Talk:Cascadia Cup

Change the Colours

For the love of all things sacred, please change the colours in the match results: the Sounders and Timbers wins are barely readable. This is fine for Whitecaps fans, but not for an encyclopedia. Maybe don't colour code the results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.227.167 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot read the colours on the results either. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cascadia Cup Trademark dispute

Is there a reason my link to the Cascadia Cup Council press release was labeled as an unreliable source? The referenced link, along with links to pages with identical verbiage, exists on the official websites of the 3 supporters groups. It has been well publicized, but I do not know that it exists anywhere else. The best alternative I can think of would be to add references to all 3 "press release" pages, to show unity among the groups, but I did not since all three pages copies of the press release say exactly the same thing.. Thx. bgix (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly WP:PRIMARY. Also, three main supporters groups. There are several Whitecaps supporters groups. The best option would be to use a secondary source, which is what is present. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Match by match results

I got reverted almost immediately when I included the schedule and results from this season's matchups. The 2013 season is ongoing, and it's ridiculous to have to search through each of the individual team seasons to try to figure out what matchups have already been played, what the results of those matchups were, and when the next Cascadia Cup match is going to be played. If you don't like the colors, change them, but don't just excise useful information because it's never been there before. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is assuming that we need match-by-match results. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume that nobody would want to see when the next match is and when and where it's being played, or figure out who would win if the next match results in a point tie, or even see who has the fewest penalties for the final tiebreaker. Absolutely none of that can be found on any page other on Wikipedia, and certainly not on this page as it currently stands. I came here looking for certain information and it wasn't there, so I added it for the next guy. If you don't like it, ignore it, but don't deprive everyone else of accurate, sourced, and relevant information. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See comment below about why it is ridiculous to assume that we need them and also what a better solution might be. If someone else thinks it's a great idea, they're welcome to revert it. I for one don't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, see WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What the hell?

If you don't like the colors, just change them, but don't just dump on something useful and relevant. The results of games played and upcoming is certainly relevant to the subject, and cannot be found at any centralized place on Wikipedia, so it certainly shouldn't be removed without some discussion. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If the information was useful I wouldn't have removed it.

If the colours were standard I wouldn't have commented on them.

Grow up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's useful to have, oh, I don't know, the actual results? If you can think of a better way to symbolize the results among three teams, please be my guest, but don't just fling ad hominems and remove useful content if you can't do any better. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be sarcastic, hang out with your friend at a bar. If you want to collaborate on an encyclopedia, then keep the sarcasm to yourself. See Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful.

The only useful element of having match-by-match results is that each match would have a reference which is something we really do need. However, with at least six matches per season, the results would soon start to take-up a lot of room. When other editors start to add kits and starting line-ups, subs and cards, as is the case with many tournaments, we soon run into size constraints. (See the world cup tournaments and the Canadian Championships for examples) In short, refs good, matches not so good. However if you want to create season-by-season articles to house the results, I would not oppose that, but a better (non-Doug) colour scheme would be in order, preferably the team colours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should have taken a cue from the fact that I did not include match-by-match results for previous seasons as an indication of intent, rather than assume the slippery slope fallacy. As a point of fact, I agree that it would be irrelevant for previous seasons, and the current proposed changes will be as well after the end of this season. But the season's not over yet, and the information is both highly pertinent, useful, and sourced. I used template:footballbox collapsible specifically so that it would take up a minimal amount of room, but still have the information on matches both played and upcoming available to anyone interested. Again, if you have a better way of including that information, be my guest. Until then, put it back so that others can improve it.

PS, the color scheme is not doug based at all, but was exactly an attempt to employ team colors: the timbers' green, whitecaps' blue, and sounders' aqua so that they would work as text background and be as contrastive as possible with each other.

Size is not only measured vertically but in bytes. Vancouver doesn't have purple in its team colours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Look again. The red and green are perfectly balanced. In fact, the Vancouver color (Portland, too) was derived directly from the kit images on the team article infobox, with the brightness turned up to make it work as text background. Like I said, if you didn't like the colors, just change them.

A) if pertinent information information makes the article too large, you split the article. B) The 20k article size (not even prose size) is not even close to being problematic by any measure, and takes about 3 seconds to load on dialup. In fact, the image in the infobox is over double the byte size of the entire article with those additions, including the WP:Monobook sidebars and headers (45.42kb vs 20.81kb). This talk page is over four times the markup size of the expanded article. The main page is 85% of the size of the expanded article, not including any pics. The Whitecaps article is over double the page size; Sounders, 2 1/2 times; Timbers almost 75% larger. So no, you are factually wrong, from both a practical and policy standpoint, that the expanded page size is an issue. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 16:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW: You might want to study what an ad hominem attack actually is. If I were to say, "you're a Cascadian so you're ignorant and don't know anything about football" I would be making an ad hominem attack. To tell you to grow up because you 1) can't read the instructions on my talk page to not complain about page-specific edits there, and 2) you complain when I make an edit that restores the page to the way it was, reverting changes made without discussion, is not an ad hominem statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Ad hominem" means "to the person", and can be an argument, like you conflated above, but it can also simply be an attack on a person, specifically "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made", eg impugning someone's character, telling them to "grow up". VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't attack you, I told you to grow up and didn't add you whiner, which I'll add now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I had nothing to which to respond. There's no need for the ugly and incorrect colours. There's no need for the match-by-match results. There's no need for any of this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For instance the statement that the purple selected to represent Vancouver (6060A0) is somehow in their kit which is two shades of blue and white (link to logo). Similarly Seattle's Green is not 60A0A0. The official team colors are "Sounder Blue", "Rave Green" and "Cascade Shale" as can be seen in their logo. The green you selected for the Timbers, 60A060, is closer to Seattle's shade than it is Portland's ponderosa green and moss green seen here. Since I only have passing familiarity with the Doug colours, I simply assumed that those where what was represented. Obviously, it's not even those. They are all based on hex combinations of 60 and A0.

If you can make the standard Vancouver blue (000040) and Portland Green (004000) work as text background, more power to you. I couldn't; so I lightened them. Perfectly. I added 0x60 to every channel. Like I said, if you don't like the colors, change them. For the last time, I don't giving a flying rat's butt-hair about the colors. If you can't do any better, don't just destroy it. If you can do better, do it. Either way, stop talking about the colors like anyone here cares. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I might see some merit in a current season section provided that results are deleted at the start of the next competition and that it stays as a summary and doesn't morph into full details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I talking to a brick wall here? I said exactly this above. Leave this stuff here. At the end of the season, we'll move the results table - and incorporate any further explanatory addenda, if points didn't decide it - in with the rest of the "previous season" results, just like has been done with every other season of results. When the schedule is announced for the next year's matchups, we'll put in that results table and match boxes in the "current season" section (may need a rename if it's announced before the new year) so that next year, that information will be available, and everything will be set so that anyone visiting this page will be able to have a full understanding of the current status of the competition. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. How did we ever get along without this in the past? The current status was always obvious: you looked at the table and saw how many matches each team had played and how many points each team had earned. Future fixtures were easy to discover on the clubs' current season articles.

I'll compromise and allow it and we can wait for input from other editors.

I'll fixed the colours but there are contrast issues with the Whitecaps and Timbers primary colours. I can use the secondary blue from the Whitecaps crest but the Timbers' yellow-green is too similar to the official draw yellow so that's going to be a potential accessibility issue. If anyone complains about it, the entire colour scheme will have to be scrapped. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the crux of what I find completely ridiculous. A) You have to look at no less than two other articles in order to understand the the current status of the competition. B) We don't even have any links to the clubs' current season articles, so even if a reader could somehow divine that the information might be there, they still have no way of finding it.

So basically, in order for a random reader to find out the answer to a simple question "When are the remaining Cascadia Cup matches?" they need to navigate from this article - arguably the first place someone would search for such information - and go to two or three different articles that are neither linked from this one, nor necessarily intuitively navigable from any of the links on this page (no sections, just a link at the bottom of the infobox), and fish the relevant information out from a complete MLS schedule that is about the fifth section of what are, generously speaking, dense narratives of the current season. I'm sorry, but that is an intrinsically user-hostile setup. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a few flaws in your logic.

1. Why would a causal reader care about when the upcoming fixture in the derby are? I suspect they only care about the current status and past seasons. It's only hardcore fans or followers of the derby who want to know when the remaining matches are.
2. Every club article is linked multiple times. The current season is linked in the infobox of the club articles.
3. The set-up isn't ideal for a super-fan, but is fine for a causal reader.

With that said, I don't mind trying it for the rest of the season, provided that arbitrary colours are not chosen for the teams and that any potential accessibility issues with those colours do not become a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is supposed to be written for all levels of knowledge and experience, including people with absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject or the organization of the site. Your assertion that only hard-core fans care is both unfounded and explicitly antithetical to the ethos of this site.
2. And if a person doesn't know where to find that information, what then? Even if you did somehow know enough about how Wikipedia structures articles on association football clubs, that information still has to be synthesized from several different places.
3. It is far from ideal for a super-fan, and is woefully deficient for casual readers. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be written for all levels of knowledge and experience. The problem is you're assuming that a casual reader would want to know about future fixtures. I suspect that most won't. "Hi. I Pete from Manchester just looking at this supposed derby." Nope. Pete doesn't care when the next match is. "I'm a follower of the California Classico. Someone said this competition is bigger. I don't believe it." This reader doesn't care about upcoming matches. Shall I go on? As for the ethos of the site, that's encapsulated in the Wikipedia:Five pillars. The third pillar is that everyone can use it. Sure thing. But I never stated that only hardcore fans care about the article but rather, they're the only ones who are interested in the fixtures and results. Unless you can offer some proof either way your opinion is just that. The fact that no one has seen fit to add fixtures and results since the article was created in 2006 (I have not confirmed ever edit mind you) seems to support my position. I suggest that you come with some concrete proof of who is visiting this article instead of spouting any further opinion or I'll ignore your continued attempts at obfuscation after calling you out for it.

I'm not arguing that it should be here, but if a person doesn't know where to find fixtures and results, the official website isn't doing its job. We don't have to be all things to all readers, and we certainly not a newspaper. This borders on that.

I agree that it's not ideal for a super-fan. Line-ups are not listed. Subs. Goals scored. Cards. Nothing. That's the way it should be. That's what the linked reports are for. The casual reader doesn't care about what was missing. Come with proof next time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for dropping the pretext that you actually got those colours from someplace official instead of just grabbing some colours out of thin air and using them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, ignoring the snide insinuations, and the liberal use of "suspect" in an argument about a universal lack of utility, we do actually have a legitimate policy concern here - do match records meet WP:NOTNEWS? Since I am neither member nor lurker of WP:WikiProject Soccer, I'm sure others - probably you, given your significant contributions to football club articles - can answer more definitely about whether its been discussed before, but the presence of match records in football club season articles indicates that it at least hasn't been seen as a compelling NOTNEWS problem before. The problem is that if this information fails NOTNEWS here, it actually fails it on all of Wikipedia; NOTNEWS is a general notability criteria and would apply to all articles to which the information is germane. So I guess I'm asking if you actually are prepared to argue that articles like 2013 Seattle Sounders FC season should not have match results because of NOTNEWS concerns. I disagree, but I would respect the contrary position and encourage a full discussion at WT:NOT if you actually want to have the policy discussion that your argument implies. Something tells me that the full implications of match articles being in violation of NOTNEWS are not in the interests of anyone here, however. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What you are really ignoring is that we haven't needed this for over six years and that you don't know the difference between a football season and a competition article. I am so close to laying out a string of blockable attacks on you but instead will simply request that you either engage your brain or stop writing here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And the fact that you still don't have any facts is the most frustrating part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And to give you some context, please look at List of association football rivalries. Most established derbies don't bother to list scores or fixtures. This seems to be a preoccupation with MLS derbies. And what I don't want to see is what has happened at 2013 Canadian Championship and similar articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There's only one pertinent fact: I came here to find information about the Cascadia Cup competition, and it wasn't here. You can wax poetic about hypothetical Pete from Manchester, but in the end, a reader came here for information about the subject, and it was not here, and instead of just sulking away, defeated, he took responsibility for making sure that the next guy didn't have the same unsatisfying experience. I'm sorry, but arguing that we haven't had it before and therefore should never have it is just an argument against ever improving any Wikipedia content - surely the antithesis of the entire point of the site.

But if you really want to conflate hypothetical people with "facts", I have Matt, from Lacey, who caught the end of a Sounders/Timbers game before the Mariner's replay one night on Root sports, and thought that the atmosphere and energy was great, even though he doesn't really know more about soccer than what he's seen at his 10-year-old daughter's games. He Googled "Cascadia Cup" to see if he can maybe catch a game when he's in Portland or Seattle, or maybe just at the sports bar down the road some evening. He clicked on the first link - the Wikipedia article - and although it talks about the history of the cup and tells him who won it in past years, it has nothing, absolutely nothing, about how many games are left to play, where and when they will be, or even who has played whom so far. Is Matt so low in your estimation that we should actively thwart him in finding just the bare bones of information on what is coming up? I can make up hypothetical people all day long, but in the end, there is an actual, real, living person who looked for this information, and it wasn't present. Should I really act with such arrogance to assume that I am completely unique in this regard? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the one thing you didn't find. It was available all the time on the official site, which is linked at the top of the article. It's still there.

Matt, from Lacey is a putz. If he saw the Seahawks Superbowl highlights and Googled "Superbowl", clicked through to the Wikipedia article, would he expect to see the next time Seattle was in that tournament? I would suggest that he would instead go to a Seahawks game when he's in town instead of waiting for a specific match-up. And since he can't buy tickets on Wikipedia, he would have to go to the Seahawks' site or TicketMaster to purchase them and he can look for specific match-ups there. I suspect that he would do the same for Sounders matches. You can make-up hypothetical people, but I'm fairly certain that I can rip those hypothetical people into as many shreds as I did to Matt.

Ultimately, the current season results isn't a bad idea. I have admitted as much. I don't appreciate you lying about the colours you chose and I don't want to see the match details to expand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And I certainly don't appreciate you calling me a liar, especially when I explained exactly where I got the colors came from, and a cursory examination would show me to have been completely above the board. You can disagree with content, you can disagree with policy, you can not like the colors and change them without even a peep from me; but you have consistently, in violation of Wikipedia policy on editor conduct, engaged in vicious personal attacks against me. Your disdain for me and every Matt from Lacey, Ken from Kamloops, and Andy from Eugene does not serve you well in contributing to this project. Someone with a lot less experience and thinner skin than I, would have brought you to an admin's noticeboard and been done with you.

This is the front page of the internet: sitting outside of our own narrow interest in a subject, and trying to serve everyone who comes here is prerequisite to working here indefinitely. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 02:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I showed above that the colours you used were non-team colours and variants of the same two hex values. You may have thought you were using team colours and so maybe you believed it, in which case you're not a liar, just incompetent. What you stated is that you got them from "kit images on ... with the brightness turned up" which turned Vancouver's blue to purple, Seattle's greens to something unrecognizable. Surprisingly Portland's green was the closest. So maybe you're not a liar after all, just an incompetent editor. Feel free to call an admin here. Threats are considered WP:NPA:a personal attack. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cascadia Cup. 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/20091006125805/http://www.vancouversun.com:80/sports/Vancouver+Whitecaps+underdog+against+Portland/2054308/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Vancouver+Whitecaps+underdog+against+Portland/2054308/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110012231/http://home.comcast.net/%7Ekurtds2/2004_Cascadia_Cup_Results.html to http://home.comcast.net/~kurtds2/2004_Cascadia_Cup_Results.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706082424/http://home.comcast.net:80/~kurtds2/2005_cascadia_cup_soccer.html to http://home.comcast.net/~kurtds2/2005_cascadia_cup_soccer.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706082434/http://home.comcast.net:80/~kurtds2/2006_Cascadia_Cup_Champions.html to http://home.comcast.net/~kurtds2/2006_Cascadia_Cup_Champions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813115130/http://home.comcast.net:80/~kurtds2/2007Cascadiacup.html to http://home.comcast.net/~kurtds2/2007Cascadiacup.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706102329/http://home.comcast.net:80/%7Ekurtds2/2008CascadiaCupChampions.html to http://home.comcast.net/~kurtds2/2008CascadiaCupChampions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)