're marketing it, MLS will not be recognizing ANY of the other Whitecaps history or accomplishments prior to March 2011. They're a clean slate when they begin play in MLS, just as the Sounders are and just as any club with an NASL name is currently. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me that fact. Seems that Ckatz would rather make this difficult. So far not one fact that you or any of the opponents to this have produced one fact other than your word. That's not how Wikipedia works. I understand that the MLS will be in control of the players' contracts, but I don't know how they can re-write history. Not even Hitler could do that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Make this difficult"? Hardly fair, Walter, as I was simply reverting several instances where you either edited or deleted other editors' comments. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How would you characterize. Removing an in-line citation request then? To me it's being difficult since I didn't actually change the content of the edit simply challenged it in a Wikipedia-friendly manner. My request for information now appears out-of-context and could be misconstrued. It would have been less difficult to leave the citation needed tag where I inserted it. Sorry to comment on the editor rather than the edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter, we have provided evidence. MLS has not recognized the prior franchises with the same name history to date even when one exists for example with the Sounders or Earthquakes. There has been no evidence the Whitecaps will be treated any differently. Additionally all the other evidence that's been provided would back that up (different owners, different legal entity, different team members, different stadium, etc... Gateman1997 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't. You have stated that this happened but have provided no evidence. You don't have a written MLS policy that states this. You don't have a press-release that indicates that this will happen with either Vancouver or Portland. You simply have a vague concept that this has happened in the past with no documented proof. What I have is documented proof that the Whitecaps are carrying forward their legacy which they claim back to the original NASL franchise. I doubt that they would be pressing so hard on that front when they intend to drop it in eleven months. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have found several clubs that have played in legally separate leagues and still claim to be the same clubs from their original inception, like Rapid Vienna in 1899 - they even played in a league in another country(Germany). The Austrian Bundesliga was only founded in 1974 for crying out loud. Even FC Red Bull Salzburg says it was founded in 1933 but it was also disbanded in 1950 then came back as a new entity in the same year. FK Austria Wien, LASK Linz, SK Sturm Graz, and others are just like the Whitecaps. If clubs like the Austrian examples are permitted to keep single pages than it's only fair play for us as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryzimm (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not whether a team that plays in two different leagues should have two articles, one for each league. There are plenty of examples of North American teams playing in two leagues and having only one article (San Diego Sockers, Milwaukee Wave, Toronto Blizzard, Baltimore Blast, etc). The argument is whether the future Vancouver Whitecaps FC of MLS is the same entity as the current Vancouver Whitecaps of USSF-D2. If they are the same entity, then they should get one article. If they are two separate entities, then they should get two articles. KitHutch (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, isn't it. And all of the documents that have been presented show that they're a single entity. Based on your logic, they should be merged into a single article. Not a single source (other than esteemed wikipedians' opinions) to indicate that they're two separate entities. Thanks for settling that debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the San Diego Sockers for one have separate articles for all 3 of their incarnations. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't fully understand how sports work in America, but creating a new article because a club enters a new league sounds barmy to me. Bobbymozza (talk) 05.01 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's not the same team joining a new league. MLS is establishing a completely new team that just happens to have the same name as the current Whitecaps of USSF-D2. By the logic of this page, Baltimore Colts (1947-1950) should be included with the Indianapolis Colts of the NFL even though the NFL explicitly says those are separate franchises with no shared history. KitHutch (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

there is no actual promotionCptnono (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also no such thing as a free lunch. Are you trying to explain that the main difference between North American soccer and football in the rest of world is that there's no promotion or relegation? Well that and it's more of a family event here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe up there. Come to 133 at Qwest when you guys come down. I'll buy you a beer or five!

On other articles I have seen editors from outside of the States assume Sounders was a promotion. There is a clear difference between a promotion and a group of owners teaming up with another and the city to place a bid for an MLS franchise.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, and I'd propose to merge Sounders, Timbers, Earthquakes, Impact and probably Toronto, too. As an example of the situation, you may wish to watch the J. League clubs. Prior to J. League was established, almost all of them were corporate teams under corporate names – but in 1992 those clubs were re-organized to completely new independent companies, the names were changed and they started playing in entirely new league. Though, all the statistics and history is kept since the early JSL times – you may see the list of Japanese football champions for further details. And this process continues – the fresh example may be Blaublitz Akita who have changed the name and undergone deep re-organization this winter, but have kept all the TDK S.C.'s history as their own. And this is the right way, because the "football club" is not something bound to its managing corporation or the league it plays. The name, the city, the supporters are of greater importance IMO. —WiJG? 08:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are three Australian clubs who have played in old NSL and continued their history in the A-League (which is probably the most MLS-like football league outside North America). Neither of them consider NSL and A-League entities as the separate ones, the club remains the same and its history continues through the different leagues. —WiJG? 10:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because those are the same teams that moved to a new league. This is not the case with the Whitecaps. A new team with the same name and similar ownership is being created in this case. KitHutch (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See the Japanese example above. Also, how do you clearly distinguish "the same team moved to a new league" and "a new team being created"? —WiJG? 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually KitHutch, it is the same team moving into a new league. This is what you people who oppose just don't seem to understand. Same team. Same ownership. Different league. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, merge the articles It makes no sense to have the articles separated. It's like having separate articles for the NHL teams which formerly belonged to the WHA. Look how Cleveland Browns was handled. That article, if Wikipedia were following the "policy" it supposedly follows that all of you keep quoting, would have Cleveland/Baltimore Ravens as one article and then the New Cleveland Browns as another. But in that case the common sense thing was done and all the Browns stuff was put on one page while the Ravens got another. The Whitecaps (USL/NASL) and MLS versions are the same teams. They have the same ownership group (with an additional investor), the same management, the same youth system, the same community involvement. Why are they on separate pages?Tedzsee (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleveland is a bad example. The 1999 Browns ARE the same team as the 1995 Browns. They maintain the same history, records and statistics according to the NFL. The Earthquakes for instance do the same in MLS as the 2005 and 2008 clubs are considered one continuous team. However conversely someone above suggested merging the NASL Quakes into the MLS Quakes. That would be incorrect. The MLS Quakes share no history, records, statistics, or indeed any ties to the NASL Quakes. Beyond a name they share nothing. Same goes for the NASL, USL, and MLS Sounders. All three teams have distinct histories, records, and statistics and make no claims on previous teams nor does the MLS recognize any previous claims. What remains to be see is if the Whitecaps will do the same. Precedent suggests they will also be considered a new team just as all MLS clubs that share a name with a previous club are. Remember in the US the league dictates what your history is, not the club as all teams in the US are nothing but franchises ultimately controlled by their respective leagues, be it MLS, USL, NFL, NBA, MLB, etc... We don't have a "club" system in the US. Additionally specifically as part of the single entity MLS, ALL MLS clubs are technically nothing but extensions of the league on the player front with the front offices only "owning" the marketing and sales arms of the teams. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And unless other proof is offered the 2011 Whitecaps are the 2010 Whitecaps. They maintain the same history, records, and statics according to the Whitecaps. If you have documentation to counter what the USSF-D2 Whitecaps front office are saying feel free to offer it. If not, please don't introduce factual errors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter in the end it doesn't matter what the Whitecaps say, it matters what MLS will say. MLS is the final arbiter of the history, statistics, records, etc... of the teams in the league as in the end MLS controls the franchises, not the "owners". A prime example of that is when they stripped what is now the Houston Dynamo of all history, records, logos, and statistics after the 2005 season and deactivated them for the current incarnation of the Earthquakes to reclaim in 2008 effectively making the Dynamo an expansion franchise in 2006. Now I'll grant you we won't know what MLS will decide regarding the Whitecaps specifically until March 2011, but the precedent with San Jose and Seattle is that the team's histories, records, statistics, all start as new when they join MLS making the teams new teams that have nothing but a name tie to any previously similarly named teams. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Whitecaps and Timbers did pay more to enter the league than both of those previous clubs and keeping their history may be part of that bargain. I agree that it will be up to the MLS, but based on what I'm seeing coming from the office for the Whitecaps[2] [3] [4] they're not going to give up their history anytime soon. They were told they couldn't keep their name (hence the reason for my tentative relictance to merge the two articles sooner) but they fought and won that battle with the MLS. I sususpect that they will be doing the same with this battle. I agree that we won't know for sure until March 2011, but based on what I saw this past Tuesday, I'm siding with the Whitecaps front office to win this as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Walter, but you're challenging the notion of the teams being separate entities while at the same time speculating that the higher cost of the franchise fee was in part to allow them to keep their history? Could you clarify that please? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that using the MLS team can certainly refer to the history of soccer in the Vancouver area without being the same legal entity. (There's no law that prevents them from doing so, and it makes things easier for the marketing department.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All I'm saying is that the naysayers are looking at the past. The past does not define the present, it merely informs it. They are keeping their history as can be seen from http://vancouvermls2011.com/news_and_events/archive/news06071001.aspx "Meanwhile, the Whitecaps have laid the foundation for the their 2011 MLS debut". The entire article is about the former CSL '86s which pruchased the rights to the Whitecaps name, then how they progressed through time to today and how the franchsie is moving to the MLS. It should be clear that they are moving forward. So stop stating they're are a different team. They are not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why we should follow the MLS in this question. As you say, the league may change its policy any moment but how does this affect the fact of club's continuity? It is the same club whether MLS does want to recognize its history or it doesn't. And as you may see from the above examples, "nothing but a name tie" is actually one of the most important things that define a football club. —WiJG? 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Walter. While he has presented tonnes of evidence, I find that the naysayers have produced absolutely no evidence directly referencing the MLS Whitecaps not being the same entity as the USSFD2 Whitecaps. Other than referring to the Earthquakes, who are not the same team at all. When you find a statement actually saying the Whitecaps of the MLS are not the same team, please post it. Tedzsee (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The evidence for the "naysayers" is precedent within MLS thus far with similar situations and the fact that to date MLS has shown no indication they're going to be recognizing any of Vancouver's history prior to 2011. Indeed until recently they didn't even refer to the team as the Whitecaps, they were referring to them as Vancouver MLS 2011. Thus far the ONLY continuity from MLS's side is the name. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

