Talk:Cascadia Cup

2009 Cup Winners

Hey, Shittle Flounder fans! Just face the fact that we won the Cascadia Cup! The Cascadia Cup is currently a USL cup, not a MLS/USL cup which should make you guys void of winning the cup. By the way, those two matches you won? Vancouver= A friendly match! Portland= U.S. Open Cup. Those are NOT Cascadia Cup matches. Just face it, Timbers won! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.117.202.218 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cup was awarded to the Timbers on August 6th [1] Btaholla (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have included the matches with the Sounders in the standings, as per the guidelines of the competition. Some users have engaged in an edit war to undo the addition of this information. I have included the necessary citations. Socceraficionado (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The information you are updating is incorrect and should be removed as such. This cup was officially awarded to the Portland Timbers on August 6, 2009, as per the rules of the competition. The games the Sounders played against the other teams were not recognized (one was a U.S. Open Cup game, which would not have counted even if all three teams were in the same league). SportingFlyer (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cascadia Cup is not part of MLS Fan Cups. When 2011 rolls around and the Timbers and Whitecaps join MLS, the cup will transition from a United Soccer Leagues Fan Derby to an MLS Fan Cup. Should this continue to be vandalized in this manner, you will be reported and following User:Socceraficionado's warning, will be swiftly dealt with.
News articles showing the competition is between the Whitecaps and Timbers while the sounders are in a different league. [2]

-Btaholla (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing this page. Please refrain from hyperbole and threats. The competition rules are very clear. The Cascadia Cup was created by the supporters of the Whitecaps, Sounders, and Timbers; and it involves games played among these three teams. The oregonlive.com article cites incorrect information. It states "Notes: By defeating Vancouver in two out of three games this season, the Timbers won the Cascadia Cup, a fan-based competition between Portland and Vancouver that is determined by the best head-to-head record." This is not correct. You have also removed the paragraph about the history behind the creation of the Cascadia Cup. I am re-instituting the correct version of this article.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight from the Cascadia Cup website: "As a part of the USL Division One schedule the teams will host games against their local rivals to count in the Cascadia Cup standings." Notice how only league matches count toward the awarding of the cup. You continue to place results from a preseason closed door match and a US open cup match in the results for the cup. As SportingFlyer has pointed out, these matches have no bearing on the Cascadia Cup.

-Btaholla (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That web site has not been updated since 2008. The supporters of all three teams decide each year how the competition will be settled. Every year there has been a schedule quirk, and this is explained in the Wikipedia article. In 2008, all three teams were in the same league, hence the competition was settled with all league matches. In 2007, only the last two games played among each team were counted. In 2009, the teams are in separate leagues, but there are still games between the teams.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rules do change each year. However the one consistency every year is that only league matches count. Hence the reason it is in bold on the official website. Here is how the rules were defined before you began editing after the competition had already ended for this year, "Supporters of Portland and Vancouver, have continued to hold a Cup competition for 2009 and 2010. Portland and Vancouver will include all scheduled regular season USL-1 matches played between the two. Should the two clubs remain tied on points after all matches played, away goals will be used as the first tiebreaker to determine the cup winner." Furthermore, you continue to revert to references that have no reference to the Cascadia Cup at all while deleting references that do reference the Cascadia Cup.

-Btaholla (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a discussion of how the cup would be awarded in 2009 [3]

-Btaholla (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The consistency you refer to was due to both teams being in the same league. That is not the case this year, hence that past consistency does not inform the context of the present situation. The quote you cite from an older version of the article does not include the Sounders supporters. The revised article does. Which references have I reverted to that have no reference to the Cascadia Cup? I see three references: 1) Lists the founding supporters of the competition; 2) Points to an article which supports the definition of the competition -- "The match also counts in the Cascadia Cup tournament played every season. The teams that play for this trophy are the Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders, and Vancouver." -- ; and 3) Points to an article about the match between Portland and Seattle, the most high-profile of all the Cascadia Cup matches this year.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Btaholla, please stop removing references to the Sounders involvement in the Cascadia Cup.

- 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socceraficionado (talk • contribs)

Yes, your 2 reference points to the 2007 competition. You however continue to use this as support to remove the reference to the 2009 cup rules as were determined by the Timbers and Whitecaps (the only two teams left in the same league) supporters groups in April. Now regarding your 3 reference, you say "Points to an article about the match between Portland and Seattle, the most high-profile of all the Cascadia Cup matches this year", however the article makes no mention of the Cascadia Cup, and you know why? It is because only league matches count toward the Cascadia Cup. Never in the history of the cup have non-league matches counted toward the Cascadia Cup competition and thus in this years rules the sounders were not included in the competition.

-Btaholla (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The rules to the competition are determined each year by the supporters of all three teams. There is no on-going rule that says only league matches count. The past is not an indicator of the present. The three teams are in different leagues this season and next, hence a different set of rules was needed once again. The revised article clearly states how the competition will be settled this year. Portland and Vancouver will count league matches, and Seattle will include other matches played against Portland and Seattle. The #2 reference points to an article from 2007, but it is not supporting a time-sensitive fact. It supports that the basis of the competition involves the teams Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders, and Vancouver Whitecaps. The #3 reference is about the game that was played between Portland and Seattle on July 1. It is not about the Cascadia Cup.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the sounders were included in this competition, show me a news source from 2009 that includes the sounders in the 2009 Cascadia Cup competition.
"The past is not an indicator of the present." LOL. Fitting in that you keep referencing an article from the 2007 competition as your basis for the sounders inclusion in the 2009 competition.
"The three teams are in different leagues this season and next, hence a different set of rules was needed once again. The revised article clearly states how the competition will be settled this year." Again, give me a source for your revised rules. I've already linked to one from April that listed the rules for this years competition but you have deleted it. Your rules came out of nowhere after the cup had already been awarded. You've seen the pictures[4], right? Portland already has the cup.

-Btaholla (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article from 2007 is a basis for establishing the definition of the Cascadia Cup. All three teams participate. There is no Cascadia Cup without all three teams. The picture you have linked to is not a source. I have not deleted any source of yours that indicates that the Sounders are precluded from this years competition. The notion of the competition involving only the Timbers and Whitecaps violates the very definition of the Cascadia Cup. Please refrain from vandalizing the page and removing references to the Sounders.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cascadia Cup is a tangible object. It has physical form, extension. It is currently in the possession of the Portland Timbers following their defeat of the Vancouver Whitecaps. (See, inter alia, Btaholla's picture, above.) You may dislike this fact, but it is a fact. You may argue that the Portland Timbers should not possess it, but they possess it. Your revisions are misleading because they misrepresent an objective, verifiable fact: the Portland Timbers have the Cascadia Cup. You seem to disagree with how the Timbers and Whitecaps supporters organized the Cascadia Cup competition this season, but that is a disagreement you need to take up with them. In the end, the only fact that matters--and the only fact that is appropriate for the page--is that the Cascadia Cup is in the possession of the Portland Timbers. Caphaddock (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article can be amended to explain how the Cup came into the possession of the Timbers. That does not pertain to the results and standings of the matches that took place this year.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, another user going by the name SounderSuk is undoing changes, as well. Please refrain from removing references to the Sounders in this article.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Socceraficionado. The standings and results you keep putting into the page are irrelevant. They had nothing to do with the decision this season to award the cup to Portland. You seem to disagree with that decision; take it up with the Portland and Vancouver supporters. Feel free to add a section addressing your concerns, but the revisions you keep making are misleading. Caphaddock (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How are the results and standings irrelevant? These are games that were played this season as per the guidelines of the Cascadia Cup. Please stop removing references to the Sounders from this article. You will be reported. Thank you.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The results of matches involving Seattle were not counted this season in determining who won the cup. Hence, they are irrelevant to the 2009 Cascadia Cup. You appear to disagree with that decision, which is why you keep pointing to the guidelines from past seasons, but that is something you need to take up with the Portland and Vancouver supporters because they set up new guidelines for the 2009 season after Seattle went to MLS. Take your concerns up with the Portland and Vancouver supporters, but stop trying to revise history on a Wikipedia page. Caphaddock (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I am not pointing to guidelines from past seasons. The previous version of this article gave the impression that Vancouver and Portland supporters decided on their own how to handle the cup for the 2009 season. The new version includes the decision of all three groups. Please stop removing references to the Sounders.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We're obviously getting nowhere with this discussion. Accordingly, I just edited the article to be as neutral as possible and added a section called, "Controversy over the 2009 Cascadia Cup." I think we should try to be productive here. I don't have any problem with adding asterisks or noting that matches against Seattle weren't counted in the decision to award the cup to Portland, but it's frankly revisionist to insist that the Sounders actually won the cup. It would be like editing the page that lists the presidents of the United States to say that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000. We can dispute it until we're blue in the fact, but George W. Bush was elected president. Caphaddock (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your version does a good job presenting a larger set of information. I have made some additions. Please consult the new version and provide feedback. Thank you.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added notes where citations are needed. If they cannot be provided, I do not see how this section is anything but postgame whinging.

-Btaholla (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

An important citation was included in prior versions, but is missing from this version. It lists the Founders Circle of supporters who funded the cup. Please include this citation at the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph. Thank you. http://goalseattle.com/CascadiaCup/supporters.htm

- Socceraficionado (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The score of the Timbers US Open Cup game against the Sounders was 1:2, not 0:1.

According to an open letter from the Sounders supporters on the Southsiders forums, the ruleset of the Cascadia Cup is determined by a two-thirds vote (where each team's support is allocated a vote). The rules were agreed upon earlier in the season (in the first Vancouver/Portland game at Swangard) and it was clear from that point on that Vancouver and Portland would contest the cup, using league matches they contested. Among the reasons the Southsiders argued that the Cup should not be withheld for the 2009 and 2010 seasons is that Seattle did not choose to protest until the day of/day before the Cup was to be awarded. That thread can be found here: http://forum.vancouversouthsiders.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3297

- DamionOWA (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In tabulating the supposed controversy regarding the cup this season, the Sounders have decided to count a preseason match with whitecaps wherein they won 4-nil and therefore should also count the 3-2 preseason loss to the Timbers at Starfire complex on Monday April 13th 2009. The final standings, if all non league matches are to be counted, per the Sounders wishes to make the contest more balanced and include them, should be: Timbers 3-0-2 (w-d-l)(9 points), Sounders 2-0-1 (6 points), and Whitecaps 1-0-3 (3 points). —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:ACES (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The game on April 13, 2009, pitted Portland Timbers versus Seattle Sounders Reserves. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sounders/2009/04/13/portland_timbers_3_sounders_fc.html It does not appear on the Sounders schedule. http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Schedule.aspx The open letter from Sounders supporters alludes to a two-thirds vote, but is this two-thirds vote only used to determine the methodology of the competition, or can it also be used to preclude one of the teams from the competition? I believe the latter is false as all supporters groups funded the creation of the cup. Also, it appears that the Sounders supporters were not involved in this meeting that took place prior to the Vancouver/Portland game at Swangard. Only Whitecaps and Timbers supporters were present. A proper meeting would have all three groups in attendance, each presenting their preferred methodologies and each getting a vote.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Portland won the 2009 Cascadia Cup. This is verified by numerous reliable sources. (See citations 10 through 17 on the main page and WP:V). There are no reliable sources that state that Seattle won the Cup. While some Seattle fans may dispute how the Cup was organized in 2009, that is properly in the "Controversy" section. The remainder of the article should simply state that Portland won. Caphaddock (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument against using the April 13th match in the standings is exactly the same as using the Whitecaps preseason game against the Sounders; namely that the games do not give a full account of the teams in that year and teams are not pressured to give their all in them. It was, you would assume, more difficult to beat the Whitecaps in the regular season, as Portland tried to do twice, succeeding only once, than in a preseason game, which is why it would be unfair to count that result. When it comes to the legitimacy of the rules determined for the 2009 season, the open letter reads "But it is not unreasonable to suggest that some decisions should require unanimous consent." This wording implies that no rule is set in stone currently to require it. I suggest that there is ample opportunity to settle this for the next season with all three supporter's groups present--perhaps at the Supporters Summitt at the next MLS Cup. However, despite the fact that Portland and Vancouver fans considered the race for the Cup on throughout the whole of the USL-1 regular season, Seattle waited to voice its concern to the Southsiders until the Cup itself was already in a car en route to Portland to be presented to the winning team. I believe that the rules were set in advance, and there should have been some effort to change them prior to this. Any attempt to argue a rule change now to include any non-league games, etc. is purely revisionary, not supported by any notable sources, and not supported by the two-thirds rule set by the Founder's Circle. I move that the two-team 2009 Cascadia Cup results be considered valid and moved to the proper section, the controversy be duly noted in the Controversy section, and all of these issues--number of teams, eligibility of non-league games, quorum for determining rules of the competition, and the rules themselves--be settled for the 2010 season at the Supporter's Summit in November in Seattle rather than on a Talk page on Wikipedia.

