Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer Western Conference table

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Video Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer Western Conference table

Bar?

What's the bar (empty row) under the #2 team represent? <- George ^[talk] 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the line for who makes the playoffs? No idea how one is supposed to suss that from there just being a line though. I don't think the temlate would suffer any from the line not being there. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I don't get is this template seems to indicate that the top four teams would make the playoffs, not the top two. I really don't know anything about the playoffs or how that's decided though. Maybe we should match that template by using a background color and a footnote saying what the coloring indicates? <- George ^[talk] 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Only the top two teams in each conference are guaranteed a trip to the playoffs. The four wild cards can come from either conference, so you could technically end up with a situation where all of the wildcards come from one conference. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to trying to represent the current wildcard qualifiers in this table as was done previously in the tables that were in the main MLS article. Thoughts? --Skotywa^Talk 22:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer Western Conference table

Playoff coloring

I have temporarily put back the coloring for playoff positioning that existed in the main article before it was moved to a template. The fact that this has happened on the template rather than in the main article is clouding the conversation around whether or not this template should be used in the 2009 MLS season. If we agree upon the usage of this template in the 2009 MLS season article, then this table will be allowed to continue to "grow and change" naturally. Please excuse me for this revert. I know it's been contentious. I just want to get a consensus on the templates first. Thank you for your understanding. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

src: multifiles.pressherald.com

In-Line Coloring and Linking to Season Specific articles

I have no problems with these two changes. The in-line coloring doesn't affect anything on the 2009 MLS Season article so I don't see why the team-specific articles shouldn't have that option if they want it. And since these are 2009 standings, it makes sense to link to to the 2009 team-specific season articles if the teams have them. It might help in getting more created and also force the ones that exist to look relitively clean and tidy at all times. Spydy13 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The in line coloring I have no problem with as long as the codeing abbreviations are the same ones used by MLS for consistency. You'll find them in the Results table. As for the linking to season articles, where was that discussed? You think the Premier League season article links to the Arsenal season page? EVERYWHERE UEFA, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, leagues, cups, continental competitions, links tables to the main article. Why should this be any different? I apologize for what was viewed as a hostile action, but I had agreed with SkotyWA to return the templates to the EXACT form they were in at the start of the season. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, provide one example where this is done anywhere else in the encyclopedia, and I will drop the issue immediately. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fair point, I had not researched what other leagues had done. I also agree that the original point of this whole discussion was to talk about changing to templates, NOT to change a bunch of things in the article. I would hope that those in favor of the change to templates would be willing to leave the rest of the things as they were if the templates are installed. You would still be winning in this scenario because you would have got your change that allows information to be sent to your team articles, even if you are not involved in the update process. I guess I just don't understand why we have to screw with something that had no complaints. I think that this is the civil way to solve this manner and move forward without further edit-warring. Spydy13 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple examples from American sports articles: baseball, football, hockey (note that this one's sortable too). Using the EPL as an argument against isn't valid because they don't have templates anyways (as has been brought up by you in the MLS 2009 season discussion page). I think the season page links make sense and get you to the most contextually relevant information quickly. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether the Premier League uses templates or not. Templates or no templates has zero to do with how links are piped. No other football articles link to season articles from the competition. Not UEFA, not CONCACAF, not the Premier League, La Liga, or Serie A. On top of it, for the ninth time, these changes were never discussed. Furthermore, when these templates are used in season articles, if the standings link to season articles as well, the link in the standings is broken from the season article because you're already at the article you're linking to. If people want to go to the club season article, they can get there via the club article the way it is done everywhere else on the encyclopedia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is not broken, it's bolded (as it is with any template including the one at the bottom of the MLS Season article) indicating to the user that "you're there". Users of Wikipedia would expect this. It's not confusing. Our agreement was that the tables would look exactly as they did before they moved to templates. I believe that's been accomplished. Whether the links go to a season page or a team page when a season page is not available is nit picking at this point. Can we get on with the larger discussion of template usage and stop with the distractions. I've given you and inch, and now a mile and even cleaned up the mess in your wake. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not use a link that would be a link everywhere the template would be used? Furthermore, why should someone expect to be "there already" if they're not at "Seattle Sounders FC." These links aren't supposed to be easter eggs. It is even more confusing because some of the links are one way and some of the links are another way. Why not use the format that accomodates everyone equally? Finally, the templates are not as they were at the start of the season. That was the agreement. Do this, and there doesn't even need to be a discussion. I'm willing to accept templates as long as they don't change the main article in any way. All you done is remove some of the changes that were rammed through under the cover of "templating." Undoing those aren't anything more than restoring things to what is supported by consensus. Admit it, you just want people to be directed to an article you edit. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, stop telling me what I think. You wanted examples, I gave you examples. You thought the link was broken, I explained that's how they're supposed to work (across the entire encyclopedia). I've removed every last visual change that occurred simultaneously with the templating out of respect to you as an editor. It appears that you're now okay with the usage of templates and the link discussion can proceed as a proposed new change. I'll make a note of this back in the MLS 2009 season article. Thank you Grant. I'm happy that we're finally getting somewhere and I hope you recognize the efforts I personally went to to work through your arguments and concerns even while you were blocked from editing anything other than your talk page. All I ask is that you "pay it forward" and try to be a little nicer with other editors that you ram heads with in the future. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So since there is no consensus for the linking to season articles, I'll revert them until that discussion has reached a conclusion. I'm glad the biggest part of this is over. I appreciate your tireless efforts to build consensus, SkotyWA, and they will not be forgotten. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you revert that someone is going to report you since you're on 0RR probation. Think man! Honestly, give it a little time. If someone else (who hasn't pissed everyone else off) reverts it, great. Nobody's done that yet. That's actually quite a step towards consensus all on it's own. People will voice their opinions here. Be patient. Rather than reverting it, why don't you start posting messages on people's talk pages to get them to speak up and get a consensus one way or the other. Be productive, not counter productive. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you revert it? Objection to the templates was dropped under the idea that everything would be the same. We should discuss things before we change them, NOT change them and then discuss whether or not we are going to keep the change. Isn't this the more reasonable way to do this? Spydy13 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant, Skoty is correct in that it would not be prudent for you to just revert things in your current situation. I take it you've seen my final warning, on your talk page. Please think things over before pressing any buttons. These chaps are willing to work things out, therefore relax. What's the hurry? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not allow the reader to see the most applicable article, and linking to the season articles where they exist? It seems like common sense to use them where we can. Grsz¹¹ 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Links shouldn't be easter eggs. When you click on the name of a club, you expect to be taken to that article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then what are pipelinks for in the first place? Give me a break. Grsz¹¹ 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To help link to an article without using the exact title every time? In every other soccer article, when I click the name of a team, I am taken to the team's article. Why should MLS be different? And why should the change to an unorthodox format be made before it is discussed and agreed upon? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking through Bobblehead's talk page and I noticed this comment:

"First thing I notice is that I'm not sure that Grant's use of "fanboy" or "fanboyism" is necessarily a personal attack against you. It is probably just shorthand for information that is not of interest to the "average" Wikipedia reader. You also seem to have a bit of a double standard with your approach to the whole edit war. Just because something is added to the article, it doesn't mean that consensus is required to remove it. Adding content to article also requires consensus, so as long as only you and Grant have expressed your opinion on the content then there is no consensus to include or not include the content. In that case, the default state is generally to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to request input from other editors. If you aren't familiar with dispute resolution, please see WP:DR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)"

This is exactly what is going on with regard to linking to club season articles. This was never discussed, and just because you added it to the article doesn't mean it has to stay until there is consensus to remove. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In strolling through the standings templates for the other American/Canadian leagues it seems the more common practice is to link to the season article if it exists. The exceptions I've so far are the CFL and NBA, but the MLB, NHL, NFL. But realistically, I don't see why it is a problem for us to link to the 2009 season articles for the teams that have them. The template is for the standings in the 2009 season and the most appropriate link, in my opinion, would be to the 2009 season article for the team, not to their main page. Come 2010, the information on the 2009 season will most likely be removed from the team's main article, but would remain in the 2009 season article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant, at the time I made the above comment, only you and Skotywa had voiced their opinion on the matter. Since then, myself, Morry32, and Grzs11 have come out in favor of the templates. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, all oposition to templates has been dropped. The only current argument is about the linking to season-specfic team articles in the standings. And to comment on your post, the difference between MLS and all the leagues you listed is that only 5 of the 15 teams have season specifc articles. I really think that consistency should be taken into account. Spydy13 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that there is not now, nor was there ever, consensus for piping the standings links to the club season articles, and since that is the case, they should be reverted to their preexisting state until the discussion has ended and consensus has been reached. Can you agree with that application of your earlier point about the templates to the different, but similar, situation regarding the links, Bobblehead? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking stock on this conversation, the only remaining unaddressed concern (from Grant and his bro) for not moving on with the season links is that it's confusing if one link goes to a season page and another link in the same table goes to a team page. I tend to agree with that thinking however, the best solution would be if a season page existed for every team and then everything would be consistent in the tables. So let me throw this out there... Why don't we just create a season page for every team then? They don't have to be much, just stub pages with some starter data (the info box, link to team page, stub footer, etc.). I think we all would agree that our common long term hope is to have more people contributing more information about MLS on Wikipedia. It's obvious that we're lacking when you note that every MLB team, NFL team, and NHL team has a current season page. There's nothing that screams "you should help out" to someone just browsing Wikipedia than a stub page (it says "please help" right in the footer doesn't it). I think creating these pages would address Grant and his bro Spydy's concern in a way they probably haven't considered yet. Call it a compromise if you like. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think creating pages solely so that you are justified in linking to them is about as dumb a rationale as I can think of. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The amount of work that goes in to maintaining a season articles is massive. Creating a bunch of crappy stubs, just so that you can link to them is idiotic. Why isn't "do it the way every other soccer competition in the world" a good justification? This is simply insane. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's insane, this quote: Seriously, provide one example where this is done anywhere else in the encyclopedia, and I will drop the issue immediately. You've been provided with examples, but instead of dropping it as promised, you've narrowed what you consider an acceptable example to just soccer articles. That said, I don't see why this wouldn't fall under the American vs. European naming convention of season articles or the W-L-T vs. W-D-L type of discussion. I also don't appreciate how quick you are to call my idea dumb. When was the last time I called any of your ideas dumb? You're just being a jerk now. Creating the stubs (simple ones that wouldn't have to be maintained week to week) seemed like a plausible way to invite more editors into the work of adding MLS content to Wikipedia. The only reason that's a dumb idea is if you feel like you need to protect your turf or something like that. Wikipedia is big enough for everybody. Get over yourself. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said you or anyone else for that matter was dumb or insane or anything. I said I think your idea is. Creating crappy articles just so that they can be linked to doesn't do anything except start AfDs. When 2/3 of the teams don't have articles to link to, your idea is unfeasible. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You also agreed to leave the templates exactly the way they were when the season started, but have not done that. You were so happy to get down to the one sticking point, but have been unwilling to revert to the original state of the article until discussion is concluded and consensus is reached. Changes are supposed to be debated before they are made, not after. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, dropping into the conversation a bit late. So it sounds like there are a couple issues being discussed:

1. Whether to have links to the team pages, or links to the season articles (or a mix in the case where the team doesn't have a season article).
2. In the case of using straight season articles, whether to leave them as red links, or to create stubs.

So my thoughts are that this template should redirect to the year-specific articles themself. This template is specific to the 2009 seasons, and I think the click through to view more info from the team during the 2009 season is a desired behavior. I suspect that if all the season articles were written, there would be almost universal consensus to link to them, rather than the team pages. So, given that, do we create stub pages or leave them as red links? I honestly don't think there's any difference. Take a look at the Arsenal seasons template - it's 95% red links to season articles that don't exist. Wikipedia has a guideline on red links, which states that "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." I think these red links would indicate that these season articles should be created, and I think we all agree that they're notable and verifiable. However, editors are also encouraged to write the articles that are red links. If we had a bunch of red links, it's entirely possible that other people would come through over time and populate those articles - some with full articles, others with just stubs. Personally I think the red links are a better indicator to other editors as to what articles are missing, because they probably wouldn't even bother to check a blue link to a stub, and thus never realize that it's not a full article. So my vote would be to follow the Arsenal template I linked, and just leave the season pages that don't exist as red links, unless you plan to populate them (though making them stubs is virtually the same to me). <- George ^[talk] 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't like the template on the Arsenal season article, it is the template on the Premier League season article, which links to the club articles. This is another reason why the main MLS article shouldn't even use the templates. If you want to use them for your club season articles, be my guest, but I don't understand why the main MLS season article should be redlinked all to hell so that your club season article will have all the fancy trinkets you want. Come to think of it, why does the main MLS season article have to use these templates anyway? If you want them, fine, but we were just fine before you came along. My guess is that you want Mjhammerle, Sixkick and myself to edit them for you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Arsenal template wasn't meant to be a corollary to this one; it was meant to illustrate that it's okay for templates of this caliber to contain red links, and that it's not necessarily required to create a stub for every season, for every team, ever.

Premier League 2008-09 contains a standings table. That table links to the club articles not the club season articles. Why should MLS be different? -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're discussing two different issues. One is whether have a lot of red links in a template is okay or not, and the other is whether to link to the season articles or the team pages. I'm not hugely opposed to linking directly to the team articles, although I think linking to the season pages makes more sense. If every team had a season article, would you still prefer linking to the team pages? I appreciate that the Premier League 2008-09 table links to the club articles and not the season pages, but I'm not sure that that means that this template must do the same, and I'm not sure that the table on that page shouldn't also link to the season articles. Can you points us to any discussion that took place on that article's talk page about whether to link to the team pages or to the season articles directly? Did the issue ever come up? Just because another article does something doesn't mean we can't do it better (and possibly go back and improve the first article when done). <- George ^[talk] 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the inclusion or exclusion of this template in the main MLS article. It's a separate issue, and should be brought up on the MLS article's talk page - not here.