... and the ownership group and the fact that Walter has posted multiple sources confirming that the club itself considers the 2011 MLS franchise and the 2010 USSFD2 francuise to be the same thing. Really, what more do you need? Bob Lenarduzzi to call you and personally try to convince you that all the press releases the Whitecaps have put out are true and not elaborate ruses Walter has concocted in order to get his way on Wikipedia? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No not someone from the Whitecaps, someone from MLS. As I said before, the Whitecaps don't determine what their history is in MLS, the league does. I think that's where we keep running into an issue. People outside the US are used to the concept that the club controls their history. In the US that is not the case, the leagues control the franchises and their history. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that the Whitecaps have balls and are staning up to the MLS and it looks like they're getting their own way too. As you have said, we'll see in March. Until then, merge the articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But the leagues come and go and the clubs stay on. It is hard to imagine how an organization may "control the history" – man, it's not 1984 we are talking about, do we? No one can control and change the fact that the club continues to exist throughout the leagues; the league may not recognize it but it doesn't affect the reality.
Also, where exactly MLS claims to take control of the club's history? I have studied the regulations but have found nothing regarding this issue – it seems to me that they really don't care that much. —WiJG? 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually they can control. That's why the current MLS Sounders actually had to buy the rights to the name from the previous USL entity. I suspect the Whitecaps were a similar situation. As for Walter's contention that the MLS Whitecaps are "standing up" to MLS, I'd beg to differ. If you puruse the MLS Whitecaps website there is no mention of their history, records, honors or statistics from the USL or NASL years. http://vancouvermls2011.com Gateman1997 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I'd like to point at the Fiorentina and Middlesbrough cases you may find above in this thread. They went through the similar situations in their history but are still considered the same clubs with their "predecessors".
Also, the team website is no way the final source of truth – for example, http://www.soundersfc.com does not have "History" or "Trophies" sections at all, but I seriously doubt that you are going to insist on this basis that Seattle Sounders FC has no trophies in their cabinet. —WiJG? 21:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd point to that as just one example of the Sounders having no hardware, because the Sounders do in fact have no hardware currently. The current incarnation of the team has only existed since last March. Prior to 2009 the team known today as the Seattle Sounders did not exist, period. As for Middlesbrough, the example is again not applicable. Middlesbrough is a football club, that remained registered with 10 minutes to spare with the FA. The Whitecaps in MLS are a franchise of that league. They are not a soccer club in the English sense of the word. Indeed no team in MLS is a club in the English or Euro sense. That's where the major disconnect is here. Most countries have soccer clubs, the US and Canada at the D1 level has franchises that are controlled by the league they play in, MLS. An example of this in US sports is the Baltimore Orioles. There have been 4 franchises with this name, but none of them is the same franchise, none share any history or connections beyond a name. MLS and indeed US soccer operates in a similar manner. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"[T]he Sounders do in fact have no hardware currently" — Wait, what? They have won the Open Cup last season, as the Sounders FC from MLS, and that's the trophy I meant. So the website argument stays. —WiJG? 04:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Gateman1997 Your eyes are brown. I say this because you wrote "As for Walter's contention that the MLS Whitecaps are 'standing up' to MLS, I'd beg to differ. If you puruse the MLS Whitecaps website there is no mention of their history" and I responde http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/news_and_events/archive/news06011001.aspx http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/news_and_events/archive/news06031001.aspx http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/news_and_events/archive/news06071001.aspx All taken from the MLS team's site: www.vancouvermls2011.com. Now please stop with your, how can I put this politely and not get sanctioned, hyperbole. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we stop with the personal attacks, people might take you more seriously if you were more civil. As for your links, if you'd bothered to read them they denote Chapters. Not in the history of the club but of the name. And they're separate chapters at that. End one chapter, start another, just as we have with the articles, end one article NASL, USL, and start a new one, MLS. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did read them Thoroughly. History of the club, of the logo, of the name. Are you sure you read the same articles? Perhaps if you reduce your level of "hyperbole" you might have some credibility. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter, please cease and desist with the overly aggressive behavior. Just because people disagree with you is no reason to be nasty. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what to do. First you did it on my talk page and now you're doing it here. When you tell User talk:Gateman1997 to stop misrepresenting the facts to make his (and your) interpretation look right I'll stop pointing out that his interpretation and gathering of facts is wrong. Until such time, your advice is partisan and a waste of electrons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're hearing it repeatedly, because you are repeatedly crossing the line with respect to WP:CIVIL. No-one is saying you can't disagree with another editor, nor would we, but at least three different editors (myself included) have found it necessary to ask you to be careful with respect to that policy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is WP:STOPTWISTINGTHETRUTHTOMAKEYOURPOINT? I don't care about Wikipedia policy until liars are dealt with in the same way as those who call out the liars. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to what was written earlier, im aware that's there's no relegation and promotion system in the U.S. I said i don't 'fully' understand how things work in America, more to do with the business side of things. But in any other country where a club gets a new a owner, has new people running the club and enters a new league, it's still the same club. So it's hard for me understand why people say it's not. Fair enough if they change their name, merge or relocate. Then depending on the situation, either a new article is created or there's mention in the existing article about their former name and history under that name. But none of these have happened. Bobbymozza (talk) 20:34 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So let's see. The current USSF D-2 franchise's web site is http://whitecapsfc.com/ while the MLS franchise was at http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/ Two quick things. The front page of the former offers you to go to either the USSF D-2 club or the MLS club pages. Why? The USSF D-2 club site is to sell the jerseys come November for the apparently unrelated MLS franchise. Did the Sounders do that? It seems the ties are closer. It seems that the MLS doesn't have its whip on them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A team can be related without being the same team; just look at the Whitecaps men and women, who certainly wouldn't hesitate to promote each other despite being separate teams. There is nothing preventing multiple teams from using the same corporate structure; what we need to determine (restating the obvious) is whether the 2010 USSF 'Caps and the 2011 MLS 'Caps are the same team. Whitecaps press releases aren't going to be of much use; the long history and positive association with the name "Whitecaps" in Vancouver means that it would actually be counterproductive for the organization(s)to try to spell out the difference if one exists. (The fans certainly won't care either way, and the promotional value is far too great to be ignored when debuting a high-dollar venture in a new market.) There are events yet to occur that may help shed light on the matter, such as the manner in which players are added to the MLS team. Will the current 'Caps simply transfer (with inevitable changes, of course) or will the MLS squad have to go through an expansion draft? Legally, does MLS view the 2011 team as a new entity? Most telling, what is the perspective of the NASL/USSF? Legally, do they consider the NASL team to be simply leaving their league, or do they consider it to be folding? Will there be requirements for a dispersal draft of the 'Caps players for other USSF teams? (For that matter, while I know this won't happen for practical purposes, could the USSF team legally continue to play in the NASL at the same time as the MLS team?) Honestly, given that there is still uncertainty, I see no harm whatsoever in keeping the two articles separate. If circumstances dictate that a merger benefits Wikipedia at a future date, fine, but it is far easier to merge in the future than it would be to separate the articles once combined. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, you should distinguish the team and the club terms. USSFD2 and MLS Whitecaps' will definitely be different teams but they are the same club, and the article is about the latter. That is why we are willing to merge all its parts into a single one. —WiJG? 21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the point still stands. The article actually states "Vancouver Whitecaps FC is a Canadian professional soccer team...", not something like "Vancouver Whitecaps are a Canadian professional soccer club..." If we are treating it like a club, encompassing all of the sports properties, then logic would suggest that we would alos have to fold in the womens' team plus any others under the same umbrella. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Whether they have same team or not is irrelevant, it's whether it's the same club. Bobbymozza (talk) 10:44 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Ckatz might have the right idea here. It may simply be too soon to make a complete determination as to whether this is a new, expansion property or a franchised "promotion" to MLS. MLS history dictates that this is a new property, but that's not to say they haven't changed their ways with the Whitecaps. There has been a merger proposal for the Arena Football League articles for several months now, and thus far the decision has been deadlocked simply because there is too little information to say that they are playing as the same entity or a new entity. Time will tell, and all we can do here for now is wait.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That they use the word team rather than club is not signficant. the former is the more common nomenclature in North America. I do agree that it's too soon to decide in fact User:Gateman1997 and I have stated that March 2011 may be the best time to make the determination on this sof a few hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Since both sides agree we can't make a certain determination until March 2011 I say we table the whole discussion until then and in the meantime maintain the status quo. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this too, it seems the most sensible way forward. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See you in March :) —WiJG? 05:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry John. The consensus was not to remove the merge just to wait until March, or possibly sooner, to see if the MLS will do to the Whitecaps what they did to other teams (clubs or franchises). Unless there is consensus to remove the merge template, which I didn't see, I'm returning it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While the MLS side share the name, fans, community, ownership as the USL-1 side, the precedent is well established that a new page be created, with plenty of cross and back linking to both the USL and NASL Whitecap pages. This precedent is established by the treatment of both the Seattle (Sounders) and Portland (Timbers) sides, which not coincidentally are the regional rivals of the 'Caps and have been since the first 'Caps team of the early '70s. While I would be tempted to argue for the folding up of all three sides "set" of pages (thereby affording equal treatment) there is enough distinction between the NASL/USL/MLS sides for separate treatment. Also, of course all of the same arguments for folding the Whitecaps pages, apply equally to Portland and Seattle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.230.76.230 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think both sides have some merit to their arguments on merging these pages. I also think there needs to be some clarity on why the Seattle Sounders pages were split to begin with. Originally the Seattle Sounders FC was going to be an expansion franchise in the MLS and there was uncertainty on if the Seattle Sounders (USL) would be moving to the MLS or relocating and staying in USL-1. Also at issue was what each team would be called. "Plan to lure Seattle SOunders" Eventually, most of the Sounder organization was moved to the MLS and a former Sounders co-owner was given the USL franchise rights to launch the Kitsap Pumas from scratch.

