WikiProject iconCanada Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconSports Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template design[edit]

I like the idea of the template, but I'm not sure where it can be placed in the articles on the four leagues. It's not designed to fit at the bottom, and I can't see where it would fit at the top of the articles. It might be better for you to redesign it as a "traditional" bottom template. YLee (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criteria[edit]

What are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of leagues in this template? I don't see why Major League Soccer should not be included. Unless someone can explain a reason why MLS should not be include, I intend to add it. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 01:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The criteria on whether a league is "Major" is discussed in tremendous detail at Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, which this template is based on. YLee (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're referring to the description in the lead section of that article, I'd hardly call it "tremendous detail". In fact I'd say it's much closer to original research and hardly represents a neutral point of view. That said, I don't see why MLS cannot be included in this list even with the currently arbitrary criteria. Here they are, in list format, with an explanation of how MLS meets the criteria:
  • the richest professional club competition in its sport worldwide - This is probably the only one MLS does not meet. Obviously there are a few (like 5) leagues in Europe which are "richer" than MLS. However, I'd hardly call MLB, for example, the richest baseball league worldwide either. There is at least an equal amount of money in Japanese baseball. Disagree? Then prove it with a citation. The problem I have with this criteria is that it must be "worldwide", when we're talking about leagues in the United States and Canada. MLS is indeed the richest league in North and Central America. This should be enought to satisfy this criteria (as it appears to be for MLB).
"Disagree? Then prove it with a citation." The burden of proof is on you to prove that NPB has wealthier teams than MLB. In fact, many NPB players have migrated to MLB during the prime of their careers, while few have gone the other direction. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. SkotyWA, I have four words for you: Daisuke Matsuzaka. Posting system. Go read those articles and their cites, then get back to us about whether the Japanese leagues have "at least an equal amount of money". YLee (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The best players can become cultural icons in both countries and the rest of the world - Maybe you've heard of David Beckham or Freddie Ljungberg? Both are worldwide cultural icons, not just in the US and Canada. Both play in MLS. Other cultural icons have played in the MLS previously. Yet another "cultural icon", Tierry Henry will be coming after the World Cup as well. This (again arbitrary) criteria is easily met by MLS.
Yes, but these players are almost always past the prime of their careers by the time they reach MLS. As far as marquee talent, MLS (just as its predecessor, the NASL, was) is the equivalent of the PGA Champions Tour-- a senior circuit for those past their peak. Beckham's best years were in Man U. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • limited to team sports - soccer is a team sport
Granted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I read the article, I can see that there's a whole section in the latter half of the article discussing "traits of these major leagues". I'd rather not go point by point through the entire (unreferenced) section. Why don't you tell me which points you believe MLS doesn't meet and we can discuss. As a starting point, I'll provide some links (MLB, NHL, MLS) which illustrate the fact that the average, per-game attendance for the MLS is now surpassing that of the NHL and approaching that of MLB. Ironically, a measurable, verifiable, data point such as average attendance is not listed as a criteria for "major league" inclusion. Seems like an obvious one to me. It's also interesting that in the related list article (Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada) MLS teams are listed among MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL teams. It seems that there is ample evidence that MLS should be included in this list. I look forward to your response. --SkotyWATC 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"surpassing that of the NHL" The NHL plays in indoor arenas, which are inherently smaller and must accommodate a smaller playing surface and a roof. Comparing outdoor and indoor sports is comparing apples to oranges. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing how there doesn't appear to be consensus, and no one's replied to the last comment, I'm requesting further comments because I would like to see MLS added to the box. –Schmloof (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template format[edit]

Since some people might actually be watching this talk page: This navbox was removed from Major League Soccer earlier today because it clashed with the infobox and other templates when expanded. It actually does this on all article where it appears.

I also object that it's placed in a prominent location at the top of the page, when it is really, really tangential to the actual leagues; the NHL has little effect on the NFL's day to day characteristics, and therefore is relatively unimportant. It's not information that the reader needs at the beginning of the article; indeed, it's distraction.

