![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) 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. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
My understanding is that this is intended as a Division "1A" - similar to the Welsh Premier League which is the division 1 league for Wales despite having teams play in the (English) Premier League. I understand (and personally agree with) the instinct to label this as a second division league, but I don't think that view will be supported by the CSA when (if?) this is formally announced. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 13:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Source describing the CPL as a tier one league: http://www.bluebombers.com/2017/05/06/winnipeg-football-club-looks-bringing-professional-soccer-manitoba/ - this on top of numerous quotes from Montagliani and others either describing it as Division 1 or Division 1A. I have seen no sources thus far describing this as a Division 3 league in any sense of the word - please provide these sources if they exist. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Three sources I can find that talk about the CSA describing it as a Division 1 league in Canada:
The issue I have with calling it Division 3 is that two Canadian leagues already hold that designation - L1O and PLSQ. I get (and agree with) the comparisons to NASL & USL (though both are now D2), and if this league were an American league, I agree that it would probably be given a D2 or D3 designation based on its reported standards and level of play. The problem is that the CSA has its own (vague, arbitrary, and private) criteria for what D1, D2, and D3 look like, and it's not necessarily the same as what the US has (the last reference to CSA guidelines I can find is from a now-broken link from 2008, which states "Division I: Professional Leagues operating in Canada, or in Canada and other countries." Not exactly full of specifics). I agree that CPL will be of a lower quality than MLS, but the same could have been said for L1O or PLSQ in reference to USL, yet all those leagues are described as D3. Nevertheless, thank you for removing that line entirely. If it hasn't been formally designated as D1 by the CSA (as Forbes suggests), it shouldn't be in there, and the constant edit war was really getting annoying. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 03:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Peter Montopoli, the General Secretary of Canada Soccer, has confirmed it is division one of Canada, regardless of whether the talent level may be on par with USL/NASL. Case closed. [1]- Sixtrap ( talk) 10:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Swift Fox Two: @ Coppercanuck: Before creating articles for new clubs, please confirm that there are sufficient sources to sustain the article per WP:GNG. They don't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability as they have not played for a national cup for entry into the CONCACAF Champions League, and it's not clear that they will be eligible, so we have to fall back on GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Radagast: I saw your edit removing "FC" from Halifax Wanderers' team name. It seems to me that Halifax Wanderers FC is the common name. All their social media uses that form, including their website. While there does seem to be a discrepancy in media (Waking the Red uses FC, National Post doesn't) I think that the primary sources are fairly unambiguous, and we should defer to those. Blue jays ( talk) 20:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Sources that describe the club as simply "HFX Wanderers"
Suggestion: Keep the article titled "HFX Wanderers FC" but the infobox header should be just "HFX Wanderers" as is done on the Ottawa Fury FC, Atlanta United FC, and Orlando City SC pages. Wasialoneorinthehd ( talk) 03:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@ CanadaFever: @ SportsFan007: There seems to be a disagreement over the formatting of the table, let's discuss here, as I (and I suspect others) also have opinions on the matter. There seems to be 2 issues at hand here.
(1) The first is the founding date of FC Edmonton. The club was originally founded in 2009, was dissolved in 2017, and re-founded in 2018. Therefore, the question is whether it should be listed as 2009 or 2018. I think 2009 should be listed, as it is the same entity as the club founded in 2009. However, it may be useful to have an asterisk or other note below the table to clarify this. Alternatively, two separate columns could be used for founded and joined, like in many other sports leagues, producing the following:
Founded | Joined | First season |
---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | |
2009 | 2018 | 2019 |
2018 | 2019 |
This would also be helpful if Ottawa Fury FC does end up joining the CPL as some rumours have suggested.
(2) The second is whether the founding and first season years should be merged cells, or separate. I think it should be separate, as they were not all founded at the same time or in the same event. I also think it makes the table harder to understand especially after the first season when not nearly all teams will have the same founding team or year, making the merged cells more broken up and confusing. This is also inconsistent with every other sports/soccer league article I could find. UmpireRay ( talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I have not been clear enough, so I'll try and put the entirety of my position here so it can be more easily understood: The way we have been doing team founding is the date of their official unveiling/announcement date when the team name and logo is announced, and all teams are 2018 in that respect.
However, Blaixx pointed out that this is inconsistent with what other teams, such as Toronto FC do. The founding date is when the Toronto ownership group (MLSE) was awarded the team. I now agree with that as a guideline, and so Winnipeg and Hamilton's founding date would be in 2017 when they were awarded teams, and for York, Port City/Vancouver Island, Calgary, and Halifax, 2018 when they were awarded their teams.
