# Talk:Toronto FC

Someone seems insistent on the logo being set at an arbitrary 0.8 for all MLS franchises (despite the fact that this produces completely different sizes when implemented). The Seattle logo, for example, appears twice as large as the TFC logo when both are set at 0.8. If sizes were all meant to be the same in the syntax, then why is there an |image_size = parameter to begin with? Beats me. I'm suggesting keeping it at 1.1 which seems to fit the width of the infobox perfectly. --TrailBlzr (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm the someone. Now that we are using relative as opposed to absolute sizing, feel free to adjust them. The point is that that they should be about the size of the ones on other articles, such as Chicago Fire Soccer Club. I have tried to approximate the same size. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

MLS awarded a franchise to the club to allow them to field a first team in the league. When the article discusses the success and failure on the field, it is of a specific team. If the article discusses the success or failure of the management or organization, it's is of the "club". Anything else conflates those definitions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: In this case, a team consists of a group of players who play together, a club manages and operates the team, and a franchise is the right for the club to manage an operate a team within a league. Is that correct?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That seems to work with the basic understanding. The only change I would try to incorporate in those definitions is that "club" includes all teams: from the academy to the first team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
To clarify that further, the club operates and manages the teams within the franchise given.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really. The franchise is for a team to play in MLS. I suspect that their contract stipulates where additional teams may play. For instance, they probably can't play a team in CPL as well (as it's a competing first-division league). I suspect that they may play a team in a lower division league as a second team, whether that's USL or League 1 though. Since other MLS teams do not have academy teams or the same development system, I suspect that the league doesn't stipulate anything about the rest of the club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The successes and failures of the first team on the field are also successes and failures of the club as a whole. That said, the word "team" is far too narrow to describe Toronto FC as a whole because TFC is a "club" that operates various teams, in various leagues, at various age groups. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really. If an academy side does well, or one of their prospects does well, that is a victory for that team and for the club. If the first team does well, it reflects on the club as well. However, the way that the recent changes were applied are not consistent nor meet any definition of the words. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Sometimes, I hear the word "organization" thrown in. In the context of sports, what does that mean? Does that mean the entire pyramid in Toronto FC's case? Does it mean the owners, Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment? I often hear the word "organization" refer to either sense.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For most other clubs, the word "organization" would be the North American equivalent of "club", however since TFC is run by the largest sports corporation in Canada, it could also mean Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. It would have to be determined which it means. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's confusing and very dependent on context.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It is surprising that this has not been deemed as a rivalry yet, but it should be acknowledged as one, since those two teams faced each other for the MLS Cup in 2016 and 2017 with the result of trading wins, and are about to have a third finals matchup this year, scheduled in two weeks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacked14 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) 

Why would it be? Just meeting in a final does not create a rivalry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
No doubt about that. Likewise, the Toronto Blue Jays of Major League Baseball don't have a rivalry with the Texas Rangers, despite meeting each other twice in the ALDS in two consecutive years (2015 and 2016) and having a brawl against each other between both ALDS. Bad blood (especially one that lasted a few years) ≠ rivalry.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a very late reply, but I feel TFC-Sounders is a rivalry. I know many fans who take particular interest in this matchup due to the now 3-in-4 years matchup in the Finals, even in regular season matches. Also, Toronto-Seattle does have a bit of a rivalry stemming from the Blue Jays-Mariners series, where many West coast Jays fans flood their ballpark.  It has been described as a rivalry before for example here and here RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Even if it was in 2017 through 2019 (although it was not even then), it no longer is. Sport press use terms like "rivalry" to pump up important games.
The only reason the Jays and Ms have a rivalry is because Vancouver sits between them drawing fans one way or the other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Note, my comment is to support Jacked's post (like the style of in an AfD to Support or Oppose - I'm not about to just add it to the article, unless more support comes for consensus), not to debate it.  This post is just to add some detail to my previous post about why I support Seattle being included. They met in the MLS Cup Final 2016,2017, and 2019 (hence the 3 in 4 years comment). Repeatedly meeting teams in big games does develop rivalries (ex. Boston Celtics/LA Lakers, Barcelona/Real Madrid) - it isn't always geography.  Obviously TFC/Seattle is not at that level of history yet, but certainly more of a rival than Columbus if you ask any TFC fan, which was a manufactured rivalry before Toronto had any MLS rivals.  Yes, Jays/Mariners is due to Vancouver, rivalries can transcend sports and that adds to it. For example, the Mariners specifically had Sounders keeper (and former TFC) Stefan Frei throw out the first pitch against the Jays in the first matchup between the BJ's/M's after Seattle won the first MLS cup matchup on the back of Frei's miracle save. It's not close to the level of the Impact rivalry, but that rivalry has 100 years of tradition due to the Leafs/Habs rivalry, which is where the rivalry stems from - a city rivalry, not a two-team rivalry. Ask any TFC fan to name their top rivals, they'd include Seattle (certainly over Columbus) - it's more than just 'media hype'.  Best, RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget that in recent years, whenever the Toronto Blue Jays come to Seattle to play the Mariners, at least half of the fans are Blue Jays fans. This provides a stronger case as to why the Seattle rivalry should be included in the TFC article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If the club has a new logo, and we only have a raster version, it's perfectly acceptable to use. It is entirely incorrect to add this comment. Yes, a vector version is preferred, but accuracy of colour is also important. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any sources that say the club changed its logo, but the colour on their webiste does look more pantone than the current version. The fair use rational is nicely displayed on the current version, so perhaps this new version can be uploaded as a new version of the file. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 07:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for one earlier today as well and could not find one.
BTW, Pantone is a colouring system. It's not a shade of colour alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the images in this and this news stories, I don't see grey in the jersey or the socks. Why is there any there at all? {https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/mls/soccer-jozy-altidore-social-justice-1.5748944 This] shows the upper portion of the kit quite well, and this and this show more silver in the kits. Is that what the grey is trying to represent? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY's rules are clear: if a player has played for a nation at any level, he is considered a part of that team. Just being called to a training camp does not mean the player qualify the player to be considered a player for that nation, the player needs to be capped by the nation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and its archives have gone through this debate multiple times (search for nationality). I have been involved in multiple debates about the topic. Since he has played for them at a the hjunior level 49 times, he is American until he steps on the field for the Canada in any capacity. Since he is not, as the CBC article states, cap-tied to the "U.S. senior side", it should be easy enough to qualify for a Canadian cap, but until that happens, he is American. If Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs) slects to ignore WP:BRD again, I will alert the footy project to this discussion and let them decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)