In short, this template needs reformatting. Preferably to a standard footer navbox. At the very least, it should be thinner and lower in the article. I would simply change it, but I'd rather start a discussion first. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I have gone through and, following the lead of another editor at Major League Soccer, I have moved it to the bottom of the included articles. I also think it should be made into a footer navbox; the sidebar version only works for the main article, and even there it would be fine with a footer version. I think, as there have been no objections, that I'm converting it. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A change for the better. Thank you. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose a 3 levels table: "big4" the 4, "big 6" MLS CFL and "others" based in List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises --Feroang (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This entire thing is a huge WP:POV violation.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How so? That MLB, the NFL, NBA and NHL are the highest grossing, best attended, most watched pro sports leagues in North America, and commonly known as "the major leagues" is common knowledge fact. What's PoV about a navbox for those? oknazevad (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
also this wikipage to base Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada, 6 big sport leagues, or 4 + 2 if you like more--Feroang (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm well aware of that page, having worked on it considerably. This navbox reflects it's structure, and no it doesn't go for a 4+2 claim at all. oknazevad (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...what about Rugby Super League (US)?--Feroang (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-pro at best and nowhere near major. Please read the article at Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada; what constitutes the top leagues in the US and Canada is well covered there. oknazevad (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition of Women leagues in United States and Canada[edit]

3 most important and professionnal for women:

Other women leagues are less important and the status of the women players is amateur for the American and Canadian sports federations. --Charlesquebec (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the editor who cast the template into it's current form. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the top-level leagues in various sports in the US and Canada. It is intended as a navigational aid linking the "big 4" professional team sports leagues, a well-established concept in US (and Canadian ) sports. However, the template was expanded to include additional leagues that are sometimes considered the "fifth major league", that is ones that are sometimes included as a major, or looked at as being the next breakthrough.
That's why MLS and the CFL are included. The former is widely understood as the fifth major in the US (with increasing acceptance as such), while the CFL is the top gridiron football league in Canada, and the second most popular sport there according to surveys.
A quick look at the other included articles leads me to definitively take out the CWHL, which is so far from being noticed at a level anywhere near the big 4 it doesn't belong. The WNBA does get fairly substantial coverage, so it's the women's league most akin to the "big 4". I would say WPS is also questionable; there's very little coverage outside the specialty sources. The lacrosse leagues' players have day jobs during the week, so I'm not even sure they are fully professional, and are little noted by the mainstream press. And the Arena Football League, was at one point "the next big thing", with major national coverage, but it's collapse and reorganization (which has lead to far smaller attendences and player salaries) has dropped the leagues prominence tremendously. I could see removing any of them. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Gentleman, cross off any mention of the major women leagues in North America. The professional licenses of the women players still exist for Hockey Canada and for Canada Soccer Asssociation /and for the US soccer but not for some wikipedians here. The professional sport is also only man's world. All my congratulations Gentlemans. --Geneviève (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, it may say more about the sporting culture than we'd like, but the fact is, Women's sports leagues are far less prominent in the US and Canada than the men's leagues. That's all that this navbox is covering: the most prominent leagues. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not that women's hockey isn't important. Its just that the topic of this template is the major sports leagues. Neither of the 3 leagues are considered the major leagues. Whether or not that is a good thing isn't the issue, its reality. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also another reality: I think that there are two or three people monitoring some related sport pages and working together to coordinate their actions and make go away any change on what they do not like. Now, how to change the male culture in Wikipedia ? Sadly, I have no idea --Charlesquebec (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try to assume good faith, maybe? You're the one who posted the same comment on three different talk pages, so don't be surprised when the same response appears in multiple places. oknazevad (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As there are only 4 leagues that are consistently defined as the "major leagues" in the U.S. and Canada by reliable sources, either all other leagues should be removed from the template, or we should expand it to include all professional sports leagues in North America, including women's leagues (and rename the template "Professional North American sports leagues"). Right now inclusion in this list seems to be completely arbitrary. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On January 11th 2011, I saw no Women's League in the template. It's no reality. . The two major women's League in North America are Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) and Women's Professional Soccer (WPS). Please a little place for the 2 majors women's Leagues ,Thanks --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, let me say "welcome back", presuming you're the same Genevieve as before. I still believe we need some good focus on women's sports and it does seem to be your passion.
That said, after a discussion (seen below), it was decided that the inclusion criteria of this navbox should be to include only those leagues with an average attendance of at least 15,000 per game. This was done to clarify and give a firm, objective criteria. It had the effect of removing many men's leagues as well. Both the WNBA and WPS fall below this threshold (as seen in the numbers below), so they really don't belong. Sorry. oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry read the page Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, in section Women's National Basketball Association and Women's Professional Soccer. It is very significative. Thanks, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a related subject, why not NASCAR? I don't see any reason in the name of the template for exclusion, it is certainly large enough. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Player quantity comparition[edit]

what is a major league, and what is a big league? a idea, the quantity of players-employee-staff on field --Feroang (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC) alphabetic please and complete the table, thank you League, sport, team member at time on field by current quantity of teams =Reply[reply]

