Template talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Split the template?

Should we split the template to have NASL, A-Leauge and USL show their own seasons. It seems needed if MLS is its own section. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think we should do away the false illusion that w e are dealing with separate clubs. European teams don't show differences based on the level of the league, neither should the Whitecaps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women and Developmental Teams

Drawing from the precedence on other templates of teams with a women's side (such as the Arsenal template and the Chelsea template), it looks like a single category of "Other teams" is used for both developmental teams and the full women's team. Doing this here could make this template look less cluttered. Thoughts? --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about all Whitecaps teams, not simply the MLS incarnation

It appears that Ckatz doesn't understand that. It's obvious from the seasons and the linked articles. He is starting an edit war to push his POV that there is no connection between the clubs, which is a separate and unrelated issue. Adding historical stadiums follows the rest of the template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, again, please lose the aggressive and confrontational language as it benefits no-one. The template is formatted and presented as the Whitecaps FC, not the Whitecaps. The natural read on this is to presume it is the MLS team. Let's work to accommodate all sides of the issue without edit warring. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm sounding aggressive but you don't understand the nature of the template. You're assuming that it's for the MLS team, when the document itself clearly proves you to be wrong. It outlines the history to 1974. It lists the NASL Championship in 1979. So apparently you don't want to accommodate anything, you want to make it match the incorrect "idea of Seattle Sounders/Portland Timbers". I'll remind you that it's not the Sounders or Timbers who do not claim the history of the team. I suggest you accommodate that idea in your thinking of the three clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template is primarily focussed on the MLS squad. The title at the top links to the MLS team, and the "seasons", "players" and "records" articles linked in the first section are all specific to MLS as well. It thus follows that the "stadiums" section would reflect the MLS team, especially given that the NASL and other squads are listed well below and not connected. Furthermore, the "major honours" section is misleading as it was not won by the MLS team (for obvious reasons). I'd like to hear your objections to my revision, instead of simply reverting. Alternatively, the historic stadiums could be folded into the existing historic section. -Ckatz^chat _spy 20:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "historical section". As the club claims its history back to 1974, and does so repeatedly, it seems disingenuous of us to separate it simply because other MLS clubs who share names with NASL teams do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same template? Because the one attached to this talk page has a subsection entitled "Historical teams" which lists "Vancouver Whitecaps (NASL)" and "Vancouver Whitecaps (second division)". --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are and there is an Historical teams section but not an historical section. That section has now been rendered pointless by a brilliant edit earlier today that make my point more clearly. Now just to add back the stadiums and will be done with it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this template is to include all incarnations of Whitecaps FC, why does it only include their NASL championship? Whitecaps FC were league champions in multiple seasons during their 1986–2010 stint. Should we not be including their CSL and USL league championships as well? Perhaps this should not include any championships at all? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because 1) no article exists for those second division championships and 2) no one has added it for fear of retribution from people who think it shouldn't contain that material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there isn't an article for Soccer Bowl '79 either. I think we could get around this by linking the season or league articles. However, I do have to agree with Ckatz with respect to how we are to format this article. As s/he states, the players, seasons, and records articles all include only players since the move to MLS. With the way the team articles are set up, we would need three players, seasons, and records articles to deal with the three distinct phases of history. Any suggestions on how to get around this? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you are not looking at the article's history. It was always intended to be about the professional teams in Vancouver, not just the MLS teams. The fact that other article are that way doesn't mean we have to do so. So I will politely continue to insist that this and other Whitecaps articles be about the team and not the team's involvement in any particular level of the sport. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I am not looking at an article. I am looking at the template and how we handle this in the template. I could care less if we have one Whitecaps article or three (frankly, I think one is sufficient because of how the club refers to its own history...this is all just a consequence of the lack or relegation/promotion in North America). I gather you are in favor of one article as well (just want to confirm your stance)? But the issue at hand is how do we address all of this in the template? Because right now, as Ckatz points out, it really reads like an MLS team template because that's what all the main articles are about. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Edmonton nor Ottawa are rivals