"Bremerton soccer club quietly making its own mark" - www.examiner.com/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner~y2008m12d17-United-Soccer-Leagues-officially-announce-Bremertons-Kitsap-Pumas-to-join-PDL

"United Soccer Leagues officially announce Bremerton's Kitsap Pumas to join PDL". - www.examiner.com/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner~y2008m12d17-United-Soccer-Leagues-officially-announce-Bremertons-Kitsap-Pumas-to-join-PDL

I think if these articles are eventually merged it must be under the following conditions: 1) The original NASL teams remain seperate pages, these were distinct clubs with their own history sharing only a name with the current team. 2) The USL-MLS merges happen accross the board and are also applied to the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, and Montreal Impact Cmjc80 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Well, I'm way late to this party but neither side has convinced me. Personally, I would prefer to merge the Timbers USL and MLS pages but the problem is Merritt Paulson created a separate business entity that will operate the MLS club. Shortstop, LLC owns the USL Timbers and Peregrine, LLC was created to operate the MLS club. It looks like that is not the case for the Whitecaps but I wanted to note the separate legal entities for the Timbers in case there is an across-the-board merge of Timbers, Whitecaps and Sounders USL/MLS pages as someone suggested above. DemonJuice (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important the whole "legal entity" aspect really is. Look at how many times the New York Yankees have been bought and sold over the years. I believe there were at least 3 "legal entities" under Steinbrenner's ownership. The main reason for merging should be the continued operation of the organization which I think would qualify all four teams that moved from D2 to MLS for a merge.Cmjc80 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there will be support from the Sounders taskforce on merging across the board. We already have a featured article over there and USL was a different organization although the name was a write in by the fans and some people did make it over. USL was cool and all but a different organization with a different article. Even if they were the same, USL and MLS is a good line for a split. How long do you want your article to be anyways?

And the examiner is not RS.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both sides have a legit argument here. My main concern is that formatting remains consistant among the articles. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To further the claim that this is one club http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whitecaps+veteran+Moose+loose/3327007/story.html opens with "The Vancouver Whitecaps cast aside three players last week to make room for new talent that can help the club compete in Major League Soccer next year." In other words, the USSF D2 side is cutting players and bringing on talent to use on the MLS side. There are more stories to that effect. Did that happen in Seattle? Is that happening in Portland? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also related is: http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature08171001.aspx "Although the midfielder admits that everyone on the team is playing for a job, as the 'Caps prepare for their inaugural season in Major League Soccer". There have also been TV news stories about the USSF side making space for players who will be assisting the side when they arrive in the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional story: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/jasondevos/2010/10/whitecaps-impact-push-on-in-the-playoffs.html "The Whitecaps have had somewhat of a revolving door in terms of their playing staff this season, as new players have been added over the course of the season in preparation for the club's entry into Major League Soccer in 2011" and "next season's move into MLS". The reporter's opinion is not that a new franchise is starting using the Whitecaps name but that the franchise is moving. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another case: Alain Rochat. Signed by the USL Whitecaps in 2010 to play for the MLS Whitecaps in the 2011 season. His bio appears on the "USL" team's web site: http://whitecapsfc.com/men/roster/players/alain_rochat.aspx --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Another case: "The Vancouver Whitecaps released six players on Tuesday as the club makes room for new talent that will play on the club's Major League Soccer squad next year." http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whitecaps+release+players+franchise+clears+room+worthy+talent/3696596/story.html

Another case from http://twitter.com/#!/VancouverMLS : "Major League Soccer is here! Therefore, @VancouverMLS will be closing. Please follow us @WhitecapsFC for the latest Whitecaps news.". @WhitecapsFC was the Twitter feed for the USL, then USSF D2 news and match information. @VancouverMLS was the news feed for information about MLS issues (such as seasons ticket offerings, etc). Now they are one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Address for the USSF-D2 Whitecaps: Suite 550 - 375 Water Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5C6 http://www.whitecapsfc.com/contact/
• Address for the MLS Whitecaps: Suite 550, The Landing, 375 Water Street Vancouver, BC, V6B 5C6 http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/about/contact.aspx
• Phone numbers for the USSF-D2 Whitecaps: Phone: 604.669.WAVE (9283)/Fax: 604.684.5173
• Phone numbers for the MLS Whitecaps: 604.669.WAVE (9283)/604.684.5173 (FAX)

Sure looks like they're the same COMPANY. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean they are the same franchise. New Portland team is the same company as the USSF D-2 Portland team, and they are obviously a new franchise. Also, if they are the same team, why are they participating in an expansion draft? Expansion drafts are to stock brand new teams with players. KitHutch (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They are participating in the expansion draft to get players. If you had the opportunity to get reasonable players on a free transfer, you'd be stupid not to. They have already started to stock the team with players so that's not the sole reason. I don't know anything about the Portland team (other than they choked at the end of this USSF-D2 season, and if I had those players on contract, I'd get rid of them too). The Whitecaps have the same address and contact information. Same office staff. They are using some of the same players (see comments above). So while Portland may be a new franchise, Vancouver isn't. The facts speak for themselves. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/11/08/sp-whitecaps.html The entire story is about how the current owner has take a bankrupt franchise and turned it into a winner and now they are taking that francise into the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus to remove the merge template?