Completely invalid comparison. The widely differing number of players in a given sport is NOT in any way a basis for comparison of league importance. Many different leagues playing the same sport at different levels have the same number of players on field/court/ice. And as no sports league really starts a sport from scratch, each is going to simply use the number of players already established in the sport.
The idea is devoid of merit. Sorry.oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think all the "Other leagues" should be removed from the template unless someone can come up with a valid criteria for assessing them. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove All Below 15,000 per Game Average Attendance?[edit]

I think we should remove anything drawing lower than 15,000 fans in attendance per game. Reason: They simply aren't significant to the overall American sports world.

--Cut-off--

Is anybody else agreeing with this? I think 15K is a line that should be drawn, if a league is at or above and is professional, it makes the cut, if not, then it is a lesser or Semimajor league. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems like a good inclusion criteria. oknazevad (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ya, I think it is as precise as we can get, and ultimately seems fitting. Only issues are if we tried to apply this historically when there were less people at sports games because there were less people in general, but that doesn't apply to this one. I'll edit it now, and if anybody objects, we can discuss it again. Jntg4Games (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the significance of 15,000? Wouldn't it make more sense to restrict the template to the 4 leagues that are actually referred to as the "Major Leagues" by reliable sources? Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't think restricting it to the 4 would be right. MLS and CFL both have higher attendances than the NBA and NHL. The CFL is more popular than the NBA, NFL, and MLB in Canada, and the MLS's success is simply undeniable at this point (besides by those who simply hate soccer and discriminate against it). The significance of 15,000 is simply to draw a fine line. The NHL is certainly major, and is in the low-17,000's, while the UFL is in no way major, and if in the 14,000's. The mark of 15,000 simply draws a line in between that is at a not-so-random value. The CFL is certainly a major league, but outside of Canada is relatively unknown, but it is only meant to serve Canada at this point. The MLS is getting more and more popular and has simply exceeded any qualifications that could be required of it without the other major leagues failing at least one of those as well, and the others simply are major, as is the MLS. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may... average attendance is a horrible way to determine notability, given the disparities in seating capacity and number of games per season. The reason the UFL draws 14K compared to the AFL's 8K, for instance, is likely almost entirely attributable to the larger capacity of outdoor stadia. Powers T 18:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't NASCAR significantly above 15k average attendance? Possibly even top of such a list? --Falcadore (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NASCAR is a touring operation, where all competitors are in a single event at one time, not a multi-game-a-night league with one team vs one other. It's a radically different model more akin to the PGA. oknazevad (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what? There is nowhere in this template or in the semi-related accompanying article that suggestsbthis should be a disqualifying criteria. --Falcadore (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because, with the lack of franchises, and their geographic placement, makes it too dissimilar for a valid comparison. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, that is not relevant to the criteria of this template which simply states "Major Leagues", not "Major Leagues according to a criteria we've made up but chosen not to explain". Under what criteria, given that this is a very very genericly worded template) is NASCAR not a major league? It is undenaibly both major and a league/ As no other criteria is mentioned in this template it should go in. Unless this is some sort of old boys closed shop where only stick/ball sports need apply. --Falcadore (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still a different competition paradigm no matter how many times you whine about it. And it's still not lumped together with the others by most sports reference works, like the Sports Illustrated almanac. Yes, it's popular. No, it's not otherwise ccomprable. I've explained why numerous times now. oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry you interpret pointing out the obvious as whining. It says Major League without any form of qualification. There is nothing about pardigms or method of play. If you want it to be qualified, then it should say so. --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the reason why not to include NASCAR in this, after all, a league is an association of teams or clubs that compete against each other. NASCAR gathers several thousand more than some of these; with the lowest amount of fans at an event this year was around 63,000 fans, while the most was around 159,000 fans. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories