Talk:Vancouver Southsiders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Oppose deletion

I dont understand why the Supporters association of one MLS club is any more or less valid than another? There is a supporters group category, there are several other pages for groups like Timbers Army and Sons of Ben. Why is this one being flagged for deletion within seconds of its creation?! Not to mention, its not complete yet! This is totally ridiculous.

Justification of the "importance or significance": 1) Oldest supporters club in Canada 2) Only supporters club of the Vancouver Whitecaps FC, one of the two newest franchises of Major league Soccer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistoriographer (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fan group has to establish independent notability; simply existing is not sufficient. --Ckatzchatspy 06:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid. You all should be ashamed of yourselves

All you care about is chastising people's work. You obviously dont have a real opinion or you would comment here and you havent. Take a look at all the other MLS supporters pages. They were marked for deletion by people as narrow-minded as yourselves. Yet, I see very few people supporting the deletion and after one person supports it the flag is removed. Why are you doing this? I didnt create a page about myself, I created a page about a real, growing organization that supports the greatest team in D2 soccer and soon to be a force in MLS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistoriographer (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!

On behalf of The Southsiders, we are significant. Wikistoriographer, we thank you for creating our wikipedia page. One thing, singing Boundary Road really is not like Youll Never Walk Alone. We sing it whenever and we changed the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.24.62 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Congrats on your team getting in to MLS. As you can see this is getting ridiculous and I have to stop editing. If the page still exists tomorrow, I suggest you change what I wrote about Liverpool and expand the page before someone flags you for deletion for being a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistoriographer (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation (September, 2010)

I am recreating this page. This after a short (and mainly ignored) discussion at Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Southsiders. It is primarily based on the information at the user page User:Wikistoriographer/Southsiders which I will be taking to Miscellany for Deletion for various reasons.

I believe there is significant secondary coverage. Although some are only mere mentions, some go into sufficient detail. I have seen the dead links which were also in detail but did mark them as dead. I have removed all self published sources and unverified information. Multiple sources added.Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected, as the source for the recreation is the same material as originally presented. New details (minus trivia) have been merged, but the group does not warrant a stand-alone page. Thanks for the refs. --Ckatzchatspy 09:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind providing guideline based reasoning? Here is mine:
Also, I assume you did not check the sources since you marked a couple lines as needing a source during your merge. These were sourced. If you simply had a knee-jerk reaction absed on the previous version then that is cool but unless you can provide sufficient reasoning for the removal of content it needs to be reverted.Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is sufficient notability for the text in the 'Caps article, but there does not seem to be justification for a stand-alone article. If you examine the text in the main article, you'll see that the only details not transferred were the trivial - items such as:
  • "Feeling marginalized, The Southsiders began depositing empty beer cups onto the grass in protest in 2007"
  • "The Southsiders grew out of a group of fans that enjoyed a European-style experience over a traditionally family-friendly atmosphere during matches"
  • Notes on road trips and favourite songs, neither of which are encyclopedic
Again, keep in mind that the changes did not remove the topic, they only merged it to a more appropriate location. --Ckatzchatspy 09:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you consider nonencyclopedic may not be what other people believe. Notability does not limit article content (
WP:NOTPAPER) so there are "no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover". The information is verifiable. You do not determine what is notable. The sources do. Do you have an argument other than what you see as not being sufficient? Furthermore, there is a precedent for such information in similar articles when it is sourced. There is a precedent for such articles overall. Primarily this is due to it meeting the GNG.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This borders on a personal attack, but I have found that reasoning with the previous editor is futile.
I disagree that the subject is notable. There may have been articles written about the supporters group, but the question is whether or not they are a notable organization or not. From what I understand, they don't really do much more than meet-up at the matches. Do they have any pull with the franchise? Do they do anything for the community at large? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack intended. Apologies if I was a little blunt. And yes, the quesiton is if the subject is notable. That is why we have the General Notability Guideline. In reponse to your question, the sources have found issues pertaining to the relation ship between the group and the ownership noteworthy. They are used in advertising, work together and have an open dialog, were invited to the invite-only launch party, and so on.[5][6] This reporter thought their take on the new CEO was important and they were discussed a little bit more.[7] Their seating section at the new stadium has even been discussed (2 articles but I have to track them down again). The coverage is there. In little bits and in detailed articles. I am still looking for reasoning to merge it that is based on the guidelines here. I understand how poor the last incarnation of this article was but all of the fluff was ripped out and sources were added. And again, it isn't what you or me think is notable. If sources are finding them noteworthy then they meet our benchmark.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far there has been no response that merits the revert. I'm not trying to dismiss your opnion but there realy hasn't been anything the directly disputes this subject meeting the GNG or the precedents already set across the project. So I can revert right now, opn up an RFC, request some feedback from the FOOTY project or something else. Any ideas on how to move forward?Cptnono (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply not enough information to warrant a stand-alone article. Again, we're not debating if the group warrants coverage. That has been agreed upon; the difference of opinion is whether or not it warrants a separate article. The information from the article has been merged to the club's page, minus the trivial details. Even if we were to restore the stand-alone article, those details would have to come out as part of making the text relevant and encyclopaedic. With that in mind, it does not make sense to have a separate article that adds nothing beyond the information already presented in the club's article. --Ckatzchatspy 08:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So can you address any of the reasoning provided or are you solely relying on what you consider trivial? If not then I am happy to go through other channels for this but it looks to me right now that you are just digging in your heals. It would also be appreciated if you read the sources provided before your revert since you added citation needed tags during your merge. I know this sounds dickey, but I would like to know if you actually read the sources provided. It sucks that editors originally tried to make a promotional piece and attacked established editors in the sections above but that is the past and now we have something that meets and should continue to meet the GNG.Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. we're not debating if the group warrants coverage? If they've received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (which they have) and at least one of the sources is regional rather than purely local (which The Province is) then they meet
WP:STUB offers some guidance on that topic). If there was a genuine policy-based reason not to have an article then that would be fine, but so far I can't see one. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree with Alzarian16. Create away! Udeezy (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alzarian16. Expecting name change next year when they may not have a prominent spot on the south side of either Empire Field or the renovated BC Place, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Carlsbreg Crew again? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in a source that they were not changing their name but I don't recall which one. Name wise, the article was originally titled Vancouver Southsiders but I'm ot sure if it should actually be simply Southsiders.Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this supporters' group may have been given coverage in third-party sources, but I struggle to see the merit in a separate article on a fan club that has such a tiny membership and has done nothing more notable than throwing a few cups. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this with the groups in Wikipedia that deal with the rules of notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now Ckatz is removing sourced information saying it is trivial. Songs are an important part of "supporter culture" and the gameday experience works fine in a section. Does anyone else believe the information should not be in? I don't understand why Ckatz is making this article such an issue.
"The Southsiders originated as a group of fans that enjoyed a European-style experience over a traditionally family-friendly atmosphere during matches.[3] A writer for the Vancouver Courier described it as a "rabid supporters group".[8]
"Boundary Road" to the tune of "Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver is the recognized theme song of the Southsiders. The song is a reference to Swangard Stadium's location on Boundary Road which divides Vancouver and Burnaby, BC.[2]"
Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're presently in the article. I wouldn't worry about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed because it is trivial. Just because we have a source does not make it notable, especially to a global audience. Seriously, you should follow some of the TV series articles and see how much "sourced material" fails the notability test and gets removed. Just because something exists does not make it notable to a global audience; we're not here to act as the promotion department for a small group of soccer fans (no matter how much we might like the 'Caps). --Ckatzchatspy 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the other changes involved rewriting and cleaning up text to make it flow better. For example, the "rabid supporters" quote was not removed, but rewritten and used in the lead. We don't need to say "a writer for the Vancouver Courier" because the Courier is not notable enough to make its coverage relevant. The quote is what is relevant; the reader can easily find out where it came from by following the reference. BTW, the "Gameday" section title doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't relate to the content. It has been renamed "Song" to focus on the song, and the other information has been moved (not removed) to more appropriate locations. --Ckatzchatspy 06:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the point. This article has been modelled on similar articles. I'll let the creator address this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretty much edit warring a this point. You need to stop reverting. I appreciate that you use the talk page finally but you need to start trying to find consensus. So a few notes on the recent changes:
  • "Rabid" This is not discussed in the body so it is against WP:LEAD. There is also a second source that used it up above.
  • Why did you remove the "protest" part? It was noteworthy enough for at least one source to discuss and is part of the history. And again, notability does not impact article content and what you consider trivial may not actually be trivial.
  • Emerald City Supporters quote. How is that irrelevant? See above.
  • "Song" section. It is now too choppy. The information fits there. It can work in history but I feel it is better layout wise down there. The song line could also work in the history section. Either way works for me.
  • I removed the two lines about individual games since it did seem a little trivial and off to only mention two games.
Walter Görlitz and I have both reverted you. I am going to make some changes based on this and here. If you coninue to revert without using the talk page first I will take it to the edit warring noticeboard. You should know better. We have also both disagreed with ou on what you consider "trivial". If you want more input open an RfC.Cptnono (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid muddying the waters with false claims of "edit warring". Perhaps you need to consider that what you're deeming non-trivial is of little or no relevance to a global perspective on the topic. Of course the group's president will claim that they can out-do the Sounders fans - why wouldn't he? However, in the absence of any proof that such a thing is happening, and especially in the absence of proof that third party sources feel that way, it is merely speculation. If the group's size starts to increase, then the quote might become relevant. Right now, it is not. Look, I'll say it again - not everything a group does is notable enough for inclusion, even if it is mentioned in press. We have to use editorial judgement to sift through details and focus only on what is relevant. You've brought up NOTPAPER, but failed to note several other considerations including
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ckatzchatspy 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. This isn't an edit war, it's around building consensus. I agree that if something is reported it may not be notable, but I would also agree that reverting something repeatedly without discussion isn't a good way of gaining consensus any more than addressing the issues around why it was deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I probably didn't need to go there. I've just been surprised at how many issues are coming up. In regards to trivial information some quotes from their president should be a good thing. It should improve the reader's understanding of the subject. A rivalry is something that has been covered in multiple sources and is an important aspect of the group. Rivalry is an important part of sports. And the protest thing is an important part of the group's history as the sources make note of it and the difference of the relationship now. This article will grow over time since more sources will be made available but it is more than a stub and should be more than a stub with the information we have available. Removing sourced info that sources think are important enough to mention needlessly puts it in risk of being a stub.Cptnono (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Of course it's a move for the fans. They're not under contact to the MLS. They are moving from Swangard to Empire fields and then BC Place (or whoever buys the naming rights field). his is not a comment about the The club moving but the fans moving. Unless you have a source to show that they have a different legal structure then I'd say it's their call to decide whether it's a move or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made MoS errors. Then you reverted. You did not do the process correctly and you made it worse with personal attacks and a misuse of Twinkle. You need to get the MoS straight and figure out how to do the weighting and wording of a section header without crossing multiple lines. Please come back when you learn to do that.Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the MoS error not your opinion that they are moving. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. From what I can see, we have a sort of explanation of why the use of 2011: The move to MLS as a section header isn't perfect, and a sort of explanation of the use of MLS as a section header isn't perfect. But no-one has yet explained what's wrong with 2011: The Southsiders move to MLS, which appears both to describe the section accurately and focus it firmly on the on the article topic. So why exactly have we not settled on that as an acceptable compromise? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Southsiders are not moving. They are supporting a team that an editor says is "moving" (debated) in the MLS but they are not "moving" anywhere.
  • It will make more sense as time goes on to not have a "move" section unless the team's preseason before starting MLS play deserves its own section. It would make more sense to have it all in one section. Are we going to have a seciton for each season or something?Cptnono (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which editor says they're moving? You finally admit they're moving? Excellent. This isn't about the team. I've made that clear. Perhaps you don't understand that. This is about the supporters group. No one is talking about the team in this article. This article clearly is about a supporters group. The section discusses the initial field in which the team they support is playing at and then the field at which they will end the season. They are describing the challenges faced with the two fields. It's not a discussion about the team which they support at all. Please get that notion out of your head because it's entire wrong and misses the point of the section and the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The title of the subsection is "move". The Southsiders are not moving. And please reread my statement. I did not "finally admit" that the team is moving. Anyways, consensus is against you by both votes and logical reasoning so I am going to revert your edit warred in section title. I do not mind a change from "MLS" but we are not going to create a new subsection for every year (or at least I doubt it) and the group did not "move". Furthermore, we do not even need a separate subsection of History let alone a new section entirely. Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. They're moving fields, twice. Actually stupid, consensus is against you by both votes (original author and me v. you) and as for logical reasoning, thanks for the laugh. No one is suggesting a change by year. Again, logic not coming from you. They have not have a separate section for previous years. I do agree that we don't really need a separate section based on the change of league since both the Southsiders and Whitecaps are not a different entity as a result of the move to the MLS so removing it is probably the best option. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that sense yes. So maybe the section header should be "move to new stadium" but that is not what you did. Options I see are breaking up the history by team and league name or not breaking it up yet. Since I am removing the completely unsourced paragraph I doubt any separation is warranted at this time. Even if that does get sourced, the main thing is not the move of stadiums and you know it.Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense has returned

The consensus on this article is that the Whitecaps men have supporters groups and that this is an article about one of those groups. The consensus is that they are following the senior men's team from one league to another. An editor continues to push his POV that it is an entirely new team which is not supported by the supporter's group, but the media, or by the Whitecaps FC themselves. Cptnono, please stop changing the article to suit your worldview. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the Southsiders support the club, nit just one team that is a member of the club. The supporters show up at the women's matches as well as the senior men's. The view of the supporters must be reflected in this article. They do not see the senior men's team as a new team: it just has new players. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not write Wikipedia articles from the perspective of a fan group (or any other group, for that matter). Simple as that. --Ckatzchatspy 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. We also don't write it from the perspective of one editor: you. So please stop pushing your POV. This is about a club supporter's group and not just the supporters group of the senior men's team of that club. With that in mind, to misrepresent the move of that senior men's team is not appropriate for this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Walter, *you* are the one pushing a "POV". Despite repeated discussions, you steadfastly refuse to budge on your insistence that the USL 'Caps are the same team as the MLS team. You've even argued to treat the original NASL 'Caps as one-and-the-same. My change did nothing other than to clarify that the MLS team will be at BC Place. It does not make any comment about the other teams. --Ckatzchatspy 02:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your last change may have, but not your first. Please stop pushing your POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as for my POV, I can only comment on what my
WP:RS [12] say, not what my opinion is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, you are interpreting the history page to support your opinion that the team is one-and-the-same throughout the last several decades. That was made clear in the repeated discussions, as was the consensus against such an interpretation. --Ckatzchatspy 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No interpretation necessary. The page states that it's one team. Your interpretation is that it's just marketing, yet you have no
WP:RS to back that claim. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It absolutely does not say that it is one team; you are making that interpretation based on the way the history is written. Moreover, the paragraph on the MLS era specifically states:

"Vancouver would be the home of the 17th team in MLS, with the new side to start their inaugural season at a temporary stadium on the site of the Pacific National Exhibition’s Empire Fields (formerly Empire Stadium) in March 2011. It was also announced that later that summer, the new team will make a renovated BC Place their new home." (bold added for emphasis)

Thank you, however, for pointing out a
reliable source wherein the 'Caps organization identifies the MLS squad as a new team. --Ckatzchatspy 04:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You're interpreting new side as a different team. It's the senior men's team. Sorry you don't understand that. It's an inaugural season in the MLS. And it will be the 17th team in the MLS because there are sixteen teams in the MLS already and they are new to the MLS, not a new club/franchise altogether. It makes no sense to include them on the same page as the others if it's an entirely new team. The fact that they're in mentioned in the same section is clear proof that they're one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for your POV, as already established. Sorry you don't understand that. --Ckatzchatspy 05:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This back and forth over months from WG does not mater on this article. The subject is a supporters group. It can be worded ina away that does not ruffle his feathers or anyone elses.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rednation

I think the YouTube video is great. I am not sure if the online magazine is considered RS but the video certainly appears reliable and it is verifiable who the guys in the video are. It might be better as citations in the body instead of an external link. I created an essay on YouTube videos with some info on common practices

WP:VIDEOLINK. Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 14:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_Southsiders&oldid=1204366383"