This, however, re-raises the issue of FC Edmonton's founding date, and I think would justify it being listed as 2009, for the following reasons: FC Edmonton the team was originally founded in 2009. When, in 2017, they announced that they "ceased professional operations", the ownership group still existed, they still ran the academy, and worked towards the CPL team. This is just like Hamilton and Winnipeg, whose ownership groups were awarded teams in 2017, and then worked towards the CPL team unveiling in 2018. All that happened in 2018 for FC Edmonton was their official announcement/unveiling, not the creation of a new ownership group or other legal/corporate entity. Therefore, in my opinion, it would make sense to list FC Edmonton's founding date as 2009. UmpireRay ( talk) 03:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and dropped "FC" from the infobox headers of all the club pages with the exception of FC Edmonton since they are named specifically after their location. This is to get in line with club pages from leagues all around the world where "FC" or "SC" is included in the page title, but not in the infobox header.
Examples in similar leagues: Adelaide United FC, Brisbane Roar FC, Central Coast Mariners FC, Melbourne City FC, Melbourne Victory FC, Newcastle Jets FC, Perth Glory FC, Wellington Phoenix FC, Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Ottawa Fury FC, Oakville Blue Devils FC, Calgary Foothills FC, Orlando City SC, Minnesota United FC, Atlanta United FC, New York City FC, OKC Energy FC. - Wasialoneorinthehd ( talk) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The box on the top right says there will be 8 clubs but the table on Section 4 lists 7 clubs. EvanJ35 ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Am I wrong to think that there should be only one short name? SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
I believe it's time to start adding players, both signed and drafted to the team pages. Any thoughts on just using the "other" tag in the Football Squad Player template? -- Coppercanuck ( talk) 17:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should discuss what to do about the locations/cities for the clubs who play in a different city. These are York 9 FC who based in York Region and will play in Toronto, Cavalry FC based in Calgary playing in Foothills County, and Pacific FC playing in Langford. At the moment, which is listed is inconsistent across different articles. Some use the major city and then a footnote for where the stadium is, others the stadium municipality only, and some a mix of the two.
Based on other teams with similar situations such as MLS' Philadelphia Union (based in Chester) and Real Salt Lake (based in Sandy), the A-League's Western Melbourne FC, as well as NHL/MLB/NFL/NBA teams, I think that CPL clubs should use the city their stadium is in in tables such as the one in this and other articles, since that is the most accurate and consistent. The specific club articles can explain further, for example that Calgary FC plays in Foothills County in the Calgary Metropolitan Region or whatever the case may be. UmpireRay ( talk) 18:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the league have a more clear definition of what it means to be a foreign player that could be added to this page? I was under the impression that a foreign player was one that would be unable to represent the Canadian national team, yet Emery Welshman, who is cap-tied to Guyana, is listed as a domestic player. I know he has Canadian citizenship, so I think further clarification would be helpful. Jay eyem ( talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's one source that claims to know -- that it'll be a home-and-away: https://globalnews.ca/news/5201574/bob-young-canadian-premier-league-inaugural-match-hamilton/ -- see 8th paragraph. Inonit ( talk) 22:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
So this formerly orphaned article has been added to the page. Some updates are needed and it would be helpful if people contributed it to this in a similar fashion to List of foreign MLS players. This brings into question again about how the league determines foreign players, and what criteria the article should use. The MLS article only takes into consideration two things: 1. if they have played a regular season game and 2. if they are ineligible for Canada and the United States. Should this article use the same criteria? Jay eyem ( talk) 23:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
this sub-project cannot come up with their own rules. We should follow the rules that WP:FOTTY uses: Birth nation unless having been capped by another nation. Naturalization and "green cards" do not have any role in determining the nationality. Wikipedia is not a source for determining international spots on a club's roster. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
There's increasing evidence that CPL teams are not independent clubs, but very close to the franchise systems used in other North American leagues. For example, all CPL brands and logos are owned and registered by "CPL Soccer Holdings", just like the MLS ones are owned and registered by MLS (
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/trdmrks/srch/home).
The following sentence at the very beginning of the article - "The Canadian Premier League uses a club-based system, unlike the franchise-based system used in Major League Soccer and other North American sports leagues" - was added months before the start of the inaugural season, and it's based on an interview, not on facts. I think it should be removed. Thoughts?
