Talk:2007 Major League Soccer season

message: Che84, OK, referring to the club as the "New York Red Bulls" is equally appropriate as is referring to it as "Red Bull New York." It was originally written as Red Bull New York in this entry, but I will stop reverting the "fix" that you made.  --Cougs2000 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New York

message: can someone with the technical ability spruce up the single table to look something like this: http://www.rrac.net/singletablemls/
: I've been messing around with the table, trying to get it right.  I just saw this, and I think I can get it.  Let me see what I can do. Che84 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My work is done.  I copied the format of the Eredivisie. Che84 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: awesome job! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.239.138 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You can use the conference standings for that.  There isn't really a need to add it to the overall table.  Che84 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For the sake of competitions like the Champions' Cup, MLS is a single-table league.  You can't consider that part of the MLS Playoffs, so calling it "playoff berths" is incorrect as well. Che84 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of accuracy, MLS is not a single-table league.  To have it characterized as such in the article is OR.  You are correct, though, that another name needs to take the place of "playoff berths," but at the moment it is the only thing that come to mind.  I'd like to work with you on that, if you have any ideas. --Roehl Sybing 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps..."Single-table standings as of _____", with a note attached to the single-table, saying that MLS is not officially a single-table league, but is viewed as such when it comes to qualification for certain tournaments, like the SuperLiga and Champions' Cup. Che84 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnotes for the table already in place already denote which teams go to the playoffs, SuperLiga, and CCC, so there's no need for that "but" clause.  Otherwise, I think that's fine, so you can go ahead and make that change.  --Roehl Sybing 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change there with the wording.  I didn't like how I phrased it, but that's all I could come up with at the moment.  Hopefully this is settled for a while. Che84 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With the disparity in games played to date would this table be better ordered by points per game played? In the end it'd be the same, but for now Dallas on top is kind of misleading.  PPG, they're all the way down to sixth. --Elliskev 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you put it that way, you might as well put in PPG for the conference standings, and nowhere in the world do you see PPG instead of a table based on points alone.  I see PPG as pointless because by the end of the season it will all even out anyway.--Otav347 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's a no? --Elliskev 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Che84 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the primary table shouldn't be as such, but perhaps another (new) table set up in that format during the season isn't the worst of ideas. Theasfl 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That would not be necessary, because for the playoffs, conferences are still used.  MLS made a mistake with how the playoffs would be set on their rules page, and noted that correction on their standings page.  The conference setup was originally planned before the season, and their website mistake led to much confusion on how the playoffs would be set up this year.  The only thing to remember is if a 5th team from, say, the East, gets the final playoff spot, they would move into the Western Conference playoffs, and vice versa. Otav347 02:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't what I was referring to. I understand how the playoffs work, but if one of, or both of, the top two teams from one conference aren't in the top four teams overall in points...they shouldn't be in the SuperLiga for 2008 based on the qualification declaration of the top four teams overall in points making the competition next season. The current single table format is set up correctly for the playoffs, but for example, if Chivas USA stays second in the West, but gets passed by New York on points, then the top four teams overall would be DC, Houston, New England and New York, who should qualify for the SuperLiga next year. If that were to happen, would the conference designation be ignored for the single table or not? If not, then the 5th team would be blue and the 4th, orange. Hopefully what I said makes sense now. On another note, now that DC United has clinched a playoff spot, shouldn't there be some form of designation for that? Theasfl 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I added an element to indicate DC's playoff berth.  Next, if you look at the history of this page, back to when there was a situation such as you stated, the top two in each conference are marked [ie. (E1)], but if they are not in the top four, then they will be moved in the table to their correct placement. Otav347 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Table

message: Are these really necessary?  If there's a link to the overall schedule somewhere, recent results are just a click away.  Putting them here seems pointless. Che84 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The results are disappearing.  If anyone objects, feel free to discuss. Otav347 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent results

message: I have moved the 2007 Carolina Challenge Cup from the "National Competition" to a "Pre-Season Competition" section that I created.  It didn't seem appropriate to classify a relatively small pre-season invitational tournament as a "national competition." --Cougs2000 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carolina Challenge Cup

message: :Image:Cf97.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cf97.gif

message: Is that graph necessary?  There are already two different kinds of tables and a third way of reading the standings is really beginning to infringe on WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information - statistics).  As a comparison, 2007 Major League Baseball season has no corresponding chart, and their statistics is much more interesting than that of this article.  I don't want to discourage people from showing off their ability to make charts amazing, color-coded charts but...why? --Roehl Sybing 06:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points graph 

message: What is MLS? A soap opera? There has GOT to be a better way of saying this. 198.49.180.40 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Important events, perhaps? Che84 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Storylines"? 

message: If SuperLiga is included in the competitions summary in the graphic at the top of the page then the CONCACAF Champions' Cup should be included as well.  I don't particularly care if the CCC is added of the SuperLiga is removed, but there should be consistency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.137.5 (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition Summary

message: Would anyone object to renaming this and all the other season pages to "(year) Major League Soccer season"?  This way, making wikilinks is easier, and it just sounds better.  The current name should redirect to a more grammatically correct name and not the other way around as it does at the moment.  I'd be happy to do all the renaming, but does anyone have a really good reason why it should stay as it is? --Roehl Sybing 20:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. —MC 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving this page and other season pages to different names.  I will also start fixing double redirects but help from other editors is also appreciated. --Roehl Sybing 14:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename to [[2007 Major League Soccer season]] 

message: Is it really necessary to put the state flags of the teams next to their names? Heitz669 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. In fact it's kind of silly. Nixem. --Elliskev 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Flags 

message: I suggest that "Major Events" (a section that I created) be changed to a season summary in prose.  It would detail how the season progressed and ended.  I'd be happy to remove the current section and write the new section myself, but I want to see if anyone has any objections and/or would like to write the section themselves. --Roehl Sybing 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  season summary 

message: I think its necessary to update the brackets to our own MLS format. They stick out like a sore thumb. The first round is best of two, while the conference elimination and championship are single elimination. Also, we do not need a third box for the first round as simply putting "(a.e.t.)" and "(a.e.t.), (p.s.o.)" after the winning teams name is sufficient enough for the reader to understand. NiTTYZ 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third box is for an aggregate scoreline, but the rest of your statement holds true. Che84 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've spent the better part of these last two days making both the 2007 and 2006 Major League Soccer Season wiki and MLS Cup 2006 wiki  to look more user friendly and styled it after the European cups. I know what you mean by having the third box show the aggregate, but all other soccer wiki's don't have a third box. Just my opinion as I'm just trying to making the MLS wiki's more universal. I've been searching hard in attempt to find a way to make a MLS bracket, but I can't find out how to give you all an example. :( NiTTYZ 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the idea of fixing the boxes for the Conference Championships and MLS Cup. We need a way to denote a.e.t for the Dallas-Houston series as well. Perhaps a note, a la the KC note? Theasfl 03:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff brackets 

message: The attendance figures given on this page are the same as those given on 2008 Major League Soccer season.  That means at least one set is wrong.  Do we have any decent sources for the attendances in the league? Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://web.mlsnet.com/about/league.jsp?section=regulations&content=playoffs
** In 2007 Major League Soccer season on 2011-05-26 02:53:20, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Major League Soccer season on 2011-05-27 15:11:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Major League Soccer season on 2011-06-15 15:39:01, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/stats/index.jsp?club=mls&year=2007
** In 2007 Major League Soccer season on 2011-05-26 02:53:20, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Major League Soccer season on 2011-05-27 15:11:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Major League Soccer season on 2011-06-15 15:39:12, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119022357/http://web.mlsnet.com/about/league.jsp?section=regulations&content=playoffs to http://web.mlsnet.com/about/league.jsp?section=regulations&content=playoffs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213101219/http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/stats/index.jsp?club=mls to http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/stats/index.jsp?club=mls&year=2007
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please explain your rationale for deleting a significant amount of this article's prose, as there has been no edit summary left for the sake of other editors. Frankly, the OWN-like behavior here is not appropriate and contrary to the values of the project. SounderBruce 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletions