Talk:Major professional sports teams in the United States and Canada

Mexican League

Exactly how major is that league?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 05:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

National Lacrosse League

Unless there are any major objections, I will soon add the National Lacrosse League teams to this list. I don't know how you would define "major", but the NLL is a professional league that's been around for over twenty years, with nine teams in the US (from Portland and San Jose to New York and Boston) and three teams in Canada. Average attendance is over 10,000 per game, so I think this qualifies. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 17:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops I should have looked here first but I just looked at the page's history. I added NLL and MLL teams because they are on the major league page but their respective teams weren't listed on this page. Scanning the history I noticed they were never on this page, nor had anyone tried to add the teams. Jc121383 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

page move

So, as I explained in the move summary, the differences between the PDM and the US/Canadian leagues, namely the lack of regular cross-border travel and match-ups, seems strongly to separate it from the 6 leagues that are on this list. And including Mexico but not Central America shows that this was originally a list of US based leagues that became renamed to "North American" and Mexico was then added. The current name was chosen for consistence with Major professional sports leagues of the United States and Canada, the article that corresponds to this list.oknazevad (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored the article name because they are other professional teams in North America beside the ones in the US and Canada. JC (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (PST)

WNBA

I see nothing on the page stating it concerns only "MENS" Professional Sports Teams Of The United States And Canada. Then again, if Mexican leagues exist then the page should be renamed "Professional Sports Teams Of North America"Richardpaulhall (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, new comments go on the bottom of the talk page, not the top.

In regard to your comment/questions:

As you might notice by looking through the page history, Mexican Soccer teams were at one point added to the page, but, due to their relative lack of interaction with their US and Canadian counterparts, they were removed. Even if they were added, though, the lack of Central American teams would reveal that it still wouldn't cover all of North America, and therefore a title including North America would be inappropriate.

As for the WNBA, the page is called Major Professional Sports Teams. While it may say more about our society than we'd like, women's basketball just isn't a major sport. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the WNBA should be included as should NWSL. Ctsinclair (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

MLS

I was wondering if the MLS should really be considered a Major leauge. NLL and MLL should be added if the MLS is on here. 172.190.209.88 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The big difference is that purpose-built stadiums have been constructed specifically for hosting MLS, which cannot be said of the NLL or MLL. That, in my opinion at least, pushes MLS over into the major category.oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NY Jets/Giants

Though the team names have New York in them... They play in New Jersey, NJ gets the tax revenue, they get the building lease, etc. There should at least be an asterisk on them, pointing this out. --97.81.225.84 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How should teams be listed if they play in a different state/province/district than in their name?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should teams be listed if they play in a different state/province/district than in their name? Angryapathy (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Option 1: The teams should only be listed by the actual locations in which the teams play home games. (i.e. the New York Jets are listed as New Jersey)

Option 2: The teams should be listed by the location in which they are named. (i.e. the New York Jets are listed as New York)

Option 3: The teams should be listed by the location in which they are named, with an asterix as to where their home field is (i.e. The New York Jets - New York*, *Home field is in New Jersey)

Option 4 Convert to a sortable table, putting team name in one column and city name/state where they play in the next. (Note: This option was added from the comments below after the RfC started)

Discussion

I started this discussion in order to prevent any future edit wars over this issue. I don't really have an opinion, but these three options have been proposed through editing. Angryapathy (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 4 is my preferred option because the name of the team is intended to indicate who they "represent" and this list seems to be about teams that represent given areas. That being said I have no issue with it being Option 3 if its absolutely necessary. But I wouldn't in any way use Option 1. -DJSasso (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Option 4 - convert to a sortable table, putting team name in one column and city name/state where they play in the next. Then you can dump the state/province headers entirely and let the user decide which field is most important to them via sorting. Resolute 21:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  Oh I like that option as well, hadn't thought of it. I would go this route too. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Option 4, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Lean Option 3 or 4 Four is acceptable, but three would work as well, I think. I agree with DJSasso that one is an absolutely terrible idea. Go Phightins! 20:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Option 4: I've been enforcing Option 1, because it is the way the page has been for most of its existance. It is sorted by state/province, not city. I also think its the most objective. The Giants, Jets and Red Bulls play in New Jersey, and so that's where they are listed. Its simple and straightforward.
• That said, sortable tables are almost always a good solution, because then its the reader, not the editor, who decides. My only cocern is the loss of functionality in jumping to an individual state/province that the current subheaders allow.oknazevad (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Option 4 When I started the RfC, I could see the pros and cons of options 1, 2, and 3. But option 4 is a great solution, and will prevent any minor edit wars in the future. While I started the RfC on this, I know nothing about creating tables, so hopefully someone is up to the task of converting the page as such, provided the trend of the RfC continues. Angryapathy (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The New Jersey Nets played their home games in the New York metro area. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean the Brooklyn Nets? oknazevad (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Washington, D. C. as a state

Please stop Washington, D. C. is not a state and both "Washington" and the "District of Columbia" are the same place today. Some cities are not included in any other subnational divisions--that's just how it is in this case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to follow your own advice. You know better than to edit war to try and force your way. Now, that being said "Washington, DC" is as valid as "Baltimore, MD", and for the sake of both sortability and consistency, I favour the existing usage. Resolute 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: You may not be familiar with this peculiarity being Canadian but our capital is not in a state. "Baltimore, MD" means that Baltimore is in Maryland. "Washington, D. C." is identical to "Washington" and "D. C" and the "District of Columbia"—it's like "Jack Hooper, P. I." When it comes to sortability, it's no better to sort a portion of it's name—what is the advantage of that? Are users supposed to be aided in finding it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In many situations, including many sortable lists here on Wikipedia, as well as in the practice of many publications, it is common to treat the District of Columbia as analogous to a state for these sorts of purposes. This is merely a list by location. It is not the proper place for a lesson in the fine point of American civics. DC might not be a state, but it is a location. When addressing an envelope, it is placed where the state would otherwise go. That is all it is doing here as well.

Being that you've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors and that you still didn't open the discussion until after you were reverted for the fourth time, it seems to me that you are the only one objecting and are edit warring against those who disagree with the change. So, you "please stop". oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (PS, U.S. citizen and resident since bIrth. So I don't appreciate the condescension shown to me or to others in the conversation, either.)

Washington is in a subnational division: it's in a federal district.

It's pretty standard to treat DC as equivalent to a state: ie US Post, US Census, and ISO. I don't see how readers benefit from breaking sortability by replacing DC with -. TDL (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The column heading doesn't say State, but rather Subnational division. So, what's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I don't understand how I was being condescending. Can you explain? @GoodDay: It only recently reads that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably due the fact that being condescending has been default behaviour for you for as long as I've been on Wikipedia. That said, Oknazevad appeared to be labeling you this time for your patronizing attitude in your response to me. Speaking of, and despite the obvious handicap of not being American (FUCK YEAH!), I do know what the District of Columbia is, how it is not a state, etc. And I still disagree with you. Amazingly. Resolute 13:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And the condescending edit summaries. And the refusal to listen. And the edit warring (which is condescending behavior; it means that only you think you are right and superior to everyone else). Now, just to appease you, we have one of the most awkward and uncommon terms possible for the column header, when pretty much every such list in the real world would be content with the common "state/province". Because most people can understand that the finer points of civics don't belong on a list like this and can easily overlook the exception and not cause fuss about it. (BTW, you might want to look at capital district; DC is hardly unique in being a federal capital set off from any of the other constituent pars. Canberra, Brasilia, Berlin, Moscow and Mexico City all are such capitals, just off the top of my head.) 14:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Championships

User:Oknazevad deleted my addition of championships to the table on the grounds that it was "unnecessary bloat." I disagree and think that the number of championships is integral to a franchise's identity, of interest to readers, and fits neatly into the table. What are the thoughts of others? Orser67 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to mention, in case someone doesn't see the edit summary, that I believe that that is the level of detail that is appropriate for the individual articles, not for a very general overview article like this. The columns here are specifically chosen based on the sorting principal. One can sort based on name, sure, but can also sort by city, or state to get those groupings, or by league to get all those teams together. A bare number, representing completely different championships in completely different leagues leads to a sorting that is utterly meaningless. It's just too detailed for this list. PS, now that you were bold in adding, and I reverted, I'm glad you started discussion, but you shouldn't have re-added the material until discussion concludes. It's BRD, not BRRD. oknazevad (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should the columns only be chosen based on the "sorting principle"? I don't see anything about that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Although the championships may be in different leagues, each league chooses just one champion per season, making for an interesting comparison across different leagues. For example, I find it interesting to look at NA teams with the most championships, and various media outlets have compared the most and least successful franchises. Orser67 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I too was going to remove it as unnecessary bloat. It doesn't really relate to the topic at all. The numbers can't really be compared to each other because they refer to all different championships so they aren't useful in the list. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorting

This seems rather useless if not sorted by metropolitan area, not city.209.140.33.192 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Including WNBA and NWSL

The WNBA and NWSL have been in existence for 10 years or more. Average attendance is growing and sometimes surpasses attendance of other major sports in the same cities.

Can anyone name a valid reason to continue to exclude these leagues?

By what criteria are we defining a major professional sports team?

Should we make a separate page for Women's championships and properly title this for men's sports? Ctsinclair (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There already is a separate-but-women's equivalent, Prominent women's sports leagues in the United States and Canada, which bizarrely also has a {{Globalize}} warning on its header that isn't on either "major leagues" article. There's also the gender-neutral List of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada, which not only includes WNBA and NWSL (and WPF) but makes this list redundant in purpose if not content.

The lack of clear or meaningful criteria for "major league" is by far the biggest problem with this list, regardless of gender. This talk page alone suggests the construction of purpose-built stadia is a criteria, which would qualify NWSL via the Current next year and WNBA now via the Aces, or that average league attendance being over 10,000 is a criteria, which the NWSL hit in 2022 and is sustaining in 2023.

One fundamental problem seems to be the "See also"-linked Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada article, which includes criteria, but they're arbitrary ("men's" is defined right in the lede) and also poorly sourced or unsourced (revenue, attendance, etc. criteria all appear to be subjective or WP:SYNTH, with citations for the numbers but few or none for the criteria themselves, with most citations defining the "Big Four" NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL at the exclusion of CFL and MLS, but not the term "major league").

A better article name for both this list and the "major leagues" article, using the major leagues article's own criteria, would be "Prominent men's sports teams/leagues of the United States and Canada" (which is what the equivalent women's article already uses; gendering the major league articles' titles would seem odder if the leagues article's lede wasn't already gendered.) The only necessary standard is WP:NSPORT. Leagues can be ranked in tables by metrics like attendance, viewership, revenue, etc. where there's notable coverage of such details. The result would have a more NPOV, eliminate the leagues article's existing OR and particularly SYNTH problems, and be less prone to BIAS.

Do one better and rename it "Prominent men's sports leagues of North America", then resolve the arbitrary exclusion of Mexican leagues and teams, an exclusion that gets weirder each time there's an NFL Mexico Game, NBA game in Mexico, MLB Mexico City Series, and MLS game in Mexico or against Mexican teams. Even CFL and NHL have publicly discussed it.

Alternatively, if you go by the content of the RS/IS sources cited in the major leagues article, another better name would be "Big Four sports leagues of the United States and Canada". That would exclude MLS and CFL by definition but eliminate all ambiguity introduced by the term "major league" and require almost no editing of the article itself.

"Major league" has commonly used, notable, and less arbitrary definitions as the highest-level or most notable leagues in major sports (1, 2, 3, 4), and those definitions don't require a league to meet the major leagues article's byzantine criteria in which MLS, CFL, NWSL, WNBA, and other such leagues need to prove their bona fides for inclusion compared to NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL metrics. But I imagine those definitions wouldn't be exclusive enough by consensus in an article with "major league" in the title because of the term's US/Canadian/baseball-specific connotative prestige. -Socccc (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Est. column

There seems to be some discrepancy in the Est. column. For instance, the year for the Chicago Bears is listed as 1921, even though the Decatur Staleys, who started in 1920, were named for a street in Chicago. However, the year for the Brooklyn Nets is listed as 1967, even though they have moved and been renamed several times, while remaining in the same metropolitan area, being known as the New Jersey Americans (1967–1968), New York Nets (1968–1977), and New Jersey Nets (1977–2012). To be consistent, the year should be listed as either 1920 for the Bears or 2012 for the Nets.

Also, in my opinion, the year should be based on when the team was first established, not on their current city. Alielmi1207 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the Decatur Staleys. They actually played in Decatur, Illinois, (which is not part of the Chicago metro area) in their first season. They weren't named after a street in Chicago (there is no Decatur St in Chicago), as they didn't move to that city until the 1921 season. Perhaps you're thinking of the Cardinals, who were early on known as the Racine Cardinals because they played on Racine Ave in Chicago, a fact that leads to some confusion, as some think it means they played in Racine, Wisconsin, even though the team was founded in and played in Chicago for their entire existence until they moved to St Louis. oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, I confused the Decatur Staleys with the Racine Cardinals. However, I still don't clearly understand how the years listed under the Est. column are determined. Another instance is the Browns being listed as 1946. Although they moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, the NFL considers the relaunched Browns as a continuation of the original team. Likewise, the original Charlotte Hornets, who launched in 1988, moved to New Orleans in 2002 and later changed their name to the Pelicans. Once that happened, the expansion Charlotte Bobcats, who launched in 2004, changed their name to the Hornets. As such, the NBA retroactively considers the latter as a continuation of the original Hornets. Therefore, the established year for the Hornets should be 1988, not 2004. Alielmi1207 (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I would have no problems with fixing the Hornets year. Go right ahead. oknazevad (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Team nicknames

Should all team nicknames be listed, instead of just the most recent?

The article states "For brevity, only the most recent names for teams that have had multiple nicknames in their current media market are listed." While "New Jersey Nets" and "Washington Bullets" are listed, although they have stayed in the same media market respectively, "San Francisco Warriors" is not listed as a previous name for the Golden State Warriors, who have also stayed in the same media market. So, for the sake of completeness, should all of a team's previous names be listed?

One drawback to this option would be the number of names that would have to be listed for some teams. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers had multiple names during their early years, including a couple during WWII when their players combined with another team's. Alielmi1207 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Oakland Athletics

Now that they will just be known as the "Athletics" for the next three seasons before their move to Las Vegas, should they be moved up to be listed alphabetically, remain as is (in case someone looks for them under the Oakland name), or moved under Las Vegas (in anticipation of their move)? Alielmi1207 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved up to A, as that is their name at the present moment. Oakland is outdated, and Las Vegas is still a bit away. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Franchise notes column

The information in this column just makes the table longer. So, is it necessary to list previous teams' names along with the other information, most of which can be gleaned by looking at individual team pages? If yes, then how about changing them to notes? Assadzadeh (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The information in this column has been converted to notes. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)