This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Major League Soccer season article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I understand that MLS is not the most reliable in terms of it's attendance but removing my addition without discussion might be a bit far reaching- Those stats came directly from MLS and their website, as do most all the other information included within the article, should we remove it all at a whim? Should we go remove all attendance data from MLS team articles under the same thinking? I think I will revert it back into being included- This is in response to Grant removing my attendance addition to the infobox. Morry32 ( talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How long should this process take? Should we take this to a higher power? Thanks Morry32 ( talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add information on the meaning of the abbreviations in the Statistics and Standings sections? Many aren't obvious from context, at least not to us Americans. What is SHTS (if SVS+GA doesn't seem to equal SHTS), for example? It's not clear on other websites; anything I guess add would just be a guess. Bennetto ( talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was perusing the MLS articles and noticed that there really wasn't a convention on how the season articles should be named, so I started a discussion on the USA/Canada Footy Wikiproject. If you with to join in the discussion, you may do so here. Thanks! -- Bobblehead (rants) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
are bad. The link should be in the prose, and in most cases they already are. Grsz 11 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering how people might feel about a template like this one Template:2009_AL_Central_standings for our current season? It could easily be placed on each club's season page and require that only it be edited/updated rather than each page. I personally don't know much about making these sort of things but I would like to see one made, if no one else steps up I would probably just find one to alter. Morry32 ( talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the template- it has a lot of mistakes I am sure but it was my first attempt at a template. You can see how it looks on here KCW or look at the screwed up template page here Template:2009_major_league_soccer_season_table. It doesn't have to stay on any pages, maybe someone will chime in on what they think it could become or where it might be best suited. Morry32 ( talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I also support the use of the standings template, and would approve of it for each set of standings. Even if it isn't transcluded anywhere but this article, as there aren't team season articles like in other sports, it keeps the large amounts of edits off this page, and definitely helps. Grsz 11 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am now confused as why the Template isn't being used on the article now? I've seen the corrections being made to the article's current wording but no explanation why the template hasn't be put back up since Grant removed it. Isn't it simple enough to use the new wording on the template and put it back up? I saw where Grant had said that we decided to include it on clubs' season pages but not on the league season page- that just seems silly as this discussion began here and it was always my intent for it to eventually end up on the league's season page if it were found to bring the same information as the current page. Morry32 ( talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This suggestion to change to standings was brought up on April 9th and was implemented on April 15th. That is nowhere near enough time to rationally discuss a change to something that had no objections for the year+ that it was in place. I just don't understand why 2 of the 15 teams should hold this article hostage because they want to have redundant information on their season articles. KC and Sounders fans, look at Toronto FC's 2009 season page. They are able to get by with only a points summary for their team and then have a link to this article underneath if someone wanted to look at the entire table. You 2 teams are also making it harder to update the standings by forcing a person to have to go to 4 separate articles to fully update after each week (Both conference standings, the overall table, and the results table and goalscorers list). That is completely unfair, especially since none of you calling for change are actually planing on updating everything. You just want everything to be beamed to your season articles. Also, regardless of whether we change the standings or not, these current templates look like poop. Plain and simple. There is no reason why the overall standings template needs to be sortable. The eastern and western conference templates also look like poop because if I was looking at them for the first time, I would simply think that the person who made these templates didn't have a clue what he was doing and bolded the second line by mistake. The colors that are present on the overall standings are needed because the MLS playoff qualification process can be confusing, especially to the uninitiated. These current templates are simply confusing and must improve if we are ever going to use them. To conclude, this change should not be rammed through and I would hope that you would all agree to revert to the system that was used for over a year with no complaints until this has been discussed for more than a week and by more than 3 or 4 people.