An editor feels that the discussion above implies that the merge template should be removed. I don't read it that way. What's the consensus? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be an enormous discussion about every tiny frickin detail. As I said on your talk page (before, in a very mature manner, you deleted my comment [5]) "what's the point of having a template for a that discussion isn't going to take place for 10 months? It's ridiculous, and it clutters the main page. Removing the template isn't marginalizing the merge discussion (which, in case you forgot, I SUPPORTED you on) - it's just basic housekeeping on articles." We can just add it back in when we actually *have the discussion*, and in the meantime the article won't look so crappy. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I feel the same way about the Paul Barber article merge templat which - as YOU INFERRED above - is directly related to the VWFCMLS merge, and will be resolved at the same time as that issue when we discuss the whole thing next year. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right Jon. But I don't want an edit war with you. It's better to discuss it and actually achieve consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion we remove it for now since the discussion is basically at a dead end. However I'm all for re-adding it in the coming months when MLS makes their position clear. Gateman1997 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

two to one appears to be consensus these days. Certain editors are making a mess of removing templates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, certain editors are cleaning up the mess left by templates for discussions which are not going to take place until 2011, and which can be re-added to the page very easily once the discussion begins. Leaving them there, hanging, with no discussion taking place makes the page look like shit. You already said "you're right" to my comment about the Paul Barber template in the reply above, so what's left to discuss? --JonBroxton (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I objected to the placement. No one else commented on it.
2. The templates correctly, which you're not doing. Since I'm opposed to removing them, I'm not going to tell you what you're doing wrong though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Let me get this straight: are you actually saying that you want to leave 2 templates on a page asking to people to contribute to a discussion which we have already agreed will not take place for another nine months? Please tell me that's not what you're saying. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Off to bed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Obtuse and condescending. A winning combination. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to offend you, but you're doing something with which I don't agree. Trying to edit Wikipedia without knowing what you're doing isn't a winning combination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're still being annoyingly cryptic. What exactly do I not know I'm doing? --JonBroxton (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For starters, you don't place a merge tag on just one article. Also, the football project is supposed to be notified when articles should be deleted, moved, or merged. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't put any merge tags anywhere, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Secondly, according to WP:FOOTY's main page, both these discussions are on the notification list, so that doesn't seem to be an issue either. So what's the problem? --JonBroxton (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You can say that again, you'fe just removing half of them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud. What exactly is the consensus? Is the merge with the Paul Barber article happening or not happening? The related article seems to think it isn't. The discussion above has NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH PAUL BARBER so how can you even begin to suggest that the template related to the merge with Paul Barber should be removed? Discuss the Paul Barber merge or leave the tag. The future of the Whitecaps in the MLS has nothing to do with Paul Barber's merge with this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Said by me on 11 June: "Oh, and I feel the same way about the Paul Barber article merge templat which - as YOU INFERRED above - is directly related to the VWFCMLS merge, and will be resolved at the same time as that issue when we discuss the whole thing next year." Said by Walter Gorlitz a couple of hours later: "You're right Jon. But I don't want an edit war with you. It's better to discuss it and actually achieve consensus." Said by Gateman: "I'm of the opinion we remove it for now since the discussion is basically at a dead end. However I'm all for re-adding it in the coming months when MLS makes their position clear." I don't see any ambiguity there. I proposed removing both templates. You agreed with me. Gateman concurred. How is this in any way ambiguous? --JonBroxton (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I feel that the Paul Barber should not have been suggested to be merged. I don't think removing the merge is the correct process, especially since you're only removing it in one of the places where the template was originally placed. Bad form. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am so sick of arguing with you. Do whatever the hell you want. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way Jon. I'm not arguing I just don't understand your logic and I don't understand how you can edit one article and not the other. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What other article?? The templates are on THIS article. I have no idea where these other templates you claim are on other articles are. You've already seemingly agreed with the consensus that both the VWFCMLS merge template and the Paul Barber merge template should be temporarily removed until we actually have the discussion next year, but you insist on repeatedly re-adding the template because there is apparently some other template somewhere. You clearly know where this phantom template is, but instead of following consensus and removing it yourself, you're engaging in obstructionist editing with a smug "I know something you don't know" attitude. This is why I'm sick of arguing with you. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about merging. Will this merge occur ex nihilo? When one requests a merge you must stipulate the merge from and the merge to. In this case, this is the merge to location while the merge from location is Paul Barber. Someone else caught that and changed Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally. I've removed the tag on the Paul Barber page. Why on Earth didn't you just remove it yourself once consensus was established instead of being all passive-aggressive? You clearly had plenty of opportunities. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, I don't think two people saying get rid of it is consensus. The two issues are completely unrelated. Let me say this again revoking any assumptions or inferred misconceptions on my position that you may have had : The two issues are completely unrelated. the MLS promotion of the Whitecaps and the merging of their manager into this article are completely unrelated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

NO MERGE due to overwhelming opposition and failure on the part of proposing author to provide WP:RS. -- Cmjc80 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

It is time to merge the articles

The MLS Timbers web site is up and there's no mention of history. The Whitecaps web site does. The Whitecaps are being permitted to keep their history. There is no reasonable objection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the templates for now, based on the fact that the last big discussion appears to have resulted in an agreement to hold off on discussing page mergers until 2011. Is there consensus here to re-open the debate earlier than that? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the template because it's becoming cumbersome and the fact is simple: the MLS is allowing them to keep their history, which was the only stumbling block. The agreement was to see if that would happen, and it has. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal; however, if the consensus here is still to keep to that schedule, I'd ask that you respect it and remove the templates. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your insistance I still lean toards opposing any merger. This editor summarized it perfectly. There are also other considerations. The MLS team will overshadow the previous team if merged although the previous team has a couple decades of history. A split will probably be necessary soon enough due to expansion and this is a great break point. You probably should not have reintroduced the template after being reverted without consensus to restart the conversation.Cptnono (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That editor did not summarize anything. They offered their opinion. They are a club that happens to be playing in the MLS now. That is the Whitecaps' own opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And I realized that the consensus for the March date was predicated on the idea that the rosters would be complete and we would know by then whether the MLS was going to let them keep their history. We know the latter while the former is still open for discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Again: two distinct entities. Really all that needs to be said.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You an I are two distinct entities. The club isn't. You ought to actually read some of what I wrote above at the end of the previous discussion to show that the franchise has a continuity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Prove that they're two different entities. Until you do that, it's just an opinion. I have proven that they are the same entity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, sorry to ask again, but where is the proof that they are the same entity? Remember that the public face is often different from the legal entity; do you have proof that the incorporated body that is the MLS team is one-and-the-same as the one that was the USL team? (Having the same offices, management, etc. is not proof enough - you would need to determine if the same legal company is running both teams, or if they incorporated a new company to handle the MLS squad.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The proof is that 1) They have the history on their site. No other MLS franchise has history, even when they retain the name (Seattle and Portland). 2) You have no proof to the contrary. If there are legal documents that state they're different entities, it must be easy to find them and post them.

The current argument is that rivals (and hence fans who have an axe to grind against Vancouver) have stated that they are separate entities and so the Whitecaps must also be separate entities. The occupy the same offices (see above) they have the same staff (see above) the USSF-D2 franchise was signing contracts for a player who would play under the MLS banner (see above). The MLS web site took over the old USSF-D2 web site (see above). So far all that I've seen from the camp who are opposed to the merging of the articles is opinion and supposition. Not a single shed of proof. Weikipedia relies on WP:V sources. I've given you plenty and you've offered none. They will be merged before the end of the calendar year unless you can offer some WP:RS with WP:V references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Walter on this one. It looks to be the same entity. I would merge them. Digirami (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it looks like the MLS Timbers is a continuation of the older (at least 2001) Timbers. See their history and any news article on their site where phrases like "graduation to MLS" or "The Timbers’ final match as a second-division club begins the team's transition to MLS." indicate it's moving between divisions and not a different entity. Digirami (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Walter: "They will be merged before the end of the calendar year"?!? If I'd made a statement like that, you'd have exploded.