But it remains a valid point that broad changes were made to the article before we had consensus for them, not after. There is no reason why we can't, just like the Premier League, have one table on the main season article and then let the clubs do whatever they want on their season articles. That seems to satisfy everyone. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were wrong, and consensus should be attained before changes are made here, as there is a dispute on the material. It's entirely possible that only the team pages should include this template, and the MLS article shouldn't - or vice versa. However, I haven't given the issue any great detail of thought, and this isn't the right venue to discuss where to include this template (unless you're planning on forking it into two separate templates). <- George ^[talk] 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are violating Wikipedia's core tenet on incivility, and failing to assume good faith. If you continue to be uncivil in discussions, I will not hesitate to report you for it. Statements like "we were just fine before you came along" are not a civil tone or acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. There is no "your" article or "my" article, there are just articles, which anyone, anywhere can edit. Wikipedia does not have divas, and nobody owns articles.

I apologize for my tone, as it was 4 AM here at the time of posting. However, note that I never said that anything was "mine" I simply pointed out that I had been editing, along with many others, these articles over several seasons, and the format has remained constant until last week, when an influx of new users made sweeping changes to the article before there was consensus for them, not after. Nevertheless, I will try to make my point more clearly in the future to avoid confusion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your numerous, high-quality contributions to Wikipedia. However, talking about "your" articles, then effectively telling people to buzz off, and complaining that more involved editors don't want to do the dirty work of populating red linked articles implies a very dangerous ownership mentality. Changes to articles are not necessarily a bad thing. I understand that you're trying to maintain consistency, but consistency does not trump improvement. It's entirely feasible that new editors can improve an article, and other editors, seeing the improvement, cascades it to other articles. If the issue is achieving consensus before making a change, that's perfectly fine; I've made no edits to this template, and fully support consensus being reached before it's changed. <- George ^[talk] 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I do not "want" anyone in particular to write said articles, let alone to write them "for me", so you may want to refrain from guessing and just ask my opinion in the future. I don't care if you write them, or I write them, or if some anonymous editor making their first edit to Wikipedia writes them. <- George ^[talk] 07:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But you admit that you want to create a bunch of articles regardless of how quickly or well they develop, just so that we can link to them? Season articles are such that they almost always need to have a lot of grunt work done on them while the season is going on in order for them to have any chance. We're 20% of the way through the season, and 2/3 of the articles are not created. The likelyhood that all of that data is going to be imported during the season is very, very small. Creating articles, the majority of which will never develop beyond stubs, just so that you are justified in linking to SkotyWA or Morry's pet project is ridiculous. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. Personally I favor the creation of red links, which can be populated at a later time. If it's a lot of work, those articles might have to wait until after the season ends, or maybe never. Again, this is what the Arsenal template I linked was meant to show - red links are okay in templates. However, even with red links, there's no guarantee that another editor won't go in - months or years from now - and create stubs for each article, and that's perfectly fine to me as well. Creating a stub is just an invitation for other editors to work on the article. Again, labeling templates as "trinkets" or certain editors' "pet projects" is not a correct or constructive attitude to have. If an article or template should exist, then it belongs to the Wikipedia community. If it shouldn't exist, then it should be deleted. I understand that it's a lot of work, and that it may never get done, but I think you'll agree that teams should have yearly season articles. If an article will never evolve past being a stub, we should re-evaluate if it is truly notable enough to exist as a separate article at all. <- George ^[talk] 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:REDLINK pretty much covers Wikipedia's opinion on whether or not red links are a good thing. Namely that editors are encouraged to write the article first before creating a link from a template. That doesn't mean a red link can't be created, but if we do go to linking all the team names to a season article, even if one doesn't exist, then this should be coupled with a concerted effort by editors to actually go about creating the aricles rather than relying upon "future editors" to create them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I think it's a separate, larger issue. I think most people would agree that the missing season articles should be created, regardless of whether we link to the them here or not. <- George ^[talk] 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to restart this discussion without ending the world

