Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion to re-purpose this page

Many European clubs have multiple team just as the Whitecaps do. FC Bayern Munich is a full-blown sproting club and in its article discusses "Other departments" such as the women's team, the second men's team, the development teams, seniors' team, as well as teams in other sports Basketball, Bowling, Chess, Gymnastics, Handball and Table tennis. Manchester United F.C. -> First-team squad & Reserves and academy Real Madrid C.F. There are others as well, but this page should describe the parent club with all its children incarnations.: the first men's team, the women's side, the reserves, the development team, and the youth development programme. When a team is considered notable, links can be made to the appropriate article. Since there is a similar discussion on the MLS club's article, I will suggest this there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing? Using this page for the MLS side, then adding the current reserve/women's/development/youth teams? Or keeping this page about historical Whitecaps teams, and adding historical reserve/women's/development/youth teams? ← George ^talk 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No! This page would simply describe the club. Each individual team would have its own article. It's almost the same as a disambiguation page except there would be a discussion about operations and possibly history. Most disambiguation pages only link to various articles with a brief notes to differentiate between the various pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to create a page called Vancouver Whitecaps (disambiguation) and use THAT to re-direct to all the different versions of club, rather than changing all the historical data of the USL club? --JonBroxton (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, there is one already. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps (disambiguation) is a generic disambiguation and is not what is being discussed here. This page would outline the differences between the clubs and possibly discuss history and supporters groups. The disambiguation page is just that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't fully understand why it's needed. The MLS page will talk about the new MLS team. This page currently talks about the USL/A-League team. The NASL page already talks about the Whitecaps in the NASL. By doing whay you're suggesting we'd just be adding information that's already in those other pages to this one, thereby creating an overall Whitecaps page, which would basically be the "merge" you were keep pushing for, but with a slightly different tweak so it doesn't actually look like a merge. I don't agree with the consensus, but we have to follow it nonetheless, and the consensus is to have separate pages for each Whitecaps incarnation, so this page should remain solely about the USL/A-League team, and have links to the other incarnations. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I really don't understand the attempts to merge historical incarnations of the same team together. In general, the main page (Vancouver Whitecaps FC in this case) should describe the current team. Why? Because when someone goes to search Wikipedia for "Vancouver Whitecaps FC", odds are they're looking for information about the MLS side, not about some past incarnation of the Whitecaps. By making it a disambiguation page, you're doing a disservice to the reader.

Take Manchester United F.C., a featured article that Walter mentioned above. It has sub-articles including History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1945), History of Manchester United F.C. (1945–1969), History of Manchester United F.C. (1969–1986), and History of Manchester United F.C. (1986–present). There's just too much information to put into any one single page, no matter how well it is written or formatted. Why should the Whitecaps (or any MLS team with roots going back several decades) be treated differently? Generally agree with Cmjc80 below that any decision to change the way we handle splitting articles needs to be consistent across all the articles about MLS teams. ← George ^talk 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please move this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force. Merges have already failed here numerous times and this latest proposal would change not only how we handle Portland Timbers and Seattle Sounders FC, but every team that has a similar name to a former team. Its time to stop pretending this only affects one team's page. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. This sort of proposal will probably affect the Timbers, Whitecaps, Sounders, Earthquakes (the four former NASL teams), maybe the Dynamo (formerly the Earthquakes), the 2012 Montreal team, and eventually maybe even the reborn Cosmos. Could be even more teams this will affect, I'm not sure. ← George ^talk 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problems with the discussion above are

1. I'm not talking about a merge. I'm talking about the Whitecaps club. The club that has a template: Template:Vancouver Whitecaps and what I'm discussing is incorporating an article that discusses everything listed in the article.
2. The Whitecaps are not a typical MLS team. They have been doing this "soccer" thing for years. Whether you want to assume that it's 36 years as their web site states or whether it's just been since Kerfoot has taken over doesn't make any difference to me. They have different culture and a different structure. The sooner the rest of the MLS fans understand this, the better it will be for Whitecaps editors.