Seriously, though, your "proof" is based on interpretation and speculation. To paraphrase your argument above, they're the same because their web site lists Vancouver soccer history and I don't have their corporate structure handy. You're insisting that they must be the same legal entity, I'm simply saying "prove it" properly per WP:V. The onus is on you. Call them up, ask if the two teams are the same legal entity. Prove that the contracts were signed to the same corporate entity. Oh, and before you even suggest otherwise, I'd add that I a) support the Whitecaps, all versions; b) am thrilled they are in MLS, especially for what that might mean for grass-roots soccer in Canada; c) will always consider the entire run as part of the history of soccer in Vancouver. (Heck, I remember the Soccer Bowl parade and the "Village of Vancouver" controversy.) I'm just being realistic - new league, new players, in all likelihood a new entity. I'd be very surprised if any continuing coaches, managers, players and office staff didn't have to resign deals with a new corporation, even if the other aspects of their jobs remained the same. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statements just proved to me that you don't understand anything about the subject and that you didn't read what I wrote. They don't have different players. The USSF-D2 club signed a player who they immediately returned on-loan to the team from which they signed him knowing that that his contract would be fulfilled when he joined the MLS franchise. His Austrian team wouldn't let him go mid-season, but they wanted him. He's under the same contract as the rest of the USSF-D2 players: they have to prove themselves. You call them up to ask the question about the legal entity. The team's contact information is exactly the same: I proved that above as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)And even the "proof" has holes. The Vancouver site says that it is the same team but it also says that the '86ers were called the 86ers since that was the year they were founded. It looks like clever marketing to me. Please just find a statement from the MLS. It shoudln ;t be this complicated. Also, please address the potential size and balance issues.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Meanwhile, find a statement from the MLS that there is no continuity. Find another MLS club that has a history page that mentions the team back to their time in the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, a question: if you truly believe that the USL and MLS teams are one-and-the-same, why did you endorse changing the article to read "Vancouver Whitecaps FC was a Canadian professional soccer club"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't. I merely recognized that there are some editors like you who wanted the articles separated and in light of that, I felt that the two should be separated. If you think they are truly not the same, how come you have not managed to find any proof to support your fact? On the other hand, have continued to add news reports (see above) every time they were made available to show the continuity. I fully intended to place the merge article when the proof was available or when March rolled around. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting shared history as being the same thing as "same team" from a legal perspective. It also seems that we are (as I pointed out last summer) confusing the idea of the organization with the individual teams run by that club. I found these statements on the Whitecaps site that I feel illustrate the point (bold added for emphasis):

• "Vancouver Whitecaps FC took an important step in shaping the identity of their Major League Soccer (MLS) team";
• "the club announced Teitur Thordarson as the team’s inaugural head coach";
• (from the coach himself) " I am very much looking forward to the opportunity and challenge that comes with being the club’s inaugural head coach"

The Whitecaps as an organization are presenting the Whitecaps FC MLS team as a new team, one that forms part of their long history in Vancouver. If this article were about the Whitecaps organization, then it would make more sense to merge. However, we would also then have to merge in all of the teams that the organization supports, including the womens and junior squads. (The original NASL team wouldn't fit as it was a different organization, IIRC.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So glad you found something. The club has been very frequently heard referring to their inaugural season in Major League Soccer and I'm sure that this uncited reference. The fact that they are playing for the first season in the MLS is not at question. It's whether they are a new franchise or not. And one thing further, as has been pointed-out above, you don't have any basis to state that we must prove that they are the same legal entity since several European clubs have had different legal statuses over time but yet have a single article on Wikipedia. So I'm afraid you'll have to find a new approach to keeping the articles separate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, based on the current Vancouver Whitecaps FC article, there should really be at least four since there are three legal entities. The Vancouver 86ers had at least two that I know of. The last became the Whitecaps. It was then purchased by Kerfoot (third entity) which then received financial backing by the investors who had eyes on moving it into the MLS, which they did. So it seems the decision is to merge the two or to break into four. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And so it begins. Today the Whitecaps moved three players from the USSF-D2 roster to the MLS roster. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2010/11/whitecaps-fc-sign-three-including-clubs-first-homegrown-player They had collected a keeper in the expansion draft but bring their old keeper up to the MLS team. Philippe Davies, Wes Knight, and Jay Nolly all are noted as "signed to a MLS contract by Whitecaps FC on November 26, 2010" (emphasis mine). Notice that the statement doesn't indicate that they have simply signed MLS contracts, since supposedly the MLS controls the player contracts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

How you think this is different than any other expansion team in league history is beyond me. Timbers have signed four players in the same way; in 2009, the Sounders signed eight players. From the Whitecaps' own website:

"In addition to having priority over free agent USSF D-2 players, both Whitecaps FC and Timbers will have 'first right of refusal' on all their current roster players competing in the USSF D-2. This means that Vancouver and Portland will have the right to sign any of their current players to MLS contracts, before they are made available to the rest of the league.

"To put this into context, eight USL-1 Sounders, including Sebastien Le Toux and Roger Levesque, made the jump from USL-1 to MLS with Seattle in 2009."[6]

← George ^talk 02:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Did either the Timbers or the Sounders continue to list the players on their roster page until they were signed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about the Timbers. Before their inaugural MLS season, the Sounders had 30+ unsigned players in camp; according to their Wikipedia article, as of November 19, they had four. The Timbers and Whitecaps rosters should be mostly flushed out by mid-January. ← George ^talk 09:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So they kept their USL player under contract (or at least promised them an MLS try-out) until November 19 and cut them all before the expansion draft of that year? That doesn't sound like the same situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As of November 19, 2010, they had four players in camp. I was just making that point that teams pretty much always have unsigned players "in camp". They had 30+ former USL Sounders in camp prior to their first season, and eventually kept 8 of them. The Timbers and Whitecaps will do almost the same thing (so far the Timbers have indicated they will keep at least 4; the Whitecaps have indicated they will keep at least 3). ← George ^talk 19:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's helps. So first, you're talking about an MLS team not a team that uis attempting to move their players from USSF-D2 to MLS, and second, they're not unsigned. They are still under contract to the Whitecaps. The other USSF-D2 players have been released from their contract. So why would the USSF-D2 players be appearing on the same page as the ones who have MLS contracts? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining. When the Sounders were an MLS expansion team in late 2008/early 2009, they had many of their USL players in camp, the exact same way the Whitecaps have many of their USSF-D2 players in camp now. The USSF-D2 players on the Whitecaps roster page have not been signed, which is why they are listed as "in camp". The three former USSF-D2 Whitecaps who have signed are no longer listed as being "in camp", because they've been signed. They aren't listed on that page because they are the former USSF-D2 players, they're listed on that page because they're on trial with the team. If they prove themselves, then they might get signed. ← George ^talk 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a fine job explaining. The Timbers don't have any additional USSF-D2 players "in-camp" or anywhere becuase they're a different legal entity. They have a different ownership group and so all ties to the team with the same name have been broken. The Whitecaps are the same club. They have the same ownership. They still have those players under contract (or so it appears) and they have every intention of extending contracts to them. They're the same club. It's OK to say it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to keep the separate USL and MLS articles and create a parent article on the organization

Walter, look, you clearly feel strongly about this. However, I do think that there is not sufficient consensus to merge the articles (based on other MLS examples and the input from the previous discussions). I'd like to propose something for consideration to help alleviate the situation. Over in the fiction articles, we've had situations where we have spun out separate articles to cover a franchise, with individual articles on the series that are a part of that franchise. I think we could easily do the same thing here with a minimum of extra work. We would keep the existing USL and MLS articles, but have an article on the Whitecaps FC organization which would be a good location for information on shared history, the stadium proposal, brief summaries of all of their teams, and so on. It would help to keep the articles better organized, avoiding confusion between information that involves the corporate entity (stadium proposals, community activities and so on) and the on-the-field details of the individual teams. It would also help in that the article on the MLS team is going to be constantly evolving as the seasons move on, and a merged article might suffer from "recentism" as editors trim out older non-MLS material to make room for MLS details. Please give this some thought. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see you feel clearly that there isn't consensus, but

1. There are two people on each side, so you're not quite clear on the concept of consensus, and
2. Those who don't think the article should be merged have not provided one piece of evidence, only opinion.

Other MLS are not applicable here since the other examples obviously don't consider themselves to be a continuation, while the Whitecaps do.

I don't trust you when you say that you would do anything to keep anything up to date since you lied about that in relationship to the rosters when I suggested a template.

You have clearly forgotten the European soccer examples of franchise evolution and yet the articles are not separated.

I will not stand down as you have not made your case. At all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the Timbers do consider themselves a continuation. They've archived all the A-League/USL-1/D-2 Pro League articles at the new site (which is at the same URL) here, they do have a team timeline which starts at 1975, they have a Timbers soccer history section and, possibly most telling, is that the number 3 was retired for Clive Charles —a NASL Timbers player— during the USL years and will continue to be retired in MLS. DemonJuice (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, this was a good-faith proposal to attempt to find peace in the face of what, frankly, I see as your hard-line attitude. Please avoid making it personal. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This proposal to create an overall article for the Whitecaps corporate organization and then separate pages for the USL and MLS teams is the way to go. It is a good compromise between the editors who want only separate articles and editors who want only a merged article. KitHutch (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you good faith effort, but don't ever offer to do anything around me again because based on my past experience, you won't follow-through.