Cristane (
talk)
21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I recently reordered the MLS team names in alphabetical order, as this is the only order that would make sense in this scenario. It was reverted with the explanation that it had been discussed and a consensus had been reached on this trivial subject. Later after rereading the section, I removed the team names listed under MLS, USL, and NASL, as they add nothing to the article. This was also reverted with the explanation that a consensus had been reached on including this odd team listing. Reading through the talk page I have found no evidence of any of these consensus claims. Seems to be some article ownership traits being displayed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.52.133 ( talk) 03:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Chubboturtle ( talk · contribs) has removed the runners-up twice now and has done so without explanation. Reporting the runners-up is a common thing to do in other articles that report on season performance, at least within this sport. I think it should stay. Without know why it's being removed, I can't argue against the rationale for its removal. Any comments from other editors? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe there should be.
Up until recently, I have been a non editing user. Recently some changes on the ATO club page have made me want to get involved.
What is the consensus?
Tamccullough ( talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Figure this is a good place to put this since it probably has a lot of page watchers. For those unaware, there was a recent RfC which basically came to the conclusion that simply playing a pro match (in any league) is not enough for an article anymore. That is, articles which are basically sourced only to stats pages/game reports/etc are not enough and meeting WP:FPL is no longer a thing. They should meet GNG and have a couple references of significant coverage beyond routine mentions per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#To_those_upset_with_sports_coverage_on_Wikipedia. There are a couple discussions in the recent archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football about it too. Basically an article would need more than citations to league match reports/soccerway/etc. Basically, it's okay to create an article after one appearance, but it just requires a higher quality of sourcing now to prove it meets notability guidelines. RedPatch ( talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Quebec City has not been granted an expansion club at present time, yet there is an ongoing attempt to state otherwise. A study has been initiated by Soccer Quebec but that is far from an granted expansion club. Ottawa, Saskatoon, Vancouver and Windsor have all been granted expansion cubs by the CSA and CanPL, have ownership or management in place, and a stadium deal in place or pending. Until the league states otherwise, Quebec City belongs with other potential locations. 2604:3D08:107F:8160:7D56:4AB7:8C85:BC5E ( talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have a season by season table in the results section of this article, or should it only exist on the Canadian Premier League records and statistics article like other more detailed information? RedBlueGreen93 ( talk) 18:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) 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. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
My understanding is that this is intended as a Division "1A" - similar to the Welsh Premier League which is the division 1 league for Wales despite having teams play in the (English) Premier League. I understand (and personally agree with) the instinct to label this as a second division league, but I don't think that view will be supported by the CSA when (if?) this is formally announced. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 13:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Source describing the CPL as a tier one league: http://www.bluebombers.com/2017/05/06/winnipeg-football-club-looks-bringing-professional-soccer-manitoba/ - this on top of numerous quotes from Montagliani and others either describing it as Division 1 or Division 1A. I have seen no sources thus far describing this as a Division 3 league in any sense of the word - please provide these sources if they exist. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Three sources I can find that talk about the CSA describing it as a Division 1 league in Canada:
The issue I have with calling it Division 3 is that two Canadian leagues already hold that designation - L1O and PLSQ. I get (and agree with) the comparisons to NASL & USL (though both are now D2), and if this league were an American league, I agree that it would probably be given a D2 or D3 designation based on its reported standards and level of play. The problem is that the CSA has its own (vague, arbitrary, and private) criteria for what D1, D2, and D3 look like, and it's not necessarily the same as what the US has (the last reference to CSA guidelines I can find is from a now-broken link from 2008, which states "Division I: Professional Leagues operating in Canada, or in Canada and other countries." Not exactly full of specifics). I agree that CPL will be of a lower quality than MLS, but the same could have been said for L1O or PLSQ in reference to USL, yet all those leagues are described as D3. Nevertheless, thank you for removing that line entirely. If it hasn't been formally designated as D1 by the CSA (as Forbes suggests), it shouldn't be in there, and the constant edit war was really getting annoying. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 03:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Peter Montopoli, the General Secretary of Canada Soccer, has confirmed it is division one of Canada, regardless of whether the talent level may be on par with USL/NASL. Case closed. [1]- Sixtrap ( talk) 10:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Swift Fox Two: @ Coppercanuck: Before creating articles for new clubs, please confirm that there are sufficient sources to sustain the article per WP:GNG. They don't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability as they have not played for a national cup for entry into the CONCACAF Champions League, and it's not clear that they will be eligible, so we have to fall back on GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Radagast: I saw your edit removing "FC" from Halifax Wanderers' team name. It seems to me that Halifax Wanderers FC is the common name. All their social media uses that form, including their website. While there does seem to be a discrepancy in media (Waking the Red uses FC, National Post doesn't) I think that the primary sources are fairly unambiguous, and we should defer to those. Blue jays ( talk) 20:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Sources that describe the club as simply "HFX Wanderers"
Suggestion: Keep the article titled "HFX Wanderers FC" but the infobox header should be just "HFX Wanderers" as is done on the Ottawa Fury FC, Atlanta United FC, and Orlando City SC pages. Wasialoneorinthehd ( talk) 03:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@ CanadaFever: @ SportsFan007: There seems to be a disagreement over the formatting of the table, let's discuss here, as I (and I suspect others) also have opinions on the matter. There seems to be 2 issues at hand here.