- DamionOWA (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not on the schedule? Right, so didn't happen. I forgot about that rule. And the match of Vancouver v. Seattle doesn't appear on any of their schedules http://www.whitecapsfc.com/men/schedule/ so that match is only worth half credit for the Sounders organization. The results of the cup (without the Timbers-Sounders preseason match) would now be: Portland 2-0-2 (w-d-l)(6pts), Seattle 1.5-0-0 (4.5pts) and Vancouver 1-0-2.5 (3pts). Don't you find it a bit petty that you are attempting to include a preseason match with Vancouver which took place two months prior to the season start yet are trying to exclude a match with the Timbers because the Sounders played "reserves"? They were wearing Sounders FC kits, playing in one of their complexes against their rivals, coached by the Sigi, but it doesn't count, even though almost every player has been a "starter" for the SSFC this year. But I'm sure there were no trialists or "reserves" with Vancouver during their preseason match in February so it's not the same thing. Here is the starting roster for the Sounders from the April 13th match against the Timbers, http://gosounders.com/2009/04/13/sounders-reserves-lose-to-timbers/ on this page, you will find that every player who started the match (with the exception of Jared Karkas who was drafted and shipped out) is still on the Seattle Sounders FC payroll, suits up for regular season matches, have started numerous matches and make appearences in non-reserves games. In fact, most players who partook in the match in question on April 13th have played in over 50% of the Sounders MLS regular season matches, http://web.mlsnet.com/stats/index.jsp?club=t260&year=2009 Should those regular season matches not be counted in the MLS standing becuase those players are "reserves"?

- ACES (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.203.78 (talk)

Much of the discussion above violates WP:OR: "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." See also WP:V: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are no reliable, third-party published sources even talking about some kind of controversy. The controversy is completely limited to internet message boards and, now, Wikipedia talk pages. All reliably, third-party published sources very clearly state that Portland won the Cascadia Cup in 2009. Done, end of story. Caphaddock (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The game in April was not against the Sounders. It was against the Sounders Reserves. This game took place in lieu of the MLS Reserve League composed of reserve teams for MLS, which was cancelled this season. It does not appear on the Sounders or Timbers schedules. The Whitecaps game appears on the Sounders schedule. http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Schedule.aspx The Talk page should not be used to argue over the merits of the various methodologies proposed by the three supporters groups. That is up to the three supporters groups to sort out. However, the Talk page is a good place to iron out the facts of what took place. Up to this point, we have verified through citations that the Timbers and Whitecaps supporters groups decided on a methodology without any input of the Sounders supporters and did not inform them of this. The Sounders supporters eventually learned what was happening -- not from direct contact of the Whitecaps and Timbers supporters -- and added their input prior to the last Vancouver/Portland game. Vancouver supporters physically handed the Cup over to the Portland supporters at the conclusion of their match on August 6, 2009. The citations regarding the Timbers winning the cup are not primary sources. The primary sources are the three supporters groups themselves, who decide how the Cup is contested each year and inform the teams and journalists of the results. It is not enough to point to these sources and say "Portland won the 2009 Cascadia Cup". The context of how and why this confusion has occurred should be fully explained in this article.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Caphaddock, you are the editor who created the Controversy section. Prior to that, users were undoing the updates to the page which included the Sounders results and any reference to the Sounders involvement in the Cup. That was vandalism. Your revision was a good solution as it more clearly explained the events and context of what happened in as neutral a voice as possible.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've had time to think about my changes, especially now that the page is locked. Portland should be clearly listed as the winner of the 2009 Cup for the reasons I stated above. Caphaddock (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact: the MLS reserve league stopped play after the end of the 2008 season. note, no seattle listed, http://web.mlsnet.com/mls/reserve/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_Reserve_Division The game in question, on April 13th, took place in the 2009 season. Seattle never had a reserve team as they didn't become MLS until 2009, by which time the league in question was no longer in operation. Seattle may have played their "reserves" or subs, but there are currently no more reserves teams in operation, despite what the title says. Count all Seattle matches, or count none. There is no picking and choosing. Kthx.

- ACES (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.203.78 (talk)

The third-party sources you cite rely on the primary sources of the three supporters groups. The third-party sources report the status of the competition ipso facto to what occurred between the three supporters groups. I have outlined the facts as we have collectively found thus far in my 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) entry on this page. It is fine to list those sources as having reported what they reported. It is also proper to include the events that took place that defined the confusing context of this year's competition, and clearly state the two methodologies for determining the winner of the competition as a single methodology was never agreed upon by the three supporters groups.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just lay this out one more time. All reliable, third-party sources (see WP:V) state that Portland won the 2009 Cascadia Cup and the manner in which they won. Citation 11 (www.oregonlive.com) states: "By defeating Vancouver in two out of three games this season, the Timbers won the Cascadia Cup, a fan-based competition between Portland and Vancouver that is determined by the best head-to-head record." Citation 14 (www.katu.com) states: "With their second win over the Whitecaps this season, Portland captured its first-ever Cascadia Cup – a fan-based derby between the two Northwest rivals. The cup is awarded annually to the team with the best head-to-head record between the clubs. Portland finished the season series against Vancouver with a 2-1-0 record." Citation 15 (www.ctvbc.ctv.ca) states: "The victory also extended their remarkable single-season unbeaten run in the league to 19 matches and confirmed the Timbers as first-time winners of the fan-based Cascadia Cup competition after winning two of their three regular season contests versus Vancouver." Some Sounders fans may dispute this, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish their arguments (see WP:OR) absent reliable, third-party sources supporting those arguments. Caphaddock (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Socceraficionado, you are in your own world. The 15 people that edited YOUR vandalism provided sources. All you did was revert to your opinion repeatedly, even after being warned by The King of Hearts that what you were doing was against Wikipedia policy. How can we set up one of the polls to settle this? Socceraficionado seems to be the only one here that thinks seattle somehow won the cup, even though in the open letter to the founders from the seattle founders there is no mention of seattle being awarded the cup. Socceraficionado is just making shit up after the fact. Socceraficionado, I'd suggest you do the Cobain.

-Btaholla (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clear at this time, according to the wording used in the open letter from Sounders supporters addressed to the Founder's Circle, that there is no set rule of quorum that determines who must be present to constitute a meeting, regardless of whether or not there should be such a rule. That means that any rules generated with the approval of two-thirds of the supporters groups are the rules of the competition. Whether or not that is a fair or equitable solution is not the purvey of Wikipedia or its talk pages. By the rules of the competition, Portland won the 2009 Cascadia Cup. There is no rule stating that the Sounders may veto this because they disagree; in fact, the two-thirds rule is in place specifically to prevent any one group from claiming an alternate ruleset. According to WP:V (notably named Verifability, not Truth), Exceptional Claims are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". According to that rule, such claims "require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included". The only reason that it can be claimed that Portland have not won the 2009 Cascadia Cup is that the rules make the 2009 competition invalid due to lack of quorum, which is not only not a claim for which there are no exceptional sources, but not one supported by the Sounders fans themselves. Any table which includes results including matches with the Seattle Sounders (incidentally, all such proposed tables award the trophy to the team whose supporter is proposing it) reflects a ruleset proposed only by a portion of that team's own fanbase, and therefore does not survive the two-thirds threshold. The facts of the matter, including the rules of the competition and all reliable sources, say that Portland won the cup. Any dispute over the rules of the competition for 2009 relating to official results is irrelevant under WP:V (the part that requires verifability) without exceptional sources (The dispute itself is notable, and does not require such sources). Any unfairness or objectionable element about the methology of the Cascadia Cup needs to be settled for next season at the Supporter's Summit. It is not within the purvey of Wikipedia or its rules to debate a ruleset or to attempt to certify a set of results of a sporting competition.

- DamionOWA (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also pretanant to acknowlegde the fact that Sounders fans are ommiting the score of one match, a loss on April 13th 2009, to bolsetr their standings in this supposed controversaty giving them a chance to bid for the cup. The fact that it does not appear on the schedule is irrevelant as the match took place. The vancouver match doesn't appear on their list. Does that mean it happened? yes, it did. There is physcal evidence that matches took place despite the lack of a paper trail in the form of a schedule on the timbers or sounders web page. Date, location, roster, and results have been logged at this point. Further denial or running around the fact that PTFC beat SSFC on april 13th 2009 can only be attributed to blind loyality to your club, and understandibly. Surely, there must be a web site for the Seattle Sounders reserve team which would lists teams rosters, payrolls, coaching staff, schedules, etc as would be expected to be found for a reserve side. If such a thing turns up, I will let that issue go and agree that there are two seperate Seattle Sounders Football Clubs in play. But the fact remains that I can not find one in my search. I see mention of reserve players, as in those that play from the bench, and mention of the reserve league having been halted, or folded, or stoped, or what have you by decision of MLS last season, but can not find much reference to a reserve team with the exception of "reserves" playing in pre-season friendlies, such as the April 13th match. The only pages I can find with mention of a "Sounders reserve team" are written by sounders fans after the fact that they lost to soften the blow of losing, which I am unwilling to accept as credible. Anyone have a site that can be used as a credible source (listing schedules, results, rosters.... which I would expect to differ from those who playf for the pro club)?

- ACES

Caphaddock, those sources are totally adequate and should be included on the page. However, they are not primary sources. They are third-party sources which rely on the primary sources, the three supporters groups. As you can see, each of those articles assumes that the competition takes place between only Vancouver and Portland, which is inaccurate. The opening paragraph (which has been edited, by the way, to remove the reference to the Founding Circle of supporters who finance the cup) clearly states the intent of the competition, to be competed by the three teams Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders, and Vancouver Whitecaps. The confusion this season stems from a subset of Timbers and Whitecaps supporters deciding to hold the competition among themselves without the participation or input of the Sounders supporters. This is necessary information that informs the context of this year's competition.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the rules of the Cascadia Cup as indicated in the Open Letter addressed to the Founder's Circle, it would seem that any rule change requires the agreement two-thirds of the clubs who are members of the Founder's Circle, but the presence or agreement of the third club is not required in order to set the rules for the competition. This makes the fact that Sounders supporters were not present at Swangard when the rules were agreed irrelevant. Should there be a requirement for all three groups to agree? I think so. However, regardless of what I think, such a rule does not exist. According to the rules of the competition, the Portland Timbers won the 2009 Cascadia Cup. WP:V does not discount verifability due to "I don't think it should count!" You require exceptional sources that the 2009 cup is invalid, which is the only other possible alternative result to the official one.

- DamionOWA (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from arguing over what the rules should be or the merits of each of the methodologies proposed by the three supporters groups. The Talk page is not the place for this. The three supporters groups should work that out.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it is you who are arguing what the rules "should be". According to verifiable sources (and I am counting in this case the letter written by the Seattle Founder's Circle, as it is one of the few sources to reference the actual overall rules) there is a clear rule set for the Cup: 2/3 support is required, but the third club's support is not necessary. Under that rule, two-thirds of the supporters created the rules for the 2009 Cascadia Cup. Under those rules, Portland won the competition. There is nothing to contradict that except that Seattle fans on this page dispute the rules of the 2009 competition, which is irrelevant according to the overall rules of the Cup. Without exceptional sources, Portland have won the Cascadia Cup. There is no alternative methodology agreed upon by two-thirds of the member clubs' supporters.

- DamionOWA (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ACES, DamionOWA and I agree that the Talk page is not the place for this. Some of your contributions to this page have been arguments about one of the matches. We are trying to build a consensus on how the resulting article should read. At this point, we agree that there has been confusion over the methodology used this year, and we agree that the Timbers and Whitecaps supporters determined a methodology without the input or notification of the Sounders supporters. We are now trying to come to consensus on how this should be included in the article. The current Controversy section is appropriate as it is a subset of information regarding the Cascadia Cup as a whole.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no confusion at all about the methodology used this year. It was based on regular season matches between Portland and Vancouver. Caphaddock (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DamionOWA, it is not my intent to argue over the rules. What you state about the 2/3 support is only conjecture as it applies to precluding one supporters group from the competition altogether. The way the rules decided upon by the Whitecaps and Timbers supporters came about is an extraordinary case (not including the Sounders supporters in the decision or voting), and the way in which that decision resulted in the Sounders not participating this year is also an extraordinary case. Again, we are here to form a consensus about how the article should read.

Caphaddock, yes there is confusion. The Sounders supporters did not participate in and were not informed of the decision made by the Whitecaps and Timbers supporters. Furthermore, the Cascadia Cup is a competition between the three teams Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders, and Vancouver Whitecaps. It was created and financed by supporters groups of all three teams. When only two of the teams compete for it, without the knowledge of one of the supporters groups involved, it is a special case and should be detailed within the article. Otherwise, a reader will find contradictory information within the article.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Call For Consensus. If the following is agreed upon, I will submit a request to the administrator to make the edits.

1. The reference to the Founding Circle of supporters should be included in the first sentence after the phrase "created in 2004 by supporters". The link to this reference is http://goalseattle.com/CascadiaCup/supporters.htm

2. The score of the July 1, 2009, match between Portland and Seattle was 2-1. It reads 1-0 in the Controversy over the 2009 Cascadia Cup section.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. There is no confusion. The rules were decided upon under the 2/3rds agreement which is within the guidelines allowed. This much is fact. Timbers fans and Whitecap fans will attest to this. The decision was made 4 months ago that Sounders wouldn't contest due to different leagues and schedule conflicts, using the rules set forth by the founders circle. Again fact. Timbers won. Sorry if it isn't to your liking. There is no controversary in the eyes of Timber fans and Whitecap fans. Again 2/3rds decision in play. The wiki article should tell the truths. The Timbers beat Vancouver 2 out of 3 matches to capture the USL coveted Cascadia cup. If you would like an astric next to the timbers name saying they only played Vancouver in the 2009 cup, all be it. Put a second if you like noting how we won those two at home which played in our favor. No controversary though, according to the 2/3rds rule. Just one pissed off group courtesy of exclusion due to different leagues. Public posts were made regarding the decision, which are accessable to all, and curious minds didn't inquire. Better luck in 2011.

- ACES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.203.78 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I now regret that I even created the "Controversy" section. It's clear now that there is no real controversy, just the complaints of a couple Seattle fans. If it stays, there should be another table made which includes Portland's preseason win over Seattle. You know, to avoid confusion. Caphaddock (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if there is no way around having a controversy section, please acknowledge the April 13th match as it has been made clear that that match should count if the Sounders were to be included in the 2009 cup and is only being negated by SSFC supporters because bench players were used. Unless, of course, a credible reserves sounders football club website can be produced. kthx.

- ACES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.203.78 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Socceraficionado, it seems as though your changes to the article are suggesting that the decision made by fans from Portland and Vancouver was not acceptable, and that all preseason games between teams should be considered. However, there is not only the preseason game between Portland and Seattle on April 13th, but also the preseason match between Portland and Vancouver (April 3, 2009, Final score: 1-1 draw - reference link: http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature04030901.aspx ) should also be included. Including just the Portland/Vancouver preseason match would make the final results

Portland Timbers 7 5 2 2 1 5 4 +1 Seattle Sounders 6 2 2 0 0 6 1 +5 Vancouver Whitecaps 5 4 1 3 1 2 8 -6

Otherwise, the 2/3 majority decision wouldn't have disallowed the Sounders from competing for the Cascadia Cup this year, it was simply a by-product of the fact that the Seattle Sounders had no regular season games against the Timbers or Whitecaps this season. Monkey herder (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey how about we just look at where the cup is now. Portland FTW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.170.162 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Monkey Herder. In regards to the disputed April match between portland and seattle, I have taken the liberty of locating an article which discusses the reserve teams division having been disbanded, http://american-soccer-news.com/?p=1348 It would appear as though Garber made the decision to cut all reserve clubs in efforts to save money in hard economic times and as a way to make the MLS rosters larger, which is why the team that took the field in said match are known as the "reserves." With this evidence, it is no longer reasonable to refute the legitimacy of this match counting in both seattle and portland's stat column, if we are to count the sounders matches. And, as pointed out, one must also consider the pre-season match of vancouver v portland, if we are to count other pre-season games.

Can we reach a consensus?

I am proposing:

1) the controversy section be removed 2) a "2009 season" section be added discussing, not controversy, but the situation the clubs faced due to one team being MLS and the other two being USL 3) Seattles three matches (including the April 13th one) be included in the stat sheet 4) the original content, including the bit about the founders circle be restored 5) we resolve a situation for next season, off of the wiki talk page ACES (talk) 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.203.78 (talk)

I think you're conceding too much. Portland and Vancouver supporters got together and, using the two-thirds rule decided on by the Cascadia Cup founders circle, decided to only count regular season matches between those two clubs. The only controversy here--the only one--is that the Portland and Vancouver supporters made that decision. There is no controversy at all over who actually won the cup in 2009. So including games Portland and Vancouver played against Seattle, including non-competitive friendly matches, is silly. Otherwise, I am fine with your proposal. Caphaddock (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm indifferent as these are merely words on a web page and the cup will remain in Portland despite what wikipedia or a flounder says. Either way, including or excluding them, the outcome of the 2009 cup remains the same. The way I proposed, the Sounders are included to appease them, and shut them up. This isn't to say that the Sounders will be included in 2010 cup or that pre-season matches will be allowed to be counted next season, as they have never been counted before and most assuredly won't ever. That decision isn't up to me. Then again, the decision wasn't up to me and was made months ago using the rule you mentioned, so keeping that in mind, yes, the 2009 season stats should be only those of two clubs who remained in the USL. That being said, I also think we should make mention of the exclusion, decision thereof, and note the matches played against seattle/why they were ineligible in counting toward the cascadia cup per the rules set forth in previous years. This can all be done in a few sentences in the proposed "2009 season" section which would replace "controversy." ACES (talk) 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and what happens when we start using forums as sources. The debate has spilled over to the article which wouldn't be happening if we used sources instead of comming to conclusions on the talk page. Too much weight is given to the "controversy" section as is. I understand that it is hard to find significant coverage for it but if something that is not a forum can be found there should be a quick line or two. I don't think a second table is necessary. The Open Cup is much more of an honor anyways :)

Also, just because it is sports related doesn't mean civility guidelines should not be used. I reccomend striking out "Shittle" and "Flounder" since you are asking for someone to open up a discusison which might limit your ability to edit. Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not from anywhere near Portland but been there, and I know those two words to be part of the local dialect. 98.165.163.172 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An people from Newcastle call Sunderland "scum". It doesn't mean we use it in discussions on wikipeida. It really doesn't hurt my feelings but I'm mentioning it because someone easily could blow it out of proportion and start a fuss. This whole discussion page might have also turned out different if 173.117.202.218 had not been so inflammatory in his opening lines.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Those were not the opening lines. The opening comment is beneath that comment, followed by the seattle customer that had been warned by an administrator that what he was doing is against Wikipedia policy.Btaholla (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop arguing just to argue. The top of the page has an uncivil comment. I don't care about the date and I don't care who started it. That is not OK under any circumstances. Editors who are uncivil leave themselves open to blocks if they continue so hopefully any offending editors will read the civility guidelines mentioned above (find it here: {Wikipedia:Civility} and not do it again.Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision Plan

Ignoring everything else on this page, I propose editing this page to be factually accurate and make everyone happy.

• Create a "History" section
• Create "2004-2008 (United Soccer Leagues)" section
• Create "2009-2010" section under "Format" section
• Create "2011 and future (Major League Soccer)" section
• Eliminate "Controversy" section - there is no "controversy" over who won the cup this year... but...
• In 2009 section, comment about how Whitecaps and Timbers supporters decided to go ahead and continue awarding the cup without the Sounders until their teams move up to MLS in 2011 (was this decision made before the MLS season started, so before both teams knew they had the chance of the cup)? - make light of the 2/3rds rule, and I read something about how Seattle wrote the other groups a letter the day of the final match or something asking the cup to not be awarded this year? That may be relevant
• I could not find any controversy over the Sounders being awarded the cup in 2009 other than on this Wikipedia page
• Seattle owner Drew Carey's comments on not wanting to be a part of a northwest cup (I remember reading these on ESPN.com) may be relevant
• Try to source as many news articles as possible while citing as few forums as possible (though some forum posts are relevant).

Good luck. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that some of the editors contributing to this Talk page are Portland supporters? If so, you should contact the Seattle supporters and Vancouver supporters and settle this among yourselves. This Talk page is not the place for it. We are here to write an article. We want the article to be consistent, free from bias, and clear about the subject at hand.

What we know from sources:

• 1) Vancouver and Portland supporters chose the methodology this season without consulting or notifying the Seattle supporters.
• 2) Seattle supporters wanted to include the February 22, 2009, game against Vancouver and the July 1, 2009, game against Portland.
• 3) Seattle supporters found out what was happening through other means and notified the Portland and Vancouver supporters of their intentions through an official letter prior to August 6, 2009.
• 4) Vancouver supporters handed the cup to Portland supporters on August 6, 2009 at the conclusion of their match that day.
• 5) We have two competing methodologies offered by the three supporters groups. No vote was ever taken by all three groups.

There is a reference to a so-called 2/3 rule in the Seattle supporters letter, but it does not support precluding one team from the competition. It appears that this 2/3 rule has to do with deciding how the competition will be structured. This assumption is based on the fact that the Seattle supporters were protesting. If a 2/3 rule allows a team to be precluded, they wouldn't have protested. If anything, all pertinent statements from the Seattle supporters letter should be included when referring to the 2/3 rule as this is our only reference to such a rule.

- Socceraficionado (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Socceraficionado, please provide a link to your source for your second point on your "What we know from sources" list. The only thing I've seen regarding seattle customers wanting to include those matches is from you on Wikipedia.

-Btaholla (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And forums. We should be able to create an article without sourcing a forum. If we expand each seasons season from a table to actual prose any concern in '09 will not look so prominent. I also believe "Controversy" should be removed since it is strong language without appropriate, reliable, unbiased, and verifiable sources saying it (do I get a paragraph of text on my forum opinions?) Two lines in an '09 section should suffice. It looks like editors are using Wikipeida to vent and are only focusing on recent news. Please see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did a search of the internet and could not find any sources, forums or otherwise, claiming that Sounders fans wanted the US Open Cup match against the Timbers to be part of the Cascadia Cup this season. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I take that back - I just read the ECS board, but there was nothing on there indicating that they were taking part in the competition this season, plus it's a forum. I really don't know why this is such a big deal. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source. http://weareecs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4776 The three supporters groups are primary sources, since they are the ones who define the methodology each year for the Cascadia Cup. Socceraficionado (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. There is no controversy. The only person creating one is Socceraficionado, which is why he was reported and warned by an administrator about what he was doing. The other 15 editors that were editing the article before it was locked all agreed that there was no controversy and the Timbers won the 2009 Cascadia Cup. Btaholla (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You reported me. The administrator took no action, as it was clear that you defied the Three-Revert Rule yourself by reverting my additions. Also, the other editors did not show up until after you began edit-warring, and all they did was revert and/or leave derogatory comments on the Talk page and article itself. They made no contributions to the article, outside of Caphaddock, who was the only other good-faith editor. Also, consensus is not a matter of numbers. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Socceraficionado (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did report you and all 24 of your page reverts. I on the other hand limited my reverts to the allowed 3 in a 24 hour period. In addition to those, I also added sources for the edits that I performed. You on the other hand just continued to revert to your opinion. The administrator was lenient with you because you were new and as a result only received a warning. You then continued to revert the article repeatedly when other people changed it and added sources at which point I reported you again which resulted in the page being protected from you reverting it even more. I recieved no such warning from an administrator. Now are you going to provide those references or not? Btaholla (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If Socceraficionado agrees to follow consensus then we can request it be unprotected. We can fix this by discussing it here and fiddling with the layout. Adding in text instead of lists for the previous seasons as proposed by SportingFlyer should have been done previously. At the very least, this was a good way to push the article in a direction that will increase its rating on the assessment scale. Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, how are we going to reach a consensus? We're not really making any headway here, and all non-forum 2009-related cup sources point to the cup being contested between the Whitecaps and Timbers, with the Timbers winning. The analogy here is Manchester United saying they should win the 2000 FA Cup because they beat both Chelsea and Aston Villa in the league. It is notable that the Sounders did not participate this season because of their move to MLS. Also, the July Timbers-Sounders US Open Cup game was only on the calendar for a couple weeks before it was played, and the only instance I could find of Sounders fans saying it should count (other than on Wikipedia) was a forum post dated in August, right before the August 6th Timbers-Whitecaps game. This is based in fact, and is what I've been trying to say all along; if this doesn't work out, we may need to go to mediation. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not a proper analogy. The Cascadia Cup was created and financed by the three supporters groups. They determine the methodology each year. The 2009 edition has been different than past editions, and two of the supporters groups determined its fate without consulting the other. Since the supporters groups define the methodology, the sources you point to derive what they report directly from the supporters groups themselves. Socceraficionado (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope not since seems a little silly for something so trivial. I think Socceraficionado needs to agree to use the sources. His input could be fantastic in fixing this page but it needs to not rely on internet forums. I think the concern is noteworthy but it does not deserve so much attention in this article. A quick line or two and leave it at that.Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple important sources we need to use when the article is unlocked. I think a sentence is all we need here. These links show the Timbers won; what we do about Seattle's reaction to not being included, I don't know, there aren't a lot of non-forum sources out there and the forum sources which are out there seem revisionist (the ECS thread was created the day before the final game). [5] [6] [7] [8] SportingFlyer (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, here's the Cascadia Cup website. The important thing to note is that there is no controversy here. [9] SportingFlyer (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SoocerAficiando, you are attempting to create another controversy where there is none; Sounders wanted all matches counted, which means the April 13th match must be in that list too (as it was clearly not a "reserve team" match). Otherwise it seems as though you are attempting to tarnish the Timbers winning of the cup or insinuating that the Sounders should have other wise won it.

in regards to your revision (my numbers correspond to yours and are the alterations/additions I'd make):

• 1) I would like it made crystal clear that portland and vancouver were not attempting to kick seattle out of the tournament, but rather had no way of including them in a fair and balanced manner, but also didn't want the cup to go uncontested for two seasons.
• 2) must mention ALL seattle games, including the April 13th, so that there is no controversy created and no possible claim that anyone other than the Timbers were eligible to win the 2009 cup (both for the manner that was used, where only two clubs contested, and for including seattle and counting their three matches). Also make note that the other two matches in question were USOC and a preseason friendly, which have never counted in the Cascadia Cup standings before as decided upon by all three supporters groups.
• 3) I would like this section removed, or at least mention that "the protest letters were not read until the morning of the match on August 6th" rather than "prior to" as the prior you speak of was the night before the match, giving no time to make a decision or response thereof and that the Vancouver fans didn't get the letter until after the cup was awarded due to them having been in portland for the match when the emails were sent.
• 4) fine.
• 5) reference the 2/3rds decision and that both portland and vancouver FELT they were acting within the limitations of the cups rules and guidelines, as set forth by the founders circle. And that the reasoning for not including seattle was not as punishment or anything other than the fact that there was no method available that seemed reasonable, along with the notion that both the Timbers and Whitecaps fans felt the cup deserves to be fought for every season.

ACES (talk) 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The matches that the Sounders fans wanted included are clearly listed at the reference I gave above. Also, the match on April, 13, 2009 did not involve the Sounders. http://gosounders.com/2009/04/13/sounders-reserves-lose-to-timbers/ http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sounders/2009/04/13/portland_timbers_3_sounders_fc.html Socceraficionado (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the FOUR separate references regarding the reserve teams being eliminated last season are clearly listed above as well. If you want more, I will gladly hand them to you. They are incredibly easy to find as it was big news. What is not easy to find is information on a Sounders "reserve team." You have not provide me with one acceptable reference. It doesn't exist. Wanting and getting are two different things. Count them all or count none. The April 13th match WAS the Sounders and counts or no sounders scores will be listed on the cascadia cup page. I will agree to nothing else. ACES (talk) 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than yes I did provide two references. It is a different team. Sounders supporters seem to agree as they did not include that match when listing the games they wished to be counted. http://weareecs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4776 Socceraficionado (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So in August 2009, the seattle customers said that they did not want their April 13th loss to count? You do see how that is not a credible source, right? Btaholla (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ACES and Btaholla, I take it from your tone that you are Portland supporters. Please note that the Talk page is not the place to argue over the competing methodologies. You need to take that up with the Seattle and Vancouver supporters directly. Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect what has happened up to this point. If a resolution is reached between the three supporters groups, that can be added to the article. We have no source indicating a resolution. Socceraficionado (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Socceraficionado: I am a Sounders fan and it sucks to not be in contention for the cup. However, this is not the appropriate place to discuss it. If you want to include information in the article please provide appropriate sources. What you did a few comments above is also called WP:SYNTH. Please do not try to correlate sources to form an opinion in which the topic is not discussed. Find secondary sources that are free from bias and specifically discuss the Cascadia Cup. And Btaholla: what is with the repeated use of Seattle "customer". Do you mean "fan" and are trying to make some sort of dig?Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)`

I am not arguing over methodologies. That would be you. I am attempting to state a fact that must be included in this page, which you are choosing to ignore. Please refrain from unnecessary warning.

http://www.postandcourier.com/blogs/battery/2009/feb/19/BatteryBlog/ http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=607112&cc=5901 http://www.soccertimes.com/mls/2009/jan02 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2008/11/mls_news.html

this is now eight sources I have supplied in reference to MLS reserve teams and the match on April 13th being relevant. the April 13th match must be included in Seattle scores if we are to put any on the cascadia cup page.

The sources you have provided are not relevant for multiple reasons. They are blogs, written by seattle fans, after the loss to soften the blow of losing, and nowhere do they mention a "seattle reserve team." They mention "reserves" as in those who normally don't get playtime, but are on Seattle Sounders FC roster. Not a reserve team. Again, I have provided you with eight seperate sources stating the reserve teams are no longer allowed, a decision made public by Garber during the MLS state of the league address last season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACES-ACES (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those sources do not say Reserve teams are not allowed. It appears that this is a matter of you saying that the sources I provided do not actually support what they are saying. The fact is that they clearly refer to a different team. Furthermore, this game does not appear on the Sounders schedule. The February Whitecaps match and the Portland July match do. http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Schedule.aspx Socceraficionado (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You both need to find sources that are directly related to the subject per my comment mentioned above. Please stop trying to come to conclusions here that are not directly referenced in the sources. Thank you for creating an account instead of formatting an IP signature, ACES. This makes things clearer and easier.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a red herring. This game was never mentioned in the Seattle supporters proposed methdology. ACES appears to be a Portland supporter and is trying to use the Talk page to argue about this. He or she needs to take this up with the Seattle and Vancouver supporters. Furthermore, it is a different team. I have provided sources that indicates this. However, this is unnecessary as it does not pertain to the current state of events. The applicable situation is that two of the supporters groups decided on a methodology without the other. The other group offered a counter methodology. The three groups never convened and voted together. Socceraficionado (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. How do we work that in appropriately?Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following in the hopes that we can get on track and get this article unprotected.We'll need consensus:

• Work in Socceraficionado's: "two of the supporters groups decided on a methodology without the other. oThe other group offered a counter methodology. The three groups never convened and voted together" if a good source can be found. For now, this can go in the Format section but we can still explore expanding a history section in the future.
• Remove the controversy section and extra table

Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I STILL don't see the controversy, and I've been reading everything I can about this. Here is a forum post (sadly) but it's where the 2009 competition is explained and set out. [10] SportingFlyer (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been blogged about and mentioned on forums (this one almost looks OK but is a blog : ( [11]. Is the proposal acceptable if we find RS?Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Sounders supporters launched a late protest this week, asking the cup to be held until 2011, but both sides still in the USL made the decision to play it out," Words it well. Looking for RS.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I found the same recap about the discussion that took place between the timbers and whitecaps supporters for the 2009 cascadia cup. It is from the timbers message board, http://www.soccercityusa.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1243621030/0 I'm new to wiki so not sure if threads on public message boards are considered a source you may cite, but as the conversation was done in person spur the moment, minutes before their first match took place, it is the best I can find. --ACES-ACES (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• ACES: Since you are new and for "anything except Seattle/Sounders" I might be harsh. If that is ever the case, please remind me of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
• In regards to sources, take a look at WP:SELFPUB on this one.
• Also, verifiability and the sources is of utmost importance. If we need to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to get this info in to benefit the article we should consider it. I would recommend using the appropriately written blog I mentioned above and hope that RS comes out soon. It really isn't disputed that ECS was pissed so it shouldn't be concern.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider the open letter from the Seattle Founder's Circle, although it was posted on a forum, to constitute an approved statement from the Circle and to serve as a reliable source indicating that a controversy did at least exist. In the absence of any other reliable source, I think the history section should indicate the facts of the letter; the date it was sent/recieved relevant to date of the competition's last game, that the Circle specifically requested the Cup be suspended until 2011, and that Portland and Vancouver fans opted to proceed (With no reliable sources, I don't think reference should be made to anyone's intentions re. the non-league games, they are not mentioned in the letter from Seattle's Circle). As to the actual results, I believe that section should display the 2009 results aside the rest of the competition's history, with italics underneath the boxes for 2009 and 2010 indicating that Seattle did not participate, as well as a similar note alongside the 2007 results indicating that all league games were not counted.DamionOWA (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is already a stretch letting the info in without significant coverage. Since common sense says to do so we should. Adding a complete table for it is too much. There is already a note added regarding all games not being counted.Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was looking good for a bit but I'm not sure if we have consensus on this now. Are we going to behave when the protection is lifted? We really should be able to figure this out.Cptnono (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe the 2009 edition should be called out in its own section. It is a clear exception to the fundamental definition of the competition, and there are a few details about it that would not be well served if merely mentioned inline with the rest of the history, or within the format section. The word "controversy" does not have to be included in the title, but it should be included within the content of the section. The tables are a way to show the different outcomes, so they should remain, but only in the 2009 section. The tables from previous editions can stand alone as they include all three teams. Socceraficionado (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A 2nd table with "what if" situations should not be presented. Games involving seattle had no bearing on the awarding of the 2009 cup. It would be as useless as adding a 3rd table that includes Portland and Vancouver's preseason match. Again, no bearing on the awarding of the cup. It seems like there is a consensus between everybody except for Socceraficionado, but it has been that way since the beginning. -Btaholla (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have fiddled with the format (now history) sections. Wikipedia guidelines for SOURCES (ie find them now) have been ignored and we are still looking at the "controversy" section. Out of a wish to not deal with edit wars and general boo hooing it is in but I will be removing it unless there are any objections that actually meet the requirements for inclusion here on Wikipeida. In all reality, this whole article could possibly deleted based on the lack of significant coverage. I personally think that would be silly and hope the few citations not pointing at forums and the external link are sufficient. That being said, those standards are in place so we don't get in pissing contests over what some supporters say in any given forum like we have here. It is outstanding if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia but please take the recent forum based disagreements to the appropriate message boards or bars.Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Promotion?

The article reads as if the Sounders were promoted which did not happen. ("With the Sounders moving up to MLS in 2009" and "The Seattle Sounders left USL-1 and began play in Major League Soccer (MLS)"). We need to make it clear that the USL team was made defunct.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2011 Results Section

So, I'm a little confused about the inclusion of the results section. Is this going to be done for every season going forward? It seems like that will clutter up the article if so. What're the alternatives? Keeping them around and then replacing them with the next year's results? I don't like that option because... well, why were they there in the first place then? Separate articles for each year? Certainly not, right? I mean, I don't want to be the party pooper here because I'm all about the Cascadia Cup but... yearly results seem like too much here. What do others think? DemonJuice (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Results are not needed, at least not the way they are. Not even collapsed boxes make sense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps show the current competition as a full results table, then collapse prior years into one table showing year down the left side, team across the top, and point total in the resulting cross-section, with background coloration denoting the winner. Michaeldunnjr (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you're treating Wikipedia as a news site. If something is just going to be deleted and summarized in a table every year then it probably shouldn't have been in the encyclopedia in the first place. If the Cascadia Cup were notable enough to make the equivalent of a season page every year for the competition then that would be the proper place for that. DemonJuice (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (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)