Spydy13 (
talk) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Twice now I have removed the line about Real Madrid- Twice people have put it back, I brought a reference to the table that MLS has been looking to Villarreal and now that has failed. I think it is obvious we should remove the entire speculation of who the opponent will be since no one knows and the reference being used to outdated. Morry32 ( talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What a lively discussion! Given the disparate nature of the previous thread (laced with accusations and some personal attacks) I thought it might be nice to start fresh with this discussion. Unfortunately, a participant in the discussion has been
banned for 1 month as has his sockpuppet relative. Regardless, I'll try to summarize all points made and see if we can't come to a semi-official consensus on the matter and avoid further reverts at some later date:
Proposed reasons in favor of using 3 standings templates
Proposed reasons against the use of 3 standings templates
Okay, I think that's about it for the summary of all the points made. All arguments in the first group appear to be the consensus between Morry32, Bobblehead, Grsz11, and myself. All arguments in the second group (against) came from Grant and his relative. However, remember that this is not a vote, but does not require all to be 100% in agreement. Please comment... -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should look to resolve the matter at hand before we talk about any other changes that may or may not be needed for this article. The original point of this whole discussion was to talk about changing to templates, NOT to change a bunch of things in the article. I would hope that those in favor of the change to templates would be willing to leave the rest of the things as they were if the templates are installed. You would still be winning in this scenario because you would have got your change that allows information to be sent to your team articles, even if you are not involved in the update process. I guess I just don't understand why we have to screw with something that had no complaints. I think that this is the civil way to solve this manner and move forward without further edit-warring. Spydy13 ( talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Switch to templates for both Eastern and Western Conferences and the Overall Table. Allow for in-line coloring, but exclude linking to season-specific articles until that matter can be discussed further.
2.Revert the summary of the standings to what they were before Grsz11 began to screw with them. No objections had been made previously.
3.Keep coloring and explanations on the Eastern and Western Conference tables until further discussion can be had. No objections had been made previously.
I hope that these things can be agreed to quickly so that tensions can be resolved. This is the fair way to do this. Trying to change the other things before they have been discussed is just as bad as what Grant has done in the past. Spydy13 ( talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What is everyone's thoughts on coloring the schedules on the team articles for wins, losses, and ties? As an example, I've created a copy of the D.C. United schedule in my sandbox for you to see what it looks like. -- Bobblehead (rants) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with the "+" symbol for positive goal difference? 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiJG? ( talk • contribs)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on 2009 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090420&content_id=242000&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090518&content_id=255090&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090629&content_id=5601570&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090908&content_id=6854858&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2Fmls%2F2009%2F06%2F28%2Fmls_fantul_5300473_400K.wmv&w_id=1222930&catCode=top_plays&type=v_free&gid=2009%2F06%2F28%2Fcormls-seamls-1&_mp=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2F%2Fmls%2F2009%2F05%2F26%2Fmls_4736801_400K.wmv&w_id=1088495&catCode=shows&type=v_free&_mp=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 34 external links on 2009 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090413&content_id=239345&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090504&content_id=248158&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090511&content_id=251760&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090601&content_id=5089340&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://columbus.crew.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20090615&content_id=5342786&vkey=pr_coc&fext=.jsp&team=t102{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090713&content_id=5864192&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090713&content_id=5864192&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090720&content_id=5959930&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090817&content_id=6471450&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090831&content_id=6717528&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090914&content_id=6960970&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20091012&content_id=7441062&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090430&content_id=246619&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090902&content_id=6755036&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20091002&content_id=7286100&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20091029&content_id=7575010&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w_id=1161000&w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2Fmls%2F2009%2F06%2F13%2Fmls_arisrc_5036031_400K.wmv&catCode=top_plays&gid=2009%2F06%2F13%2Fnermls-kcwmls-1&vid=1&mid=200906135036031&cid=200906135036031&fid=top_plays400&v=2&type=v_free&spons=&_mp=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2Fmls%2F2009%2F06%2F15%2Fmls_5061659_800K.wmv&w_id=1167276&catCode=shows&type=v_free&_mp=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5801667{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6146083{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6267399{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6403789{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6529331{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6639353{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6765643{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6902671{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7047893{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7071611When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Major