(1) The first is the founding date of FC Edmonton. The club was originally founded in 2009, was dissolved in 2017, and re-founded in 2018. Therefore, the question is whether it should be listed as 2009 or 2018. I think 2009 should be listed, as it is the same entity as the club founded in 2009. However, it may be useful to have an asterisk or other note below the table to clarify this. Alternatively, two separate columns could be used for founded and joined, like in many other sports leagues, producing the following:
Founded | Joined | First season |
---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | |
2009 | 2018 | 2019 |
2018 | 2019 |
This would also be helpful if Ottawa Fury FC does end up joining the CPL as some rumours have suggested.
(2) The second is whether the founding and first season years should be merged cells, or separate. I think it should be separate, as they were not all founded at the same time or in the same event. I also think it makes the table harder to understand especially after the first season when not nearly all teams will have the same founding team or year, making the merged cells more broken up and confusing. This is also inconsistent with every other sports/soccer league article I could find. UmpireRay ( talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I have not been clear enough, so I'll try and put the entirety of my position here so it can be more easily understood: The way we have been doing team founding is the date of their official unveiling/announcement date when the team name and logo is announced, and all teams are 2018 in that respect.
However, Blaixx pointed out that this is inconsistent with what other teams, such as Toronto FC do. The founding date is when the Toronto ownership group (MLSE) was awarded the team. I now agree with that as a guideline, and so Winnipeg and Hamilton's founding date would be in 2017 when they were awarded teams, and for York, Port City/Vancouver Island, Calgary, and Halifax, 2018 when they were awarded their teams.
This, however, re-raises the issue of FC Edmonton's founding date, and I think would justify it being listed as 2009, for the following reasons: FC Edmonton the team was originally founded in 2009. When, in 2017, they announced that they "ceased professional operations", the ownership group still existed, they still ran the academy, and worked towards the CPL team. This is just like Hamilton and Winnipeg, whose ownership groups were awarded teams in 2017, and then worked towards the CPL team unveiling in 2018. All that happened in 2018 for FC Edmonton was their official announcement/unveiling, not the creation of a new ownership group or other legal/corporate entity. Therefore, in my opinion, it would make sense to list FC Edmonton's founding date as 2009. UmpireRay ( talk) 03:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and dropped "FC" from the infobox headers of all the club pages with the exception of FC Edmonton since they are named specifically after their location. This is to get in line with club pages from leagues all around the world where "FC" or "SC" is included in the page title, but not in the infobox header.
Examples in similar leagues: Adelaide United FC, Brisbane Roar FC, Central Coast Mariners FC, Melbourne City FC, Melbourne Victory FC, Newcastle Jets FC, Perth Glory FC, Wellington Phoenix FC, Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Ottawa Fury FC, Oakville Blue Devils FC, Calgary Foothills FC, Orlando City SC, Minnesota United FC, Atlanta United FC, New York City FC, OKC Energy FC. - Wasialoneorinthehd ( talk) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The box on the top right says there will be 8 clubs but the table on Section 4 lists 7 clubs. EvanJ35 ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Am I wrong to think that there should be only one short name? SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
I believe it's time to start adding players, both signed and drafted to the team pages. Any thoughts on just using the "other" tag in the Football Squad Player template? -- Coppercanuck ( talk) 17:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should discuss what to do about the locations/cities for the clubs who play in a different city. These are York 9 FC who based in York Region and will play in Toronto, Cavalry FC based in Calgary playing in Foothills County, and Pacific FC playing in Langford. At the moment, which is listed is inconsistent across different articles. Some use the major city and then a footnote for where the stadium is, others the stadium municipality only, and some a mix of the two.