Walter, please see Wikipedia:Civility KitHutch (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No need. I've been the subject of a civility investigation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having four Whitecaps articles is not the way to go either. You don't see that for any European clubs despite leagues collapsing, bankruptcy, war, dissolution of entire countries, or any other things. It makes no sense here either. The Whitecaps' claim is to be taken at face value, but it seems that good faith is only to be extended to other editors, not corporations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Hasn't this already been discussed before? Acceptable formatting already exisets for San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers and Montreal Impact. I see no reason for this to be the lone merged article. Perhaps a larger discussion involving all of these teams is in order to have a final decision. I think creating a 3rd page when 2 will work fine will add to confusion and seems like Wikipedia:Fancruft to me Cmjc80 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No it hasn't been discussed before. The franchises that you have spoken of do not claim to have been continuously in existence. That's something you don't seem to understand, or at least accept. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bunching them all together isn't going to do any good. While San Jose and Seattle were not continuations, all indications are that Vancouver and Portland are continuations that makes their cases different from San Jose and Seattle. Montreal could possibly be a continuation, but it is still to early to tell or not. The proposed "franchise" page solution does fit this well. The best solution based on what has been presented is a single page for Vancouver and probably Portland too. It's the same teams moving divisions. Digirami (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here obviously has implications on other articles of teams moving from a lower league to MLS. Because an overarching solution should be found, I say take this discussion to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force. --Blackbox77 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if they fall into the same category as the Whitecaps. It is clear to me that other teams who have moved to the MLS were not permitted to (or didn't want to) keep their history. The Whitecaps are currently the only team that fits that bill. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And what if one day another team with an older name all of a sudden decides to bring back "their" history after they didn't really adhere to it? Is that organization suddenly older than what they had said they were? Isn't that exactly what the 86ers did when they changed names? --99.191.40.194 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No. That's not what they did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(comment originally posted at User_talk:Ckatz

i would like to say sorry in advance if i don't do this right. i have never edited or even registered on wikipedia before but after reading the merge discussion regarding VWFC (D2) and VWFC (MLS) i wanted to add something. i don't really know how to do so myself but you seem to be experienced and known so i thought i'd just share with you what i had to say and you can use it or not in the discussion around the idea to merege or not.

i think the main thing that people who want to merge any old NASL/USL/D2 team and their new MLS version is failing to understand is the very unique and entirely different nature of MLS and the single entity system. there is simply no way for any old/non/pre MLS team and an MLS team to be considered the same entity regardless of how many players, coaches, investors, front office staff or executives they might share. any team in any sport being sold to a new owner, or changing their name or moving leagues is not the equivalent of moving from being an independently operated business/soccer team to becoming an investor in MLS who is then granted the right to operate an MLS franchise.

this is the main difference that i think many of these non North American fans and those unfamiliar with the unique nature of MLS are not understanding. MLS is hard to understand, not least because they are very secretive about how things work and they make a very great effort to maintain the appearance the teams are "independent" entities. i am not sure exactly where you can find a single documents or hard data on the exact structure of MLS but from following the league for years i have come to understand how it operates.

MLS and SUM Marketing are a single business entity in which various individuals and groups invest. there are various levels on which an investor can be involved with MLS/Sum. the "highest" level is by purchasing what is called an A License/A Investment. an A Investment gives the I/O (investor/owner) the rights to operate one of the MLS's franchises (think of them as branch offices of a parent corporation). no MLS team owns any of their players. all players are contracted to MLS the parent organization and the "distributed" to a franchise. the player is under contract to the league and not the individual team or the individual ownership group (except as they make up a partial investor/owner of the whole league).

even tho the MLS Whitecaps will have some of the same players as the D2 Whitecaps they are no longer under contract or owned by the Whitecaps, they will be owned and under contract to MLS centrally. the Whitecaps can scout, identify and approach players they wish to sign but in the end it is MLS which will actually sign the player "on behalf" and "at the request" of the Whitecaps as long as it complies with all of the league's rules. it is actually possible for MLS to refuse to sign a player the Whitecaps request or at the salary the Whitecaps request even if if follows the general roster and salary cap rules if the league feels it sets a bad precedent. in a recent interview Bob Lenarduzzi intimated such when he was discussing the signing of Jay Demerit. paraphrasing he said that the Whitecaps (MLS) had come to an agreement on a salary with Demerit but "ran into trouble with MLS" and thus there was a delay, meaning that MLS decided the offer they had made DeMerit exceeded what the league was willing to pay DeMerit. similarly Alain Rochat who signed with Whitecaps USL and was loaned back to his Swiss club is not officially a member of Whitecaps MLS until he signs a contract with the league and is then "given" so to speak to Whitecaps MLS (which means the Whitecaps (MLS) wiki entry that just carried over the roster and shows him as signed with the MLS club but on loan with Zurich is technically incorrect). the reason that the Whitecaps (D2) signed Rochat and players like Cody Arnoux is because they were told by MLS that any player under contract to their Whitecaps (D2) team would be allowed to be on their Whitecaps (MLS) roster, meaning the league would sign them and allow those players to be directly "distributed" to the Whitecaps (MLS) without having to go thru any of the league's usual "distribution" mechanisms like the Expansion Draft, SuperDraft, Re-Entry Draft, Weighted Lottery, etc. MLS has actually told the Whitecaps (MLS) that Cody Arnoux (a young American player who bypassed signing with MLS and going into the SuperDraft out of college and instead signed directly to Everton) would actually not be allowed to go (or in this case be given to) the Whitecaps (MLS) roster despite him being part of the Whitecaps (D2) roster and instead he would have to go into the SuperDraft (should he chose to sign a contract with the league) and be eligible to be selected by any of the teams in MLS.

i am sorry if this is rambling, or again, if this is the wrong way to go about this. i just wanted to help clear this up and i think from reading the long discussion chain that almost everybody putting forward arguments FOR merging the two articles Whitecaps (D2) and Whitecaps (MLS) is failing to understand the entirely different, unique and ultimately different structure of MLS that makes any MLS team a completely new entity from any previous team that shares a name, investors, owners, staff, history as the MLS club. the structure of the very league itself does not allow for any previous team to be logically considered the same as the MLS team from a strictly structural and operational standpoint. whether or not the team has the same people involved or does or does not recognize the history of other teams an MLS team is really not an independent team, it is simply a "branch office" of the single entity MLS corporations. owners of D2 teams actually change from being owners of an independent club that participates in a "league" of organized teams to an investor and board member in the single entity MLS corporation who is then given the rights to operate a "branch office" in a certain city/market. the simple fact that the Whitecaps (MLS) will not actually have any players that it is paying or that are under contract to them is reason enough to consider the two entities separate and distinct. OleGunnar20 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all rambling, but what has been for other franchises is not what appears to be the case for Vancouver, which is what I predicted when they paid to be in the MLS. The players will be under contract to the MLS, but the history will be brought forward. The Whitecaps are teh exception to your rule. The Whitecaps are also part of the group that are attempting to change the contract format for all of the MLS, which is what was announced last year when the player's strike was a probability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested input from WikiProject Football's United States and Canada task force, per Blackbox77's suggestion earlier in this discussion. Given the division here and the potential impact on other MLS articles, the extra eyeballs and fresh perspective will perhaps help resolve this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"which is what I predicted when they paid to be in the MLS."? At the time of the announcement, sources said that Vancouver was awarded the expansion and not that the Whitecaps were changing leagues. Anyways, breaking up the articles as one editor suggested for the Sounders is a decent way of handling the situation (Vancouver Whitecaps 1974-1984, Vancouver 86ers, Vancouver Whitecaps FC). It is one of the few times that ambiguity is useful here. IT also would prevent the article from being overly focused on the most recent sources. I don;t think we need a parent article though. Simply wikilinks.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with Cptnono. I think having multiple articles has worked quite well for the Sounders FC (whose article is now FA status), who were in essentially the same situation two years ago. You have a section talking about the legacy of the team's name, and links to the other articles from there. ← George ^talk 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But Seattle is in a different situation, as is Portland. The Whitecaps are not in the same situation as those two teams. It's a sad thing when those who make comments don't read all of the preceding conversation and simply go based on opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've written that claim several times, but I haven't seen you explain why, other than because you say so. Saying that their website has a history section is not sufficient, as your interpretation of that constitutes original research. ← George ^talk 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen people write "they won't be allowed to keep their history" several times, but it's on the MLS web site. So they were wrong on that front. That's my primary point. I've seen press releases from the USSF-D2 Whitecaps (listed above) that indicate they're preparing for the next season (sigings, player transfers) and yet I don't see that from the USSF-D2 Timbers. The Whitecaps have not folded their residency and development programme and started again with their move to the MLS. Same players. They released several players at the end of the season, but have indicated that the remainder are on the books and have an opportunity to play for the MLS side. This isn't like Pore for the Timbers, it's a try-out. That's not happening in Portland. I don't know if either of those have happened. Don't forget, the Whitecaps were key players in the break-away league that was attempting to be formed in opposition to the USL. I suspect that the Caps are not afraid to push the limits. They were vocal at the end of the potential strike action (at least on local news) indicating that they were seeking to have the way that contracts are signed in the MLS be changed. That's why they're different. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very confused as to what point it is you're trying to make, because a lot of what you mentioned describes most expansion teams. Every team prepares for the next season. Residency and development programs will probably follow the team into MLS in some form, but that's besides the point. The MLS team's current, official roster is nothing like the roster of the USSF-D2 Whitecaps. Players aren't "on the books" until they're signed, which none of the USSF-D2 Whitecaps have been (yet). You think the final roster will be very similar to the old Whitecaps roster, but that's just speculation at this point. Again, most of what you wrote has nothing whatsoever with whether or not the articles should be merged, it's just a lot of things that you thinks ties the two teams together, while negating the differences (which are quite significant). Even if they are similar, why should they be the same article? Nothing you wrote indicates that the team is any more similar to its predecessors than the Timbers, the Sounders, or any other expansion team was to its predecessors.