League Soccer season article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I understand that MLS is not the most reliable in terms of it's attendance but removing my addition without discussion might be a bit far reaching- Those stats came directly from MLS and their website, as do most all the other information included within the article, should we remove it all at a whim? Should we go remove all attendance data from MLS team articles under the same thinking? I think I will revert it back into being included- This is in response to Grant removing my attendance addition to the infobox. Morry32 ( talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How long should this process take? Should we take this to a higher power? Thanks Morry32 ( talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add information on the meaning of the abbreviations in the Statistics and Standings sections? Many aren't obvious from context, at least not to us Americans. What is SHTS (if SVS+GA doesn't seem to equal SHTS), for example? It's not clear on other websites; anything I guess add would just be a guess. Bennetto ( talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was perusing the MLS articles and noticed that there really wasn't a convention on how the season articles should be named, so I started a discussion on the USA/Canada Footy Wikiproject. If you with to join in the discussion, you may do so here. Thanks! -- Bobblehead (rants) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
are bad. The link should be in the prose, and in most cases they already are. Grsz 11 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering how people might feel about a template like this one Template:2009_AL_Central_standings for our current season? It could easily be placed on each club's season page and require that only it be edited/updated rather than each page. I personally don't know much about making these sort of things but I would like to see one made, if no one else steps up I would probably just find one to alter. Morry32 ( talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the template- it has a lot of mistakes I am sure but it was my first attempt at a template. You can see how it looks on here KCW or look at the screwed up template page here Template:2009_major_league_soccer_season_table. It doesn't have to stay on any pages, maybe someone will chime in on what they think it could become or where it might be best suited. Morry32 ( talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I also support the use of the standings template, and would approve of it for each set of standings. Even if it isn't transcluded anywhere but this article, as there aren't team season articles like in other sports, it keeps the large amounts of edits off this page, and definitely helps. Grsz 11 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am now confused as why the Template isn't being used on the article now? I've seen the corrections being made to the article's current wording but no explanation why the template hasn't be put back up since Grant removed it. Isn't it simple enough to use the new wording on the template and put it back up? I saw where Grant had said that we decided to include it on clubs' season pages but not on the league season page- that just seems silly as this discussion began here and it was always my intent for it to eventually end up on the league's season page if it were found to bring the same information as the current page. Morry32 ( talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This suggestion to change to standings was brought up on April 9th and was implemented on April 15th. That is nowhere near enough time to rationally discuss a change to something that had no objections for the year+ that it was in place. I just don't understand why 2 of the 15 teams should hold this article hostage because they want to have redundant information on their season articles. KC and Sounders fans, look at Toronto FC's 2009 season page. They are able to get by with only a points summary for their team and then have a link to this article underneath if someone wanted to look at the entire table. You 2 teams are also making it harder to update the standings by forcing a person to have to go to 4 separate articles to fully update after each week (Both conference standings, the overall table, and the results table and goalscorers list). That is completely unfair, especially since none of you calling for change are actually planing on updating everything. You just want everything to be beamed to your season articles. Also, regardless of whether we change the standings or not, these current templates look like poop. Plain and simple. There is no reason why the overall standings template needs to be sortable. The eastern and western conference templates also look like poop because if I was looking at them for the first time, I would simply think that the person who made these templates didn't have a clue what he was doing and bolded the second line by mistake. The colors that are present on the overall standings are needed because the MLS playoff qualification process can be confusing, especially to the uninitiated. These current templates are simply confusing and must improve if we are ever going to use them. To conclude, this change should not be rammed through and I would hope that you would all agree to revert to the system that was used for over a year with no complaints until this has been discussed for more than a week and by more than 3 or 4 people.
Spydy13 (
talk) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Twice now I have removed the line about Real Madrid- Twice people have put it back, I brought a reference to the table that MLS has been looking to Villarreal and now that has failed. I think it is obvious we should remove the entire speculation of who the opponent will be since no one knows and the reference being used to outdated. Morry32 ( talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What a lively discussion! Given the disparate nature of the previous thread (laced with accusations and some personal attacks) I thought it might be nice to start fresh with this discussion. Unfortunately, a participant in the discussion has been
banned for 1 month as has his sockpuppet relative. Regardless, I'll try to summarize all points made and see if we can't come to a semi-official consensus on the matter and avoid further reverts at some later date:
Proposed reasons in favor of using 3 standings templates
Proposed reasons against the use of 3 standings templates
Okay, I think that's about it for the summary of all the points made. All arguments in the first group appear to be the consensus between Morry32, Bobblehead, Grsz11, and myself. All arguments in the second group (against) came from Grant and his relative. However, remember that this is not a vote, but does not require all to be 100% in agreement. Please comment... -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should look to resolve the matter at hand before we talk about any other changes that may or may not be needed for this article. The original point of this whole discussion was to talk about changing to templates, NOT to change a bunch of things in the article. I would hope that those in favor of the change to templates would be willing to leave the rest of the things as they were if the templates are installed. You would still be winning in this scenario because you would have got your change that allows information to be sent to your team articles, even if you are not involved in the update process. I guess I just don't understand why we have to screw with something that had no complaints. I think that this is the civil way to solve this manner and move forward without further edit-warring. Spydy13 ( talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Switch to templates for both Eastern and Western Conferences and the Overall Table. Allow for in-line coloring, but exclude linking to season-specific articles until that matter can be discussed further.
2.Revert the summary of the standings to what they were before Grsz11 began to screw with them. No objections had been made previously.
3.Keep coloring and explanations on the Eastern and Western Conference tables until further discussion can be had. No objections had been made previously.
I hope that these things can be agreed to quickly so that tensions can be resolved. This is the fair way to do this. Trying to change the other things before they have been discussed is just as bad as what Grant has done in the past. Spydy13 ( talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What is everyone's thoughts on coloring the schedules on the team articles for wins, losses, and ties? As an example, I've created a copy of the D.C. United schedule in my sandbox for you to see what it looks like. -- Bobblehead (rants) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with the "+" symbol for positive goal difference? 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiJG? ( talk • contribs)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on 2009 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090420&content_id=242000&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090518&content_id=255090&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090629&content_id=5601570&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090908&content_id=6854858&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2Fmls%2F2009%2F06%2F28%2Fmls_fantul_5300473_400K.wmv&w_id=1222930&catCode=top_plays&type=v_free&gid=2009%2F06%2F28%2Fcormls-seamls-1&_mp=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2F%2Fmls%2F2009%2F05%2F26%2Fmls_4736801_400K.wmv&w_id=1088495&catCode=shows&type=v_free&_mp=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 34 external links on 2009 Major League Soccer season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090413&content_id=239345&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090504&content_id=248158&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090511&content_id=251760&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090601&content_id=5089340&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://columbus.crew.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20090615&content_id=5342786&vkey=pr_coc&fext=.jsp&team=t102{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090713&content_id=5864192&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090713&content_id=5864192&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090720&content_id=5959930&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090817&content_id=6471450&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090831&content_id=6717528&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090914&content_id=6960970&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20091012&content_id=7441062&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090430&content_id=246619&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090902&content_id=6755036&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20091002&content_id=7286100&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20091029&content_id=7575010&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w_id=1161000&w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2Fmls%2F2009%2F06%2F13%2Fmls_arisrc_5036031_400K.wmv&catCode=top_plays&gid=2009%2F06%2F13%2Fnermls-kcwmls-1&vid=1&mid=200906135036031&cid=200906135036031&fid=top_plays400&v=2&type=v_free&spons=&_mp=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F11504%2Fwmv%2Fmlbmls.download.akamai.com%2F11504%2F2009%2Fopen%2Fmls%2F2009%2F06%2F15%2Fmls_5061659_800K.wmv&w_id=1167276&catCode=shows&type=v_free&_mp=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5801667{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6146083{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6267399{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6403789{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6529331{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6639353{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6765643{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6902671{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7047893{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7071611When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)