So back to the original question... .--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I get it, Walter, really I do. You think the Whitecaps' situation is unique. The problem is that it isn't. Several MLS teams existed in different forms and different leagues before joining MLS. Some of them kept their name, some kept their owners, some the players, some the coaching staff, and some the stadium. That doesn't make them the same team. We had this exact same conversation when the Sounders joined MLS in 2008, and we decided to split the article up the same way featured quality European clubs do (similar to the Manchester United F.C. articles I listed above). If you think we should treat teams with a history prior to joining MLS differently, then that decision needs to apply to all such teams, not just the Whitecaps, so that discussion should involve a larger audience. "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else." ← George ^talk 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. You really don't. So Portland had a women's team? And Seattle had a youth development program? The USL Sounders had a women's team but they've been cast-off by the MLS side. That hasn't and won't be happening in Vancouver. Thanks for thinking I'm unique, but I'm not looking for a fight, I'm looking for the recognition that Vancouver is not the same as the other MLS franchises, it's an actual football club. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if Portland has or had a women's team, nor do I know if Seattle has or had a youth development program, and I don't see how either of those things matter. Trying to discuss the issue with you feels like talking to someone about a newly established McDonald's franchise in a building that used to be an independent burger joint, and they keep yelling that it's more different than another McDonald's franchise down the street (that also used to be an independent burger joint) because it kept the same manager and some of the same employees. For now I guess I weakly oppose your proposal, because I can't tell exactly what it is that you're proposing. ← George ^talk 06:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't know if Portland had a women's team? You don't know if Seattle had a youth development program. What you're saying is that you don't know football. For crying out loud no wonder you don't understand the situation. Go learn the subject matter before you speak any further. It matters because if they were just a franchisee as you and others suggest then they club activities would be irrelevant. However, a club performs at many levels. They develop youth. They are involved in other sports. This isn't marketing, it's a football club. That's why I referenced Bayern, and the other European clubs. They all have multiple levels of teams. They're not concerned about the brass ring, they're concerned about the sport. Yes, they all want to play at the highest level, but that's so they can continue to develop the sport. When the MLS dies (and there's no reason to assume that it won't) there is strong reason to assume that the Whitecaps will continue. For now, you should go learn the subject matter and then place a vote, or go vote on a McDonald's article proposal. This isn't a company, it's a football club. I strongly oppose your comments when you don't know what you're talking about. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason I brought those things up are 1) because it shows that the Whitecaps are different (a club, not just a franchisee) and 2) because that's what my proposal is about: to create a page that discusses the club, not the teams that are a part of the club. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time you've tried to discourage me from joining the discussion on this page, and for the second time I'm warning you that doing so is uncivil. Don't do it. Editors aren't required to be experts in subject matter to engage in discussion, and everyone has something to offer. If your case is strong enough, you should be able to explain it in a way that any editor can understand. If you can't, then maybe your case just isn't strong enough. ← George ^talk 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disuading you from discussing. I'm suggesting that you grasp the subject matter before discussing. There's a difference. While editors don't have to be subject matter experts, those who aren't shouldn't offer opinions on the subject matter. This isn't a business article we're discssing, it's a sports-related article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sports teams are also businesses. They buy, sell, and trade players, they pay their workers salaries, and they sell tickets and merchandise. The team itself can be bought and sold, just like any business. Their owners are almost always in business to make a profit. Your claim that the Whitecaps aren't a business seems pretty suspect to me. What do you base that on? ← George ^talk 07:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that the 'Caps aren't a business? If I did, sorry. They're not just a business. They're certainly unlike the MLS franchisees. To see on what I base that, read what I wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, ignoring for a moment whether or not they're similar to other MLS franchises, what you're basically saying is that there is a "parent organization", called the Vancouver Whitecaps FC, that owns and operates multiple teams, one of which is the MLS Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Similar to how Vulcan Sports and Entertainment is the owner of the MLS Seattle Sounders FC, the NFL Seattle Seahawks, and the NBA Portland Trailblazers. Am I understanding correctly? ← George ^talk 07:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't ignore whether they're similar to MLS franchisees since that is the primary point of this discussion. The comparison to Vulcan isn't ideal. It seems that every element of the company is designed to make money. A better comparison is the European football clubs that I've mentioned. They have programmes designed to seek talent at a very early age--as young as twelve. The academy for even younger children does make some money as the players all pay to participate in the camps. Their development programme is not a money-maker. To use a business analogy: it's a loss-leader. They will lose money hoping to find a few good players. It's already "payed a small dividend" in the form of a former residency player, Marcus Haber, who has been sold to a team in England and is now playing in Scotland. He wasn't developed from the academy level, but started one step later. He then progressed to the reserves, which is essentially a farm team. Many European teams develop their players starting at twelve. Toronto FC are now starting to develop a similar programme and the MLS recognizes that this is a good system since they are allowing players developed this way to bot be counted towards a salary cap. So They've been doing what other clubs are just starting to do now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I follow you so far. Now, you've mentioned the FC Bayern Munich article a couple times, identifying it as something this article should be modeled on. However, as far as I can tell, that article is not only the article about the club that has a womens team and a reserve team, but its also the main article about the Bundesliga team FC Bayern Munich itself. That is to say, there is no FC Bayern Munich (Bundesliga) article that mirrors Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS). So my question then is why isn't Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) moved to Vancouver Whitecaps FC, the current article moved to History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC (1986–2010) (a la Manchester United F.C.) or History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC (a la FC Bayern Munich), and then the new main article (formerly about only the MLS team) expanded to discuss the other aspects of the club (the womens team, the reserve team, some history and a link to the history article)? That seems to be the model employed by FC Bayern Munich, and that is something I could support. ← George ^talk 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, except for the re-naming of this article. Changing it will create a mass of issues with regard to player infoboxes, in which players who played for the USL version of the team will then have their stats linking to a "team history" page rather than a page about the club itself. The rest makes sense though: in the MLS article we can talk about the different aspects of the club and provide links to appropriate sub-pages (like the Vancouver Whitecaps Residency team in the PDL), and talk about the club which existed from 1986-2010 here. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with George on moving this page to a (1986–2010) the page, though in keeping with other naming conventions, it should loose the "History of" title. Vancouver Whitecaps FC can temporarilly redirect to the disambig page to alliviate page linking concerns mentioned by JobBroxton until the linking can be fixed. The MLS page should move to the Wikipedia:Primary topic by the time the season starts, hopefully sooner. I have no issue with the MLS/main page having a brief section explaing the relationship to the Women's or Youth team similar to FC Bayern Munich.Cmjc80 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not closed