I propose that a better course of action would be to move the current Vancouver Whitecaps FC article to History of the Vancouver Whitecaps FC, and move the Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) article to Vancouver Whitecaps FC location. That main article could then have a history section, which would link to the "History of the Vancouver Whitecaps FC" article. ← George ^talk 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If the USSF-D2 not on the books explain the following names at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/roster

• Jay Nolly
• Simon Thomas
• Greg Janicki
• Mouloud Akloul
• Luca Bellisomo
• Wes Knight
• Blake Wagner
• Willis Forko
• Nizar Khalfan
• Ethan Gage
• Phillippe Davies
• Russell Teibert
• Terry Dunfield
• Alexandre Morfaw
• Davide Chiumiento
• Gershon Koffie
• Bedri Gashi
• Cornelius Stewart
• Ridge Mobulu
• Kyle Porter

Please don't write anything further until you know of what you're speaking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please also explain the absence of any USSF-D2 players at http://portlandtimbers.com/players and then tell me again how the Timbers and the Whitecaps are the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note the sections that differentiate between Signed players and In camp in the link you provided. A player who isn't signed won't see time on the pitch, so until some of the "in camp" players get signed, it's meaningless data. Citing only two examples of websites, both of which are quite 'young', is not a good example of anything, and I didn't say the two teams were the same, just that they were both similar to their predecessors. What are your thoughts on my proposal? ← George ^talk 06:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The sections appear on the Portland site as well? They're not similar. They're different. And Portland is the same as Seattle while the Whitecaps are doing things as though they're a team with history. Please don't write anything further until you know of what you're speaking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Watch the civility; discouraging other editors from collaborating to improve Wikipedia is a no-no. Did I say Portland listed any players in camp? They don't. In that way, the two websites are different. So what? And you're still blatantly avoiding addressing anything of substance regarding why it matters with regards to merging the articles. You claim—for what, the twentieth time?—that "the Whitecaps are doing things as though they're a team with history." Says who? You? Do you have a source to back that up? And if so, so what? What does that have to do with whether or not these are two separate articles or one merged article? And again, do you have any constructive feedback on my proposal above? ← George ^talk 06:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel offended, but I am grossly offended by your lack of understanding of the subject matter. I don't comment on other teams because I don't know enough about them to make intelligent comments. Apparently that doesn't seem to be the case for all editors.

As for comments on making multiple articles, my constructive comments have been made: it's not a good idea since the teams are the same so why would we have separate articles? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to merge include "unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." The content from these two articles would not overlap or be duplicated (regardless of if you think that the teams are all the same team, they each have their own unique legacy), and there is enough content for both articles to stand on there own, so I see no reason to support merging the articles.

Let me put my proposal to you this way: Germany has been a country since 1990. Before that, it was East and West Germany, and before that it was Nazi Germany. Each of those iterations of Germany has their own article, and had their similarities and differences to modern Germany, but they're all Germany. The entire history of Germany isn't included in a single article named Germany, it's split up based on the time period, organized chronologically in an article about the History of Germany, and summarized in the main article. This article should be no different. Having a main article Vancouver Whitecaps FC about the MLS side, and a History of the Vancouver Whitecaps FC about previous iterations of the team in Vancouver is a great starting point to build that structure. Over time, as the history article develops, parts of it could be spun off into sub-articles about the Whitecaps' history during specific time periods. If you don't think that's a better approach, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. ← George ^talk 07:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

@WalterGorlitz:I think you are entirely missing the point. Whether the whitecaps are embracing their history more or less than other teams in MLS or other previous expansion teams is entirely irrelevant. The basic structure and legal framework for the Whitecaps MLS team is 100% different from the Whitecaps D2 organization. As a D2 organization they were an independently run, owned and autonomous organization/business/team. As part of MLS they are simply investors in MLS the single-entity corporation. They happen to be investors at the highest level, investors who are given a license to operate one of the MLS Corporations "branch offices". But make no mistake the two entities are significantly and irreconcilably different due to the very nature of MLS. The Whitecaps D2 team could sign players, the players contracts were held by the team, they had the ultimate authority on who did or did not sign and for how much, and the team itself paid the players. Due to the unique nature of the single entity MLS that is no longer true. The Whitecaps MLS are simply a branch office of the MLS Corporation who's players are all signed to contracts with the MLS Corporation, paid by the MLS corporation and for whom the ultimate signing authority (who/how much/etc) ultimately rests with the MLS Corporation. I understand this can be an entirely foreign concept to somebody unfamiliar with the league but this is the way MLS is structured and the Whitecaps are NOT going to change it. The single entity structure has already been legally challenged by the previous Player's Union in Fraser v. Major League Soccer LLC which the Player's Union lost and the single entity structure of the league was upheld. The last CBA negotiations were never about getting rid of the single entity structure but finding ways for players to have more fairness and freedom WITHIN the single entity structure. By choosing to invest in MLS and be given a license to operate the Vancouver "branch office" the previous owners of the Whitecaps D2 team have agreed to operate under this structure and they will not be able to violate it as you seem to suggest (as in they will fight for the right to sign their own players to contracts directly with the club which would destroy the single entity structure of the league). If this ever happens (I wouldn't hold your breath) then I suggest that perhaps the articles could be merged as the teams would then be similar legal entities. As it is however, if you understand the nature of MLS it is impossible, no matter how many staff or players move from one legal entity (Whitecaps D2) to the entirely different legal entity (MLS Corporation-Vancouver Branch Office aka Whitecaps MLS) or how much that the Whitecaps MLS choose to hearken back and pay homage to the previous and entirely different legally structured team Whitecaps D2 for marketing purposes, to consider one entity a simply continuation of the previous entity that has just "switched leagues". That is simply not factually the case by the very nature of MLS and how it is structured.OleGunnar20 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No you're missing the point. The MLS structure is not at issue. It's whether the Whitecaps are the same franchise as before. That's the point. I suppose you're suggesting that every Premier League team should have a multiple articles for every time the league they were in changed. Twenty years ago, there was no Premier League in the Britain. It materialized because a few of the more powerful clubs decided to break away from the existing league. That's the same thing with the Whitecaps. They have broken into an existing league without losing character, history, or most other ways you could measure continuance of a club. So regardless of how the MLS lords over the rest of the serfs, the Whitecaps don't fit that mould. If you want to use legal entities, you'll have to split a lot of existing articles of a great many existing corporations and divisions of companies on Wikipedia. It's a flawed argument. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