Based on other teams with similar situations such as MLS' Philadelphia Union (based in Chester) and Real Salt Lake (based in Sandy), the A-League's Western Melbourne FC, as well as NHL/MLB/NFL/NBA teams, I think that CPL clubs should use the city their stadium is in in tables such as the one in this and other articles, since that is the most accurate and consistent. The specific club articles can explain further, for example that Calgary FC plays in Foothills County in the Calgary Metropolitan Region or whatever the case may be. UmpireRay ( talk) 18:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the league have a more clear definition of what it means to be a foreign player that could be added to this page? I was under the impression that a foreign player was one that would be unable to represent the Canadian national team, yet Emery Welshman, who is cap-tied to Guyana, is listed as a domestic player. I know he has Canadian citizenship, so I think further clarification would be helpful. Jay eyem ( talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's one source that claims to know -- that it'll be a home-and-away: https://globalnews.ca/news/5201574/bob-young-canadian-premier-league-inaugural-match-hamilton/ -- see 8th paragraph. Inonit ( talk) 22:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
So this formerly orphaned article has been added to the page. Some updates are needed and it would be helpful if people contributed it to this in a similar fashion to List of foreign MLS players. This brings into question again about how the league determines foreign players, and what criteria the article should use. The MLS article only takes into consideration two things: 1. if they have played a regular season game and 2. if they are ineligible for Canada and the United States. Should this article use the same criteria? Jay eyem ( talk) 23:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
this sub-project cannot come up with their own rules. We should follow the rules that WP:FOTTY uses: Birth nation unless having been capped by another nation. Naturalization and "green cards" do not have any role in determining the nationality. Wikipedia is not a source for determining international spots on a club's roster. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
There's increasing evidence that CPL teams are not independent clubs, but very close to the franchise systems used in other North American leagues. For example, all CPL brands and logos are owned and registered by "CPL Soccer Holdings", just like the MLS ones are owned and registered by MLS (
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/trdmrks/srch/home).
The following sentence at the very beginning of the article - "The Canadian Premier League uses a club-based system, unlike the franchise-based system used in Major League Soccer and other North American sports leagues" - was added months before the start of the inaugural season, and it's based on an interview, not on facts. I think it should be removed. Thoughts?
Cristane (
talk)
21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I recently reordered the MLS team names in alphabetical order, as this is the only order that would make sense in this scenario. It was reverted with the explanation that it had been discussed and a consensus had been reached on this trivial subject. Later after rereading the section, I removed the team names listed under MLS, USL, and NASL, as they add nothing to the article. This was also reverted with the explanation that a consensus had been reached on including this odd team listing. Reading through the talk page I have found no evidence of any of these consensus claims. Seems to be some article ownership traits being displayed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.52.133 ( talk) 03:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Chubboturtle ( talk · contribs) has removed the runners-up twice now and has done so without explanation. Reporting the runners-up is a common thing to do in other articles that report on season performance, at least within this sport. I think it should stay. Without know why it's being removed, I can't argue against the rationale for its removal. Any comments from other editors? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe there should be.
Up until recently, I have been a non editing user. Recently some changes on the ATO club page have made me want to get involved.
What is the consensus?
Tamccullough ( talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Figure this is a good place to put this since it probably has a lot of page watchers. For those unaware, there was a recent RfC which basically came to the conclusion that simply playing a pro match (in any league) is not enough for an article anymore. That is, articles which are basically sourced only to stats pages/game reports/etc are not enough and meeting WP:FPL is no longer a thing. They should meet GNG and have a couple references of significant coverage beyond routine mentions per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#To_those_upset_with_sports_coverage_on_Wikipedia. There are a couple discussions in the recent archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football about it too. Basically an article would need more than citations to league match reports/soccerway/etc. Basically, it's okay to create an article after one appearance, but it just requires a higher quality of sourcing now to prove it meets notability guidelines. RedPatch ( talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Quebec City has not been granted an expansion club at present time, yet there is an ongoing attempt to state otherwise. A study has been initiated by Soccer Quebec but that is far from an granted expansion club. Ottawa, Saskatoon, Vancouver and Windsor have all been granted expansion cubs by the CSA and CanPL, have ownership or management in place, and a stadium deal in place or pending. Until the league states otherwise, Quebec City belongs with other potential locations. 2604:3D08:107F:8160:7D56:4AB7:8C85:BC5E ( talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have a season by season table in the results section of this article, or should it only exist on the Canadian Premier League records and statistics article like other more detailed information? RedBlueGreen93 ( talk) 18:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)