You have not made your point. You are all using assumption and supposition to say that the Whitecaps are under ths same situation as other MLS fracnhsies, but have not offered a shred of evidence to back your claims that Vancouver is. This is outrageous. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Second pillar of the WP:FIVEPILLARS

"Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person." The consensus to keep the articles separate is all based on WP:OR. I'm really angry about this decision and will be seeking out a definitive source to settle the question one way or another. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to continue arguing but so far there is no consensus for your change and that does not look to be changing anytime soon. I think everything has been said that needs to be said. Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Actually the keep separate side has not made its point, you just agree that the Whitecaps areprobably in the same situation as the other clubs. So perhaps you should find some actual proof to back your assumption as well since proof is what Wikipedia is built on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The onus has been on you to prove the Whitecaps are different than the 17 other teams in MLS and was closed because a majority disagreed with you in part because of a failure to show WP:RS to conclusively prove the matter in your favor. Until you or anyone can show this, I see no further need for discussion. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to look for proof, the proof should be something specifically showing the Whitecaps are either the same or separate entities. Comparison to other teams, especially the Timbers (who actually have a lot in common with the Whitecaps), is not conclusive proof of the Whitecaps' legal status, which is what we should be/should have been looking to resolve. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2010/12/whitecaps-fc-wrap-first-week-training-camp

"“It was a great exercise for us because we have some new guys here with the chance to have a look at, so it was a great opportunity to test them out,” said Thordason.

"Among those new players were a pair of the club’s selections from the recent MLS Expansion Draft, as Jonathan Leathers and Shea Salinas were inserted into the starting eleven."

So the coach is saying the the MLS Expansion Draft players are "new" to the team.

"Many other players are still on trial trying to earn a spot on the roster", while the second division team are trying to earn a spot.

Meanwhile Portland isn't training. Yeah, they're in the same situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to play the turn of phrase game, same article, emphasis mine:

"The MLS season may still be four months away from kicking off, but Vancouver Whitecaps FC are wasting no time preparing for their first match."

"I know what Jay is good for, I have seen that on bigger arenas than training fields in California,” said Thordason of the team’s first signing. “There is nothing special that I’m looking for, I just want to get him in, get to know the players and for us to get to know him, and to get a good start."

"many other players are still on trial trying to earn a spot on the roster. With only nine players signed on to play for the team so far, the battle for spots should be fierce"

My point here is only to say blog posts and team news releases aren't evidence of the team's legal status, especially when taken out of context. Need better sources to show continuity. And the Timbers will also have a training camp. Some of the Timbers USL guys are in limbo - have neither been signed nor released (though some players have been signed or released). SportingFlyer (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And then:

"I'm excited to be back on board again with the club, and at such a great time in their history," Valentine said. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/12/07/sp-mls-whitecaps-coach.html

The press release (not a blog post as some have suggested) is titled "Whitecaps FC legend Carl Valentine returns to the club" http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2010/12/whitecaps-fc-legend-carl-valentine-returns-club. Since he can't return to a club that just started this year... He played for the original Whitecaps. He played and then coached the 86ers. He's returning to the club. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And now "Beyond the excitement of being an MLS club this year, Whitecaps FC". http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2011/01/looking-ahead-exciting-year-whitecaps-fc Seems to imply that the Whitecaps were something else in previous years. Oh yeah, they were a soccer team that played in the second tier of the American soccer pyramid. Same team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking over and over and over again.Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I include what I read. And you don't cherry pick to indicate that it's a new organization because you can't find any proof of that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just rediscovered this article that indicated that the USSFD2 Caps signed Alain Rochat in plans to build the MLS team's roster. That cannot be explained if they two are not the same club and certainly not if they're not the same business entity. I have no idea how that will be dealt-with in relationship to having the MLS hold all the contracts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)