your argument makes no sense. whether or not a team was in the old English 1st division or the newly formed Premier league or if it gets relegated to the nPower Championship it is still the same autonomous team. whether it signs new players, is bought by new owners or changes its kits it is still the same independent and autonomous team. Just as the Whitecaps D2 were an autonomous team. There is no longer any such autonomous, independent team. The Whitecaps MLS are NOT an independent and autonomous team. THAT is the difference. They have changed the very nature of what they are. If you owned a local bookshop, that had been in your family for decades but were losing money and sold your bookstore and used the money to invest in Barnes & Nobles at a high enough level that the Barnes & Nobles Corporation and the Board of Directors (of which you were now one of 18 with equal but not more or less voice) decided that they would allow you to operate their new local Barnes & Nobles store, that they were even going to keep the name of the store the same for marketing purposes, but that you had to operate the store, as an employee of the Barnes & Nobles corporation under the rules of the corporation (which you have 1/18th say in now forming) and that all employee hirings and purchase of stock (books) is actually done by the central Barnes & Nobles corporation and with their final say so (under your request and input) and the employees are paid by the Barnes & Nobles Corp an the books are owned by the Barnes & Nobles corporation are you the "same" bookstore? Now i don't know enough about wikipedia to say what does or does not constitute separate entries. but you obviously don't know enough about MLS and how it is structured if you think that Whitecaps MLS are simply a "continuation" of Whitecaps D2. i will leave it for others to decide how different two things need to be to have separate entries but i can say with absolute certainty that no matter how similar on the surface the Whitecaps D2 and Whitecaps MLS appear to be (obviously a subterfuge done by design to help with the sale and marketing of the team/MLS branch office) they are entirely night and day different legal/operational/structural entities.OleGunnar20 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is very good WP:OR. Prove it with WP:RS. Not a single proponent of what I call "the MLS is a different entity and all souls who enter here cease to exist outside this realm" theory have 1) given one shred of evidence to back this claim nor 2) proven, that even if it's happened with other teams, that it applies to the Whitcaps. If legal documents exist, please provide them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You have made a handful of pointed comments and multiple people disagree with you. There is no consensus for the change that you want. Move on.Cptnono (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not until one of you offers a WP:RS to back your opinion. I'm not convinced that you're right since it's always just been "this is the way MLS has worked in the past". Wikipedia requires a WP:RS to prove anything. So until you have some proof, you may move on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources guideline is for article content, not for convincing Walter that he is wrong. And since you're asking editors to prove a negative, there's little point in going source diving. The fact is that there are currently two articles about the Vancouver Whitecaps FC - one about the team prior to joining the MLS, and one about the MLS expansion team. Therefore, the burden is on yourself to show that the two should be merged into a single article. ← George ^talk 02:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Support separating the USL from the MLS. Proof is in the pudding. When Vancouver was announced as the 17th MLS Franchise in March 2009, there was no immediate announcement the name "Whitecaps" would be used in continuity.[7] In fact, Lenarduzzi said there may be a name change.[8] All they secured at that point was a new franchise, NOT the continuation of the Whitecaps. This is at loggerheads with the Timbers, who announced their name as the Timbers going forward to the delight of Timbers fans. The Timbers are also honoring their past with their retired number of Clive Charles, as it has been stated before. The Timbers history is also on their website. [9] However, there is no argument about whether or not the Timbers should have Wikipedia continuity between their USL and MLS days, because MLS has a franchise. Another problem with this argument is/was the potential the Whitecaps USL franchise will move to Victoria, British Columbia, similar to, I believe, how the Sounders moved their team to Kitsap. I understand the difference between Vancouver and the rest considering the continuity is longer, the move to MLS is more similar to a Triple-A baseball team moving to Major League Baseball and maintaining the same name. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Also, it's for all content issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately there is not single, simple easy source of information to which anybody can point you about the inner leagal workings of the MLS and its single entity structure. it is a picture that those that have followed the league since its inception have had to build bit by bit via various pieces of leaked information, hints and tidbits from league officials and team officials, etc. this is also exacerbated by the fact that MLS is highly secretive and clandestine in its operational and financial aspects for various reasons. if you would like some of the basiscs i would refer you to various legal documents surrounding the Fraser vs MLS LLC case (http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Court%20Rulings/MLSDecision.htm) as a good place to start but not by any means the whole picture. as for yor assertion that the Whitecaps are somehow different and do not play by the regular rules of MLS like the other teams that is simply egregiously false for which there is no actual evidence apart from the grousing of fans. the Whitecaps as an independently owned and operated organization are OVER. the whitecaps are now one of 18 branches of MLS LLC and the old owners are now 1/18th investors in MLS LLC. two entirely different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OleGunnar20 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's not a singe document that indicates the legal status of the Whitecaps in relatinoship to the MLS, then how can anyone say that there is that "the Whitecaps as an independently owned and operated organization are over"? It sounds to me like WP:OR based on the nature of the 17 other teams in the league. I'll see if I can reach the Whitecaps head office and see what the legal relationship between them and the MLS is if the rest of you would stop assuming it is identical to the other franchises, since it's obviously not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why I'm getting into this but please note the following article from The Province [10]. Specifically graf 4. Jay DeMerit was close to terms with the Whitecaps but could not sign with them because the contract had to be negotiated with the MLS office. If the Whitecaps were an independent club, like they were in their USL days, they would have negotiated terms with DeMerit directly. Cheers SportingFlyer (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand that the MLS does all player contracts. That's not up for debate. The thing is that in other areas, the Whitecaps are not on the same level as other clubs, most notably history. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the Whitecaps have been "continuous" but similar to the Timbers who also have history which could be considered continuous and have been broken into separate historical components on Wikipedia. I consider this a new franchise for the reasons stated in the previous two posts, including the DeMerit contract. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thought the DeMerit contract is actually incredibly relevant to this proposed merger. MLS controls the contracts because MLS is single-entity. If the Whitecaps were not part of the single-entity structure they would not have to negotiate through MLS. Because they are now part of the single-entity structure, and the owners had to buy into the structure in order to get the franchise, they are a new franchise. Moving the goalposts to say the Whitecaps are "not on the same level" has nothing to do with the issue at hand - there is plenty of room on Wikipedia for the Whitecaps history, but it should link to the USL/NASL page. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But that's Portland who have gladly given up their history while the Whitecaps haven't. So if this "single-entity structure" is forcing teams to drop thier history, why do the Whitecaps still have theirs? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Marketing. But now we are recycling reasoning so maybe it is best to let this die.Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not marketing. If it's marketing, then why didn't Seattle do it? Why isn't Portland doing it? It's nto a dead issue, you just refuse to understand it. Go read the closed discussion again. There are many examples of similar teams both in North American sports and European football. Why not show me that WP:RS that conclusively says the Whitecaps are just a shell for the MLS? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are a bunch of articles on the court case that upheld the MLS ownership structure Article 1Article 2Article 3Article 4. Since YOU are the one pushing for a merge and YOU are asserting that the Whitecaps are being allowed to enter MLS under differetn conditions, the responsibility falls on YOU to provide something more than just what the marketing dept posts on a website or what some sportswriter mistakenly mentions in passing. Your next post should provide a WP:RS that explains in detail that the Whitecaps ownership structure is somehow different than the other 17 franchises in MLS. If you are unable or unwilling to provide such information, this discussion will be closed as "No merge" due to overwhelming opposition. Cmjc80 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Old articles. None mention Vancouver. There's no indication that the Whitecaps have the same charter as any other franchise. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall we close the discussion then? SportingFlyer (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, despite proposers claims, they have failed once again to provide any evidence that anything has changed since the MLS ownership structure was upheld. We're done here. Cmjc80 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was closed as "NO MERGE" due to overwhelming opposition and failure on the part of proposing author to provide WP:RS.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

...when the team departed for Major League Soccer

What problem do you have with the phrase? It's absolutely correct. The second division team ceased to exist and they are now playing in the MLS. I didn't start the edit. Another editor who has gone on record as saying that the two teams are not related (see above) wrote it. In all of Ckatz's edits no argument was made as to why it was removed other than lack of consensus. I suggest you get consensus before remove. Care to discuss to gain consensus? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing suggests that the same team is now in MLS. As evidenced by the extensive discussions about this subject, there is no consensus to support the opinion that the MLS 'Caps and the D2 'Caps are one and the same team. Same organizations, but not same team. It has to be reworded to reflect that, and I really wish we didn't have to argue about this at each and every such location. Moreover, it was written by an IP who does not show any record of having participated in any such discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I though it was Jon who added it. My mistake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with NASL and MLS

I don't see why these are different articles. As previously mentioned, it's the same ownership and the same club. Additionally, if you look at their website, they're claiming that they've been an existing club since 1974 playing in NASL, USL and now MLS. They are not saying this is a brand new team, and it is the same ownership. We do not need any long political rants here about how they're a separate club. They're not. If the team is claiming they're the same club, then there's no questions asked. It's the same club. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link History | Vancouver Whitecaps FC 72.219.227.230 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have removed the merge tags you placed as there was an unsuccessful similar proposal only fifteen days ago. This has been discussed repeatedly, and no merge proposal (including the recent one) has found consensus to merge. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI. I think you're talking about me an not anon. Anon is from Clifton, Virginia. I'm not. Do you have anything to back your claim that anon added this merger 15 days ago or will you strike said sentence as it is otherwise confusing? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Or are you just annoyed that someone else disagrees that the Whitecaps are two different teams? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how you could be confused, as the IP posted merge templates earlier today that were removed based on the unsuccessful merge proposal that closed two weeks ago. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)