editing[edit]

let's try to make sure we are using the summary section when we are editing the templates so everyone knows what has been done and what still needs to be.Morry32 (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff coloring[edit]

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 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-line coloring and Linking to team articles[edit]

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) 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has progressed over here. Please post all future comments there. Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Red Bulls[edit]

...is not the team's name. Grsz¹¹ 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, if you look at their article, Red Bull New York refers to the company who owns the team, while New York Red Bulls is the name of the team the company owns. Its confusing, but that's the way it is. Spydy13 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're really showing your inexperience. There is a long standing consensus to pipe it this way because though the club name is Red Bull New York, the playing squad is the New York Red Bulls. Please, get an idea of what you're talking about before you do stuff like this. Also, if that was your only objection, you could have gone in and changed only that, rather than reverting the whole edit I made. That is what you got pissed at me for on the 2009 MLS article. Seriously man, get it together. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one of the places this was discussed. There are many others. I promise you this is correct. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't know what you're doing, then don't do it. I don't go into all sorts of hockey articles and edit them to be like soccer articles. If you don't understand something your first instinct shouldn't be to change the thing to conform to your misunderstanding. Watching your language would also be appreciated. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your ownership issues speak volumes. Grsz¹¹ 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you not to edit things you obviously don't understand or know nothing about isn't claiming ownership of the article. It is common sense. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Column order[edit]

In the sort-of-common-standard for soccer tables points are placed in the final column, not the first one. I'll change the templates. 194.50.169.20 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also games' record order is W–D–L (or W–T–L), not the W–L–D, just by the meaning of points earned in each result. 194.50.169.20 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that has already been discussed and determined. I direct you to the discussion in the MLS 2008 season. The standard for MLS standings is W-L-T.Sixkick (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion/consensus Sixkick refers to is this one. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]