Can I ask why all of the 2009 MLS templates are linked to team season articles rather than the club articles? This seems highly irregular, and I was just wondering what the justification was. I don't want to open a whole can of worms, and obviously there was a huge series of editwars about a bunch of stuff, but I was just wondering why what appears to be a WP-wide convention isn't being followed. Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the WP-wide convention point. Some examples of these types of templates from around Wikipedia were linked to above, but here they are again: MLB, NFL, NHL. There are others, please read the entire discussion for more examples. It was also discussed with WP:FOOTY here. As for the edit wars, it was basically just Grant against all other editors involved in the discussion. He's since been banned indefinitely due to his actions here and on a few other pages. If you read the entire discussion above, you'll see what I'm talking about. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for even reopening this issue. I've made a seperate section, only to make getting to the comments a little easier. Okay, your NFL example is a misnomer, as the 2008 NFL season article has each division standings linked directly to the team article with a seperate link to the team's season article. That seems to follow a little better the concept of easter egg links followed elsewhere throughout the article (in the statistical leaders sections for example). In addition 2008-09 NBA season links only to the team articles. Finally, the MLB practice of linking to team season articles seems to have only started this year, and the NHL only the last two years. Either way, this is hardly established practice, even in U.S. sports articles, which means that it probably shouldn't trump the practice used in footy articles all throughout the encyclopedia. I'm not trying to rock the boat, but it seems odd for MLS not to follow the practice used everywhere but three articles. I haven't read through every gory detail of the last several months, but from what it looks like Grant was a dick who was trying to protect his baby, and he seems to have put quite a lot of work into making the articles in question "his own." I'm not justifying his behavior, but it seems like the people editing their team's season articles got what they wanted, namely updatable standings templates for every article. Why can't people find their way to those articles via the main team article like is done with practically every other league on Wikipedia? If it is good enough for Arsenal and Manchester United and Real Madrid and Juventus, why can't it be good enough for D.C. United and the Los Angeles Galaxy? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for not having read through every gory detail, you've definitely repeated every point Grant made quite well (and seem to know a lot about him). The only missing point (which is now obsolete) is that we shouldn't use redlinks to missing team season pages or have a mix of team season page links and team page links. In the previous discussion (and now) that was the only point I agreed with and felt needed to be addressed. It's been addressed now as the team season pages have been created for each team and are being kept up to date. As for the other points, I'm not going to debate what is and is not a Wikipedia standard based on how it's done in some articles and not in others. I just provided some of the links again for your convenience. There are more in the above discussion, which I suggest you read at this point (if you haven't already). There are examples of either on Wikipedia and no official MOS prescribing either. The consensus for this template was to link to the team season articles since, it was agreed, that's the most contextually accurate given that the template itself is for 2009. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The point still remains that MLS (and MLB and NHL) are now not following what is accepted standard everywhere else on the encyclopedia. Two NHL articles, an MLB article, and this MLS article are not enough to change a well established standard practice. The bottom line is that if WT:FOOTY thinks that this errant sheep should be brought back to the flock, it will be. I was trying to see if there were any policy-based reasons for the deviation, and it is clear now that there are not. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, it's already been discussed with WP:FOOTY here and the only objection (not all season articles existed at the time) has been addressed. Feel free to bring it up again if you like. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have. You also grossly oversimplify the conversation. Just after looking at it for five seconds, the fact that the piped text of the link doesn't make overtly clear what you are linking to seems to me like a reasonable sticking point that hasn't been addressed. Everywhere else on the encyclopedia you see "Seattle Sounders FC" in a link, you click on the page and are taken to "Seattle Sounders FC." Why should these templates be any different. Also the fact that the link to the season article is readily available at the bottom of the infobox for each team article takes care of the need to link directly to this information. To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with a compromise in the form of what is found on the NFL article you linked to earlier. I just think it is wrong to easter egg the links like this. Either way, the discussion just sort of ends, without anything that can be characterized as a consensus for your position so long as there aren't red links. The red links just seem to be one of the many problems with the current system that have been addressed. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying "Easter Egg" but the template is clearly "2009 Season" it would be terribly redundant to have each team's name replaced with "2009 MLS CITY CLUB NAME season" just because you believe it is confusing for you. I didn't mean to be a jerk in the footy project talk page, I was merely trying to warn you that this has been discussed and you will be in for a fight to change it at this point.Morry32 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alas, Grant Alpaugh AfterMayAndIntoAugust has been banned (again). As Morry32 and I have pointed out here (and in the second WP:FOOTY discussion) a consensus has already been arrived at for these templates. Piped links are not "easter eggs". The only reason they're piped is to avoid having to repeat "2009 season" with each link. Many editors (not just me and Morry32) have agreed above that the season articles are the most contextually relevant articles to link to in these tables. If indeed a user was looking for the team page rather than the season page, they would have little difficulty getting to it since the team page is linked to on the first line of each season article (without exception). Pretty clear cut I believe. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia