Talk:Canadian Premier League

Division 1 or Division 2?

My understanding is that this is intended as a Division "1A" - similar to the Welsh Premier League which is the division 1 league for Wales despite having teams play in the (English) Premier League. I understand (and personally agree with) the instinct to label this as a second division league, but I don't think that view will be supported by the CSA when (if?) this is formally announced. -Gopherbashi (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's confusing at the moment because we know extremely little about the league. I believe the assumption that it will be a D2 league probably comes from the Easton report, which recommended an All-Canadian D2 league and the CSA have generally followed the report since it was released in 2013. However it has been stated by Peter Montagliani in interviews that he wants to create a Canadian "Division 1A" with a national tv deal and a continental qualification slot, which would indicate an actual first-tier league. That said, we still know barely anything about what the plan for the Canadian Premier League actually is. As a result, I would suggest that we shouldn't list the tier in the infobox until we have more concrete information on the subject, which might come this summer in the form of a planned announcement from the CSA. At the very least we could list the level as "1–2" since we do know for certain that it is planned to be a fully professional league. Cheers, QQ2NFLD (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Source describing the CPL as a tier one league: http://www.bluebombers.com/2017/05/06/winnipeg-football-club-looks-bringing-professional-soccer-manitoba/ - this on top of numerous quotes from Montagliani and others either describing it as Division 1 or Division 1A. I have seen no sources thus far describing this as a Division 3 league in any sense of the word - please provide these sources if they exist. -Gopherbashi (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's misleading. MLS is tier 1. NASL is tier 2. USL is tier 3. This league will be the highest league sanctioned in Canada, but will be comparable to USL. When FIFA has a source, then we can rely on that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-steve-reed-canadian-premier-league-1.4103377 shows no clear details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.espnfc.us/canada/story/3122014/plans-for-new-canadian-premier-league-approved "MLS commissioner Don Garber said in March that he believed the CPL would form at a 'lower division.'" Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Three sources I can find that talk about the CSA describing it as a Division 1 league in Canada:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2017/05/07/new-canadian-soccer-league-faces-many-of-the-old-problems-as-well-as-some-new-ones/#682389e55dea - mentions that the league is meant as a tier 1 league operating as part of the FIFA framework (though goes surprisingly in-depth for a business magazine to state that the CSA has not yet sanctioned it at that level)
• http://www.bluebombers.com/2017/05/06/winnipeg-football-club-looks-bringing-professional-soccer-manitoba/ - statement from an investor that they are bringing a tier 1 FIFA-sanctioned league to Canada.
• https://twitter.com/CanadianPremLge/status/861747936610443265 - describing the league as Division 1 in Canada (Montopoli is the General Secretary of the CSA). I should note in the interest of fairness that this account is not the official CPL account, and that the quotes are from a Totera interview which I have not listened to personally).

The issue I have with calling it Division 3 is that two Canadian leagues already hold that designation - L1O and PLSQ. I get (and agree with) the comparisons to NASL & USL (though both are now D2), and if this league were an American league, I agree that it would probably be given a D2 or D3 designation based on its reported standards and level of play. The problem is that the CSA has its own (vague, arbitrary, and private) criteria for what D1, D2, and D3 look like, and it's not necessarily the same as what the US has (the last reference to CSA guidelines I can find is from a now-broken link from 2008, which states "Division I: Professional Leagues operating in Canada, or in Canada and other countries." Not exactly full of specifics). I agree that CPL will be of a lower quality than MLS, but the same could have been said for L1O or PLSQ in reference to USL, yet all those leagues are described as D3. Nevertheless, thank you for removing that line entirely. If it hasn't been formally designated as D1 by the CSA (as Forbes suggests), it shouldn't be in there, and the constant edit war was really getting annoying. -Gopherbashi (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Peter Montopoli, the General Secretary of Canada Soccer, has confirmed it is division one of Canada, regardless of whether the talent level may be on par with USL/NASL. Case closed. -Sixtrap (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's stupid because division 1 is still MLS. LordAtlas (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

References

New Club Articles

@Swift Fox Two: @Coppercanuck: Before creating articles for new clubs, please confirm that there are sufficient sources to sustain the article per WP:GNG. They don't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability as they have not played for a national cup for entry into the CONCACAF Champions League, and it's not clear that they will be eligible, so we have to fall back on GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that all the CPL clubs will be invited to the CC; don't know if I have a source for that, nor if we know which edition of the CC they will first appear in (though it should be 2019). Radagast (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, I suspect that they will have a play-in round and the top teams will advance to play the USL and MLS sides, cutting the Première Ligue and League1 teams out of that role. We'll have to see how it's going to look though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

HFX Wanderers

@Radagast: I saw your edit removing "FC" from Halifax Wanderers' team name. It seems to me that Halifax Wanderers FC is the common name. All their social media uses that form, including their website. While there does seem to be a discrepancy in media (Waking the Red uses FC, National Post doesn't) I think that the primary sources are fairly unambiguous, and we should defer to those. Blue jays (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to chime in an say that the first part of the team's name appears to be "HFX" and not "Halifax". Also, in the official press release here, only the title says "HFX Wanderers Football Club" while in the rest of the article (in prose), just "HFX Wanderers" is used. BLAIXX 20:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the HFX, not Halifax, that's my bad. As far as the "FC", that article does use just HFX Wanderers, but everything else on the website uses HFX Wanderers FC, from the emblem story, club story, club philosophy, and technical philosophy pages. This also is the case on their twitter and instagram accounts. This definitely is inconsistent, although it seems the HFX Wanderers FC form is more common on all official sites except the original press release. Hopefully this'll become more clear as more articles pop up. Blue jays (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just taken a closer look and it's more ambiguous than at my first check. This may take some time to settle out. Radagast (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC):

I think the "FC" is what we should use as of now taking everything into account. It may be similar to Vancouver Whitecaps FC later on, where you rarely hear anyone say the "FC" at the end since you have "Whitecaps" preceding it, but is included in the article title and at Major League Soccer. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm making the change on this article and HFX Wanderers.Blue jays (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've found a separate page Halifax Wanderers. Halifax Wanderers may be a search term readers may use to locate HFX Wanderers, so do we think we should use a little hat note on the two pages, or disam. the Halifax Wanderers page as its been out of commission for a long time, or just move to Halifax Wanderers Amateur Athletic Club. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support moving that article to Wanderers Amateur Athletic Club and making Halifax Wanderers a redirect. BLAIXX 21:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good. In that case, I think we should make a hat note on that article in the form ..."Halifax Wanderers redirects here, for the soccer club, see HFX Wanderers FC". Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources that describe the club as simply "HFX Wanderers"

• This article on their website [1]
• The club scarf [2]
• The team logo itself [3]
• Global News [4]
• Sportsnet [5]
• Toronto Star [6]

Suggestion: Keep the article titled "HFX Wanderers FC" but the infobox header should be just "HFX Wanderers" as is done on the Ottawa Fury FC, Atlanta United FC, and Orlando City SC pages. Wasialoneorinthehd (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wasialoneorinthehd has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

FC Edmonton founding year and table formatting

@CanadaFever: @SportsFan007: There seems to be a disagreement over the formatting of the table, let's discuss here, as I (and I suspect others) also have opinions on the matter. There seems to be 2 issues at hand here.

(1) The first is the founding date of FC Edmonton. The club was originally founded in 2009, was dissolved in 2017, and re-founded in 2018. Therefore, the question is whether it should be listed as 2009 or 2018. I think 2009 should be listed, as it is the same entity as the club founded in 2009. However, it may be useful to have an asterisk or other note below the table to clarify this. Alternatively, two separate columns could be used for founded and joined, like in many other sports leagues, producing the following:

Founded	Joined	First season
2018		2019
2009	2018	2019
2018		2019

This would also be helpful if Ottawa Fury FC does end up joining the CPL as some rumours have suggested.

(2) The second is whether the founding and first season years should be merged cells, or separate. I think it should be separate, as they were not all founded at the same time or in the same event. I also think it makes the table harder to understand especially after the first season when not nearly all teams will have the same founding team or year, making the merged cells more broken up and confusing. This is also inconsistent with every other sports/soccer league article I could find. UmpireRay (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point, founding and first season are somewhat immaterial. If the league continues, this may become a larger issue.

However, the larger issue is that FC Edmonton fans will argue they were founded before they first started to play in NASL. I agree with @SportsFan007:, which is not a normal event for me. They were dissolved when NASL ceased to exist. Unlike Ottawa, they are not playing in 2018, and there is no team to speak of. They have kept the name and will be founded again for their first CPL season. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

FC Edmonton shut down their professional operations, but continued to run their academy team. It could be said the club is still playing in 2018, just not the first team? CanadaFever (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I like the Founded/Joined idea if everyone else is ok with it. SportsFan007 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

We are still discussing, and I an not OK with this as the team is not operating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave the table as is with all at 2018, and add a note tag beside FC Edmonton saying 2018 as of refoundation for CPL, but first in 2009? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with that if that's the best consensus we can come to, but I do still think 2009 is the better year to use, since FC Edmonton operated through 2018, just not their pro team. UmpireRay (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That works for me as well. It's the convention for other phoenix clubs such as Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a bit of time to see if anyone objects to that and then make the change to the article. UmpireRay (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes a team being "founded"? Weren't the Hamilton and Winnipeg teams officially announced in 2017 along with their ownership groups. Would that count as their founding date? BLAIXX 16:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The team was founded on the day of the big launch party that revealed their name, crest, colours etc. The city of Winnipeg gained approval for a professional team in 2017, but Valour FC wasn't founded then. CanadaFever (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question @Blaixx: I suspect you're asking what the difference between a legal incorporation date and something else that constitutes a "founding". Was Winnipeg actually founded when the league was announced? Did the team have a legal structure at that time or just a vague perception of an ownership group? Did they have a offices? Is that required? Is a domain name, email addresses, phone number, stationery, etc. required to be considered founded? What's your take? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the unveiling/announcement party is the best date to use, and I think that's what all league articles do. We don't know when some of these businesses were formally incorporated, or when the ownership group actually was created and what have you until it was rumoured in the press or announced; and it isn't really a useful thing to know. Approval for a professional team would be problematic since Edmonton never got/needed approval, and Port City got approval, but it's now clear that the Vancouver Island (while under the same ownership group) is not Port City. As far as domain names and email adresses go, they're all [teamname].canpl.ca; so it's not like something they would have gone ahead and registered on their own. As far as Winnipeg goes, they are owned by Winnipeg Football Club (the Blue Bombers), so if we were to base it off of when the ownership group was legally incorporated then we'd use when the Blue Bombers were created, or for Cavalry we'd use when Spruce Meadows became a thing. I think the only logical and consistent date to use is unveiling/announcement, it's the one thing all teams have, and the only thing we really know for certain. UmpireRay (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought, but they had to be founded before the announcement that they existed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I was looking around for any sort of precedent to follow and I found the MLS and specifically Toronto FC (a team with no prior lineage). They are listed as being "founded" in 2005, when they were awarded a franchise despite not being named until 2006, and not playing a game until 2007. I think that is a good methodology – when the team is first confirmed to be playing in the league. Maybe "founded" is not the right word to describe that, but I think it would be the most useful thing to list. BLAIXX 01:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That might work, but that, I think, causes problems with previous consensus about FC Edmonton. FC Edmonton was originally founded in 2009, then the professional operations ceased in 2017, and then resumed in 2018. I think by the standard you use, FC Edmonton's founding is 2009, since they existed for the whole time, and specifically the ownership group existed and was working towards the CPL the whole time (they just weren't fielding a pro soccer team), just like Hamilton and Winnipeg ownership groups were awarded teams in 2017, but won't actually be playing pro soccer until 2019. This would make founding dates: Calgary: 2018, Edmonton: 2009, Halifax: 2018, Hamilton: 2017, Vancouver Island: 2018, Winnipeg: 2017, York Region: 2018, and possibly Ottawa Fury in 2011. UmpireRay (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. We add a note either way. Whether 2018 with a note stating originally founded in 2009 and refounded in 2018 or 2018 and state that they were originally founded in 2009. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

But that would be completely inconsistent with the rest of the teams. If we're using the date that a team's ownership group was created/awarded a franchise, then 2018 for FC Edmonton makes no sense. The FC Edmonton ownership group has existed since 2009, they did not cease to exist, they announced they would stop fielding a pro soccer team in 2017, and then (as we know now), prepared to join the CPL, just as Winnipeg has done since they were awarded a team in 2017, but officially announced in 2018. The only thing that happened in 2018 is that FC Edmonton announced to the public that they would have a team in the CPL, that's not really a founding of the ownership group or entity if we're using the same definition. UmpireRay (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We are discussing two different values: year founded and year of joining the league. What are you talking about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the year of founding, and that using @Blaixx:'s definition for year of founding would only be consistent in my view if Edmonton's is changed back to 2009. UmpireRay (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I have not been clear enough, so I'll try and put the entirety of my position here so it can be more easily understood: The way we have been doing team founding is the date of their official unveiling/announcement date when the team name and logo is announced, and all teams are 2018 in that respect.

However, Blaixx pointed out that this is inconsistent with what other teams, such as Toronto FC do. The founding date is when the Toronto ownership group (MLSE) was awarded the team. I now agree with that as a guideline, and so Winnipeg and Hamilton's founding date would be in 2017 when they were awarded teams, and for York, Port City/Vancouver Island, Calgary, and Halifax, 2018 when they were awarded their teams.

This, however, re-raises the issue of FC Edmonton's founding date, and I think would justify it being listed as 2009, for the following reasons: FC Edmonton the team was originally founded in 2009. When, in 2017, they announced that they "ceased professional operations", the ownership group still existed, they still ran the academy, and worked towards the CPL team. This is just like Hamilton and Winnipeg, whose ownership groups were awarded teams in 2017, and then worked towards the CPL team unveiling in 2018. All that happened in 2018 for FC Edmonton was their official announcement/unveiling, not the creation of a new ownership group or other legal/corporate entity. Therefore, in my opinion, it would make sense to list FC Edmonton's founding date as 2009. UmpireRay (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to list Hamilton and Winnipeg as 2017, and the other 4 as 2018. Regarding Edmonton (and possibly Ottawa), I think the team will eventually confirm explicitly whether it considers itself as a continuation, or a new entity. Until then, I lean towards listing 2009 (with 2018 in a footnote) because most media sources are reporting as if it is a continuation. BLAIXX 14:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If you look at their Club Overview page on their website, I think it's clear that they consider themselves a continuation. They use the history since 2009, explicitly stating that they were founded in 2009, (and use 2010 on their logo, when they started playing) and only say of 2017 that they ceased NASL operations but kept running the academy program. UmpireRay (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a day for anyone to object to this being done and then change it to Edmonton: 2009 (with note), Winnipeg/Hamilton: 2017, Vancouver Island/York/Calgary/Halifax: 2018, as do the same on their respective team articles, per the discussion directly above. Anyone feel free to chime in. UmpireRay (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you give it a bit longer. There is nothing time sensitive here. If this table is added by Labour Day, it won't diminish the article at all, and if it's added now, it may cause edit wars. Let's clearly settle this before we make any bold edits. Six editors have commented here to date and only three of us have commented over the past day. This leaves three who might have an option (@CanadaFever: @SportsFan007: @Vaselineeeeeeee:) and many more who might want to comment. My rule-of-thumb is generally that you can implement the consensus if there is has been no comment for a week. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean unanimity, but that there is an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll give it longer or until most everyone who has previously commented has come to a consensus. Do you have an opinion on this resolution one way or the other? UmpireRay (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

After looking at FC Edmonton's website there where they say explicitly they were founded in 2009, so we probably should too. So maybe the right call of action is to state it as originally founded in 2009 with the note saying it was refounded in 2018. As for Winnipeg/Hamilton, I'm not really sure, Winnipeg's website is pretty crappy, with Hamilton's team still to get one, probably after the unveiling on July 12. If we follow TFC's way, and presumably the common way, the founding is when the team was first awarded a club, not when it was first unveiled or first took part in the league. So to me the founding would be 2017. I don't really like the table with the split columns, I think one date with a note looks better. But actually if we look at Major League Soccer, they don't show a founded column, only a joined column, which is probably what we should do here, because why do we care on this article in particular when the team was founded? We care when it first joined the league, that's what the article is about. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen, MLS not showing founding date is an exception to all other North American sports leagues and soccer league articles, including the USL, NASL, L1O, and PLSQ. Founding date can be useful info about the team, as it tells you a bit about its history, especially with clubs whose history predates that of the league. UmpireRay (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox headers

I went ahead and dropped "FC" from the infobox headers of all the club pages with the exception of FC Edmonton since they are named specifically after their location. This is to get in line with club pages from leagues all around the world where "FC" or "SC" is included in the page title, but not in the infobox header.

Examples in similar leagues: Adelaide United FC, Brisbane Roar FC, Central Coast Mariners FC, Melbourne City FC, Melbourne Victory FC, Newcastle Jets FC, Perth Glory FC, Wellington Phoenix FC, Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Ottawa Fury FC, Oakville Blue Devils FC, Calgary Foothills FC, Orlando City SC, Minnesota United FC, Atlanta United FC, New York City FC, OKC Energy FC. -Wasialoneorinthehd (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems reasonable for now, it is yet to be seen what name will be commonly used once the league starts. CRwikiCA talk 03:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: The only team with "FC" as their official name is FC Edmonton, the other official names are "[Name] Football Club", thus "[Name] FC" is just an unofficial shortening of the team name. Wasialoneorinthehd (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the case. The FC is only dropped when it is not part of the commonly used name. Note that in North America the sport is not called "football" so to use the term "FC" in a club name (Whitecaps FC, Sounders FC, and most other MLS clubs that use it) the term is part of their common name and appears in the infobox. While "SC" (Chicago Fire) is not part of the common name. Whatever media use most often when speaking about the club, and how the club refers to itself in press releases is what should be used in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If this were entirely true, we wouldn't list Vancouver Whitecaps FC as Vancouver Whitecaps FC since they are most commonly referred to in the media and by supporters as simply Vancouver Whitecaps. We already drop FC from Atlanta United, Minnessota United, and Ottawa Fury for this very reason, because it's seldom used. It's clear that teams like FC Edmonton and Toronto FC require the FC added because they are not synonymous with the cities they are named after, that being said "York 9" and "HFX Wanderers" clearly don't require the FC at the top of their respective infoboxes or in article text because there are no other sports teams in the world with those names. With that being said, "FC" isn't actually the offical name of any of the CPL teams expect FC Edmonton. The 6 other teams (and Ottawa Fury) have "Football Club" spelled out in full as their official name, which means "HFX Wanderers FC" and "Ottawa Fury FC" are actually no more official than simply "HFX Wanderers" and "Ottawa Fury", they're both just different abbreviations of an official title. Wasialoneorinthehd (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about whether HFX Wanderers FC is more official than HFX Wanderers, it's about what the commonly-used name. I think it's fair to exclude the FC from HFX Wanderers in its infobox as it is commonly excluded by the team and the media. For York 9 FC and the rest, that just is not the case. Seldom if ever is Valour FC referred to simply Valour, and the same goes for Cavalry FC, York 9 FC, Forge FC, and Pacific FC. For those teams, the FC should be included until and unless they become commonly used without the "FC". UmpireRay (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Whitecaps are call always Whitecaps FC by the media. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And Wasialoneorinthehd has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Amount of Clubs Doesn't Match

The box on the top right says there will be 8 clubs but the table on Section 4 lists 7 clubs. EvanJ35 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The league has confirmed there will be eight teams in its first season, but of those only seven have been announced, which are the one listed in the table. The eighth will be added when announced by the league. UmpireRay (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Short names (CanPL & CPL)

Am I wrong to think that there should be only one short name? SportsFan007 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

It's kinda like how the United States is shortened to USA or US (but not both together). CPL is by far the more common of the two, but CanPL is also used which is why I listed it at the top of this article in bold. BLAIXX 22:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia: WP:NOTUSA. Agree that it doesn't need two short names, and we do not yet know what the common name will be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think CPL is the appropriate short name. CanPL is the website URL and twitter handle, but isn't a commonly-used initialism for the league. From a quick google search I could only find one article using CanPL, with many more using CPL, such as Sportsnet, the Toronto Star, CTV News, and even the league itself. As such, I think we can use CPL as the only short name, and I've edited accordingly. UmpireRay (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that "CPL" should be used everywhere on Wikipedia when an acronym is needed. I just thought it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that "CanPL" is also used by the league. BLAIXX 22:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding players to team pages

I believe it's time to start adding players, both signed and drafted to the team pages. Any thoughts on just using the "other" tag in the Football Squad Player template? --Coppercanuck (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Draftees are not listed on the roster until they're actually signed, but any players officially under contract could be listed in a roster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think draftees should be immediately added to team pages. Until they sign, they are not part of the roster, and cannot play for their clubs. Unsigned draft picks would be on the articles forever, I presume, as unlike signed players there's no point at which their contract runs out. I think the clubs' season articles are a better place for the draftees, because draftees who do not sign are only relevant that season. UmpireRay (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Better place to list, but not link, them. Only link them once they've been capped. Only add them to the roster once they've been signed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Club locations

I think we should discuss what to do about the locations/cities for the clubs who play in a different city. These are York 9 FC who based in York Region and will play in Toronto, Cavalry FC based in Calgary playing in Foothills County, and Pacific FC playing in Langford. At the moment, which is listed is inconsistent across different articles. Some use the major city and then a footnote for where the stadium is, others the stadium municipality only, and some a mix of the two.

Based on other teams with similar situations such as MLS' Philadelphia Union (based in Chester) and Real Salt Lake (based in Sandy), the A-League's Western Melbourne FC, as well as NHL/MLB/NFL/NBA teams, I think that CPL clubs should use the city their stadium is in in tables such as the one in this and other articles, since that is the most accurate and consistent. The specific club articles can explain further, for example that Calgary FC plays in Foothills County in the Calgary Metropolitan Region or whatever the case may be. UmpireRay (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Emery Welshman

Does the league have a more clear definition of what it means to be a foreign player that could be added to this page? I was under the impression that a foreign player was one that would be unable to represent the Canadian national team, yet Emery Welshman, who is cap-tied to Guyana, is listed as a domestic player. I know he has Canadian citizenship, so I think further clarification would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a link for you but just in general, Canadian employment laws say that you must treat Canadian citizens and permanent residents equally. If the CPL treated a Canadian (Welshman) as an international player (in which roster spots are limited) for playing for another country, that would be considered discrimination. If I can find a good reference on that, I will add it to the article. BLAIXX 14:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

They don't and generally, it's quite loose. If you have Canadian citizenship, they treat you as Canadian. This has caused a few edit wars as certain editors want the nationality in the roster to represent what the CPL considers them to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Format of CPL championship

Here's one source that claims to know -- that it'll be a home-and-away: https://globalnews.ca/news/5201574/bob-young-canadian-premier-league-inaugural-match-hamilton/ -- see 8th paragraph. Inonit (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a more recent article quoting the commissioner of the league that the format is not confirmed. I'll add it as a reference in the article. Additionally, all other articles from reliable sources I've seen about it have not specified the format. UmpireRay (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

List of foreign CPL players

So this formerly orphaned article has been added to the page. Some updates are needed and it would be helpful if people contributed it to this in a similar fashion to List of foreign MLS players. This brings into question again about how the league determines foreign players, and what criteria the article should use. The MLS article only takes into consideration two things: 1. if they have played a regular season game and 2. if they are ineligible for Canada and the United States. Should this article use the same criteria? Jay eyem (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

So under the MLS criterea would someone like Quillan Roberts (born in Canada, plays internationally for Guyana) be considered a foreign player? The CPL has its own rules regarding domestic/foreign players, would it not make sense to use that? BLAIXX 12:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.mlssoccer.com/league/official-rules/mls-roster-rules-and-regulations Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The CPL published this list of players by domestic/international status at the beginning of the season but it's not updated. The criteria seems to be Canadian citizenship (born in Canada or otherwise) or special status holder (permanent resident): https://canpl.ca/article/rosters-canadian-premier-league-clubs-continue-filling-squads-as-pre-season-approaches BLAIXX 15:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Right so this kind of ties into some of the questions that I had before hand about Emery Welshman, who though has Canadian citizenship plays for the national team of Guyana. I looked through the MLS page and found a somewhat prominent example of Stefan Frei who, though now having US citizenship, was born in Switzerland and has played for a Swiss youth team. He is not cap-tied to Switzerland though, and could play for the U.S. if he was called up. What I was thinking for inclusion for the article would be all individuals who were either a. not born in Canada or b. had not represented Canada on the national level/senior level. Mind, the MLS article isn't exactly kept up to date, and I am using it as a model, but I wanted additional input before making any substantial changes to the article. Jay eyem (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

To me it would seem weird to call either Welshman or Frei a "foreign" player, given they hold citizenship in their respective countries (regardless of birthplace or FIFA nation). I would be okay with listing someone like Tomi Ameobi as foreign (born England, not a Canadian citizen) despite being considered domestic by the CPL (see my link above). BLAIXX 12:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's more along the lines of what I was thinking. I don't have an issue with using birthplace or FIFA nation personally (it's still a bit odd for me to see Justin Meram, for example, on the MLS foreign list, despite very much being a US citizen), mostly just because it's unambiguous. Having to comb through individual players to determine if they are citizens is a bit of a pain. Jay eyem (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point about tracking down citizenships. Ok, I'm on board with your proposal. A footnote can always be added for the edge-cases similar to Indonesian NHL player Richie Regehr. BLAIXX 13:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

MLS has some weird roster rules that are different for the Canadian teams. I don't know how familiar you are with the league, but each team has eight MLS International Roster Slots which can be traded. But for example, American players count as domestic for all teams, whereas Canadian players count as domestic only for the Canadian teams. That article does a decent job explaining it. Jay eyem (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

this sub-project cannot come up with their own rules. We should follow the rules that WP:FOTTY uses: Birth nation unless having been capped by another nation. Naturalization and "green cards" do not have any role in determining the nationality. Wikipedia is not a source for determining international spots on a club's roster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Clubs vs franchises

There's increasing evidence that CPL teams are not independent clubs, but very close to the franchise systems used in other North American leagues. For example, all CPL brands and logos are owned and registered by "CPL Soccer Holdings", just like the MLS ones are owned and registered by MLS (https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/trdmrks/srch/home).
The following sentence at the very beginning of the article - "The Canadian Premier League uses a club-based system, unlike the franchise-based system used in Major League Soccer and other North American sports leagues" - was added months before the start of the inaugural season, and it's based on an interview, not on facts. I think it should be removed. Thoughts? Cristane (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the line in question. Based on current cited information, I don't think we can confidently say what type of ownership structure the CPL uses. It would be worth mentioning when a better source comes along. BLAIXX 17:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

MLS club list order

I recently reordered the MLS team names in alphabetical order, as this is the only order that would make sense in this scenario. It was reverted with the explanation that it had been discussed and a consensus had been reached on this trivial subject. Later after rereading the section, I removed the team names listed under MLS, USL, and NASL, as they add nothing to the article. This was also reverted with the explanation that a consensus had been reached on including this odd team listing. Reading through the talk page I have found no evidence of any of these consensus claims. Seems to be some article ownership traits being displayed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.52.133 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It has always been in the order that they joined MLS. The consensus was reached through editing. I'm opposed to changing it to alpha order (or east to east as it turns out). Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're saying "always" and "consensus" but not backing it up. Just saying so doesn't make it so. I'm not sure what the standard is on other pages, but I suggest we do that. If there is no standard, the order of joining makes the least sense as there's no context given (and its an odd spot to randomly insert context as it's not super important). It seems random and disorganized to anyone reading the article to do list by joining date. Alphabetical makes the most logical sense for anybody that is unfamiliar with the teams, it just appears more organized. Sportyguy03 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, check the history. Just being too lazy to check doesn't mean I have to do it for.

I'm not certain but think CPL is the only first division league in the world where the three largest cities in the country play for a league sanctioned by another nation, but [Welsh football league system|Wales]] has two clubs that play in England's second division. The Welsh page mentions that "five Welsh clubs play in England, and four English clubs play in Wales" with a link to list of association football clubs playing in the league of another country but does not mention the teams by name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're being so hostile about this minor edit. (Perhaps a TFC fan wanting their team mentioned first?) Your edit summaries told me to take it to talk page because "I'm fairly certain there's already been a discussion about it there" and "seems there was a consensus to include the names". Those were both lies. It was never discussed and there was never a consensus. Just because someone (you?) added them doesn't mean a consensus was achieved. In fact there are now two editors in favour of alphabetical order/removing, and only one in favour of the odd league entering chronological order. So I'd say consensus is for alphabetical order. 50.101.52.133 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're interpreting my actions as hostile.

On a separate note, for the past three months you've been following my edits and tweaking them without creating an account: That's hostile.

As for my comment about there's been a discussion, you realize I watch about more than 3000 pages and while the discussion may not have occurred here, it did occur somewhere. I'd say you should get an account and until such time, stay away from me. THAT'S HOSTILE. Now, if you want to engage in discussion, I agree with your edit to remove the team names as it's probably not necessary as I showed in one other instance above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you I have not been following your edits. I apologize if it appeared that way. 50.101.52.133 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You mean there are many anonymous editors who use Bell in Ottawa who just happen to edit pages that I do shortly after I do? Pull the other one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

League performance

Chubboturtle (talk · contribs) has removed the runners-up twice now and has done so without explanation. Reporting the runners-up is a common thing to do in other articles that report on season performance, at least within this sport. I think it should stay. Without know why it's being removed, I can't argue against the rationale for its removal. Any comments from other editors? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For instance, at Major League Soccer records and statistics both the MLS Cup (post-season playoff) and Supporters' Shield (regular season points) winner and runner-up is listed. I will not search for similar pages with other leagues, but am certain that they exist for England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy and other countries. I do not disagree that the heading may be inappropriate, and the statistic is limited, but that does not mean we should gut the section without gaining consensus to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with keeping the runners up on there, but I should note that the main articles for both Major League Soccer#League championships and Premier League#Champions only list victories, and not runner up tallies. -Gopherbashi (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's because they have separate statistics articles for those details. If this article becomes too large, that's what would happen here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a Common Structure Across Club Articles?

I believe there should be.

Up until recently, I have been a non editing user. Recently some changes on the ATO club page have made me want to get involved.

What is the consensus?

Tamccullough (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

New Player article standards

Figure this is a good place to put this since it probably has a lot of page watchers. For those unaware, there was a recent RfC which basically came to the conclusion that simply playing a pro match (in any league) is not enough for an article anymore. That is, articles which are basically sourced only to stats pages/game reports/etc are not enough and meeting WP:FPL is no longer a thing. They should meet GNG and have a couple references of significant coverage beyond routine mentions per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#To_those_upset_with_sports_coverage_on_Wikipedia. There are a couple discussions in the recent archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football about it too. Basically an article would need more than citations to league match reports/soccerway/etc. Basically, it's okay to create an article after one appearance, but it just requires a higher quality of sourcing now to prove it meets notability guidelines. RedPatch (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here, I wasn't aware of the RfC. BLAIXX 14:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Quebec City

Quebec City has not been granted an expansion club at present time, yet there is an ongoing attempt to state otherwise. A study has been initiated by Soccer Quebec but that is far from an granted expansion club. Ottawa, Saskatoon, Vancouver and Windsor have all been granted expansion cubs by the CSA and CanPL, have ownership or management in place, and a stadium deal in place or pending. Until the league states otherwise, Quebec City belongs with other potential locations. 2604:3D08:107F:8160:7D56:4AB7:8C85:BC5E (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Results section (year by year)

Does it make sense to have a season by season table in the results section of this article, or should it only exist on the Canadian Premier League records and statistics article like other more detailed information? RedBlueGreen93 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)