Template talk:2011 Major League Soccer season table

Any way we can put an "edit" button on this table so it's easier to edit it? CalBears99 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualification or relegation" column

It makes no sense to conform the MLS template to the rest of the world's football tables just because the other articles - even *all* the other articles - do things in a particular way. MLS, for better or for worse, doesn't do a lot of things like the rest of the world does. This column is the perfect example of why not. In the push toward conformity, the MLS season table now includes a caption that makes no sense in MLS, where of course there *is* no relegation. I messed around a bit with the underlying template parameters but I'm no expert with those, and could not get the thing to say what it ought to (namely, no "relegation"). Otherwise I think the "standard" format is as good as any, so can someone with a bit more expertise in this area tweak the template so that it is at least correct? If not, this revised setup is so plainly wrong that I'm inclined to revert it altogether to the older format if the column can't be properly captioned. It wouldn't "conform" but at least it'd be right. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the way the template is designed (the qualification/relegation label). It was changed to that style is that it is much cleaner and easier to understand. The old template had way to many colors that are difficult to decipher unless you only focused on the numbers column, and even then, you have to go all the way down to a key to see what each color stood for. The new template was correct; it showed that the top ten clubs qualify for the MLS Cup Playoffs, while the top six qualify for not only the playoffs, but enter the U.S. Open Cup in the third-round proper. Additionally, the first place club was shown to earn a bye to the Group Stage of the CONCACAF Champions League. In the template footer instead of signifying a (C) for champion (as in most leagues the club with the best season record is the champion) it was changed with (SS), an acronym for the Supporters Shield.

Although you did not mention it, I did not include (E1) or (W1) to determine conference champions is because MLS has yet to determine whether or not there will be either a Eastern, Central and Western Conference; the same two conferences (with clubs moving conferences) or one conference (single table). I think it is easy to determine that MLS currently has no relegation system by not having anything next to the bottom clubs in the standings. Twwalter (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, comment: I have created a new header on a special subpage to my profile. If anyone is willing to look at this concept. For the time being, I'm open to either the new or old table being used as a temporary placeholder until MLS decides on conferences. Click here to see it. Twwalter (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to cleaner and easier to understand, but simply to "wrong". A template is a form that is appropriately applied across a variety of similar circumstances. In this case - at least, as far as I was able to discern in my undirected experimenting - the template inherently includes terms or concepts that are foreign to MLS. For that reason the template should not be applied to MLS. While those knowledgeable about U.S. soccer organization will understand, probably, that a column including "relegation" is just an artifact, a glitch resulting from the fact that MLS does things differently than everyone else, the neophyte is only going to find it confusing. They may not know what relegation is, and then once they learn what it is, proceed under the mistaken belief that MLS somehow accommodates it. If the parameter setting for the column headers could be changed so that the word "relegation" could be removed altogether, then it might be okay; though even then, I think a column labeled "qualification" and based on teams' positions in the standings is misleading until at least the end of the season when the standings are final and qualifications are fixed. Maybe if the column said, "qualification at season-end" or something like that. Anyhow, until the general template is right, it shouldn't be used here, whether or not it's cleaner. I'll look at your new header - thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers you THAT much that it contains the word relegation? Is it really that hard to just look at the table and figure out that there is no relegation? Ditching a cleaner table that is used in every single football league page in wikipedia in favor of a dirtier one that people don't want just because one word may confuse a 6 year old reader is quite ridiculous. It's not a big deal at all. Twwalter's concept does not include the word relegation so we'll just try to tweak that. But don't just throw away the table and go back to the old rubbish because one tiny detail bothers you so much. CalBears99 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnInDC - I'm a tad bit confused to what part of the concept table you find incorrect, as far as I'm concerned, the concept tables (overall, East, West) are completely accurate. The top six MLS clubs during the regular season, in a single table, qualify for the US Open Cup. It is fairly well marked in the concept. Plus, my draft does not include the words "Relegation", but rather "Qualification" with no hints that there is the possibility of relegation. Unless it didn't get saved, there is a mention in the footer that the Supporters Shield winner also qualifies for the MLS Cup Playoffs and third round proper of the US Open Cup, but the main qualification the Shield winner earns is a direct Group Stage spot in the CONCACAF Champions League, a North American continental tournament where the best soccer clubs in North America compete for the continental title. The thing is though these clubs do qualify for the playoffs, do qualify for the US Open Cup, and do qualify for the Champions League based on their standings. Extra Champions League and SuperLiga berths are determined by the outcome of the playoffs...which is pretty well stated in the footer. Twwalter (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty clear - what concerned me was that, as applied to MLS, the template was wrong. Wrong! There's no justification for including incorrect information, deliberately, in a template, no matter who might be confused, and no matter how commonplace the template is for other articles for which it is in fact accurate. I made clear that I tried to repair the template myself, failed, and was reverting it to the older, uglier - but *correct* - version until someone could fix it. Twwalter has done so. I think it's fine now. Meantime, CalBears99, assume good faith, eh? JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W/L/T

Thanks JIDC. Also guys, we may want to consider though putting the header as W-L-T, rather than W-D-L. I'm not too picky about it, but MLS does use W-L-T in their standings. Presuming that the MLS's table for 2011 retains the W-L-T header. Thoughts? Twwalter (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal I think it would be better to conform to what MLS does, seeing as it is an MLS template. If it can be done easily then that would be better. But this is more a matter of form than substance so it'd be okay to leave it if it's not easy. JohnInDC (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it isn't a problem, I'll just need to navigate my way back to the header template, and it should be done in a snap. I won't change it just yet, until MLS release its standings configuration for the season. If they use the W-L-T format, I'll change it. If they use W-D-L or W-T-L, I'll keep it as it is. Twwalter (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and they appear to contradict one another. At the moment, the mobile app version of MLS displays their standings/table as W-T-L, whereas the website displays it as W-L-T. I say for now, we just leave it as it is. Twwalter (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents, but I think the table format as it stands right now is excellent. I would consider including the fact that the first place team wins the Supporters' Shield and qualifies for both the league cup and national cup, but I understand not doing so because that'd become far too cluttered. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I did think that and that's the reason I decided not to. When the seasons over it will show both (SS) and (A) by the first place club to show they not only qualify for the Champions League, but to the MLS playoffs, as well. Twwalter (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions/ideas?

Just a few things I was thinking about while looking at this and the conference templates:

Sortable: I think making the table sortable could be a nice addition, although it might not look as good.
New Stat: I also think it'd be informative to have a Points Per Game stat, since in the MLS, teams hardly ever all have the same number of games played. The Points Per Game would actually show which teams have done the best with the games they've played. This is one of the reasons a sortable table would be nice as well.
Points: I also think it might be nice to put the Points as the left-most stat, right after team. Maybe it'd make the most sense to switch Points with Games Played, I just think Points should stand out more or be in a more logical place since the standings are based upon Points. Maybe Points Per Game would go to the right of Points then?
Conference Indication: I think it'd be nice to know which teams are in which conference just by looking at this table. Can anyone think of a way to include this information within the table? We already have a lot of coloring, but maybe we could even add another column for Conference, with a simple E or W for East or West? Or maybe some sort of bolding or italicizing, I'm not sure.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated. If I don't get much of a response I may just use my own judgement and play around with it for a bit, then get feedback once I've made changes. --Adam (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nt= parameter

It isn't displaying correctly. DemonJuice (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminated notations.

The (E) is supposed to denote that a team is eliminated so why are we doubling up that notation with the pink color in the far right column. Seems very redundant. I have the same problem with the notation in the far right column for the teams that are ranked 11 through 16. The fact that they aren't in the blue playoff positions and don't have an (E) after their name is indication enough that they are out of they playoff positions but haven't yet been eliminated. This double notation is very annoying to me. DemonJuice (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need it. I suppose someone who wants the MLS tables to look like the European tables where they bottom teams are relegated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mind the Wooden Spoon thingy (though, you probably might, Walter heh) but I also couldn't argue with the reason it was removed. DemonJuice (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ordering suggestion

How about changing the order to something like the NHL style? In there, the top 3 have to be div winners, and the rest are in pts order. Here you could have a similar thing - with the top 6 being those who qualify for the semi-finals via their division, then the rest in order. that might cause less confusion about allocations. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense to me, it's exactly how we did the combined table in D-2 last year. Not sold on it, though. DemonJuice (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheild winner

Why not make the Supporters Sheild winner green like other league winners? It means that they advance to the next round. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]