Just because they play in a cup that is listed on the template does not mean that they are rivals. If the editor who added this doesn't remove this or discuss, I will remove within a few days. Portland and Seattle have been rivals for more than a decade since before the founding of the Cascadia Cup. Montreal and Toronto certainly are as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit where the change happened and as you can see, it's about the rivalries, not the competitions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Whitecaps were founded in 2009 (the new team in the MLS that is). The Montreal Impact in 2010 (the MLS team) and the Toronto FC in 2006. FC Edmonton was found in 2010. All four teams in their present formation have competed in the Voyageurs Cup together since 2011. FC Edmonton faced the Whitecaps in the championship tournament in 2012 and 2013. The template includes the Voyageurs Cup as part of the rivalry and mentions only two teams when there are three that form the present four team rivalry. This is paralleled by the Cascadia Cup, also mentioned, which was continued by MLS in 2011. It includes the Portland Timbers (MLS Team which started play in 2011) and the Seattle Sounders FC (MLS team which started play in 2009). Essentially both Cups, were continued onward in 2011. FC Edmonton has been a part of the latter since that year. They are a rival team. In 2014 Ottawa Fury FC will join.NYCWikiKid (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they play in a cup tournament for two years does not mean they are rivals. They are not a rival team just because they play them. They are a rival team because there is a rivalry. The section on the template is for rivalries and it also lists two cups. I'm sorry you don't understand that. Just because two teams meet in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup in two consecutive years doesn't make them rivals. A rivalry goes more deeply than that. The Whitecaps play teams in the Western Conference of MLS more often than they do Edmonton.

Seattle and Portland are rivals and have been for decades. That's why the cup formed.

The Voyageur's cup was formed to determine a winner of Canadian competitions in the USL, but it was co-opted by the Canadian championship. At one point there were a more teams competing for the cup. You don't list them as rivals. Toronto became a rival during its first year participating in the cup because of the fierce competition. Their first match in MLS was against Toronto. The media in Vancouver recognize it as a rivalry. Montreal and Vancouver played together for years in USL and via the Canadian Championship and they two had the most competitive teams in MLS for years and that forged a fierce rivalry. That has continued into MLS.

When Edmonton was formed it was done when Vancouver moved into MLS and Edmonton took Vancouver's place in a league that Vancouver helped create. They have never held league matches against each other. The CC matches have always been blow-outs. Even Vancouver's reserve team has blow the Eddies out of the water. Rivalries only start when there is heated competition or when the outcome is uncertain.

Finally, you loan players to your rivals. It was made clear that Vancouver and Edmonton would have a close relationship when Edmonton was founded. FC Edmonton wants to start a rivalry with Vancouver (http://the11.ca/2012/03/13/fc-edmonton-to-leave-calling-cards-for-whitecaps-and-their-fans/) but there isn't one, at least from Vancouver's side. You won't find any media calling it a rivalry, and that's what you'd need to have to support their inclusion in the rivals section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and it's not accurate to state that the Sounders "started" in 2009 or that Timbers "started" in 2011 or that the Whitecaps were founded in 2009. The two Cascadia teams started in the MLS then and Vancouver's ownership team's MLS bid was accepted then. "They" (and I use the term loosely because there are editors on Wikipedia who claim that the current incarnation of the three teams have no history in the previous incarnations which the supporters groups don't agree with, which is why the Cascadia cup originated in 2004 after years of play between three clubs based in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver) started much earlier. In fact, using one of your favourite blurred lines, the Whitecaps and Sounders set an attendance record in the original NASL. The Cascadia rivalries have gone back to the 1980s and have their grounding in the 1970s. Similarly, the "Canadian rivalry" has its roots in Canadian east-west antagonism, the Canucks' entry into the NHL, and other national issues. And Montreal, in particularly, has irked Vancouver football fans since they "threw" a match in 2007 so Toronto could advance ([1] a reprint of a 2009 article discussing a 2007 incident, [2]). None of this exists between Vancouver and Edmonton. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of references, that's what Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Canadian rivalries has, and it doesn't list Edmonton either. If you're going to add Edmonton here, you need to update it there first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honours

Should their titles in the USL First Division and the original Canadian Soccer League be included in this template? Nelson Roy (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It conflates the subjects. Also, it should only include links to WP:EXISTING articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of those seasons have existing links. Nelson Roy (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the MLS season articles exist. The following do not, which provides another reason to remove the older teams of the same name from the template (1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984; 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992; 1994; 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, 1979 should exist as the NASL Whitecaps took the finals that year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the the team's articles (e.g. 2008 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season) or the competition's seasonal articles? Because here are all the articles of the CSL seasons: 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. If you want to split the template fair enough, but as of right now these honours should probably be recognized as they were first division titles won by the team(s) that this template currently represents (which is why I added them after a couple days of receiving no reply on this talk page, feel free to revert them if you still disagree). Nelson Roy (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template. There are no club season articles, but I am sure there are league season articles. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, this template would have to be on them, but that does not seem realistic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]