Talk:National Independent Soccer Association

Third Party Sources

Lets get some help with third party sources to make this a stronger article. The ones I've found have been too blog-ish.Loftybunch1 (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There's the Midfield Press interview, which might be helpful; but I agree. This might've been prematurely launched without enough to include or sources to back it up. I think it is dubious at best to include "promotes to" and

"relegates to" in the info box. Everything I've seen is either blue-sky proposals to happen "eventually" or pure conjecture on the part of bloggers. Pirmas697 (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Clubs

I think it'd be worth it to clear the clubs box and start fresh with San Diego 1904. I'll do some digging, but I recall reading that Chattanooga was "accepted" by the league, but never actually applied or had retracted their offer. The next couple months in the US soccer world are going to be confusing and ever-changing, and I think having a wiki page with info that is way out of date isn't going to help anyone. Pirmas697 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Chattanooga is actively pursuing NPSL Pro, and no longer a part of the NISA push at the moment. Recent interviews with the new NISA president have confirmed San Diego 1904, and stated the remaining clubs will be unveiled shortly. Sounds like things were wiped completely after Wilt left. NorthOnt001 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Oakland Roots SC

Rediscovered that this article has been recreated and added to this page. I expected there to be a league announcement that the team was an official expansion team, but found only that the team announced an intent to join the NISA. It seems a little premature to say that they will be a part of the league. Jay eyem (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Nav Box

Going to be setting up a basic template for a NISA nav box tomorrow, unless someone wants to beat me to it today. WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGEPirmas697 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nav box is up and added to relevant pages Pirmas697 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Kits

As kits become available, let me know as I can dedicate some time to making, uploading, and implementing the designs so that all the clubs look as professional as possible. Pirmas697 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pirmas697:, please don't include team, sponsor or kit logos when you do create the kits. On the English project, it has been determined that doing so is generally a copyright violation. That includes Adidas and other logos. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: While I was aware of the first two, I am rather surprised that the low-res manufacturer's logo would be anything other than fair use - no different than the crest in the infobox or a movie poster. However, I won't belabor the point; Moving forward I shall avoid the manufacturer's logo as well. Is there a page with the guidelines you can link me to? I'm especially interested in the grey zone presented by, for example, Kappa, who on some kits use their logo as much as a feature of the design of the kit as a logo. On Glentoran's 17-18 kits, the logo appears nearly twenty times across all three pieces of the kit. Pirmas697 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a good place to start: Template:Football kit#Best practice. "Club badges, sponsor logos, and manufacturer logos should never be included". I think it's more of a convention (do we really need to arrange 7 pixels into a crude Nike logo) than a copyright issue. BLAIXX 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

From the designer side, the logo is often the least difficult portion. Just copy, paste, and replace the colors. Certainly no harder than all the new sublimated designs that are flooding the market these days. /kit designer rant over. Pirmas697 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

From the legal side, the logo is copyrighted. It should not be used on the English project. It's why some kits have a lower-case and upper-case version on commons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Do NISA players meet WP:Footy notability standards?

NISA is a labelled a professional league and a tier 3 league on par with USL League One. Do the players making a league appearance for NISA clubs meet WP:Footy notability guidelines? I'd assume so, but can't find confirmation anywhere. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically NISA players would meet WP:NFOOTY: "Players who have played ... in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". That being said, we should still use common sense and WP:V, WP:RS given that NISA has not received a ton of news coverage (that I have observed). BLAIXX 15:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Do they, I am not sure I see NISA at WP:FPL. Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

They are considered a professional league by the United States Soccer Federation at Division 3. The USSF only sanctions professional leagues but doesn't make a distinction of "fully professional". WP:FPL does not actually define "fully professional" either and notes that its list is incomplete. BLAIXX 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, this has been brought up at WT:FPL before, and the consensus has been against its inclusion as a fully-professional league. Players will still need to meet WP:GNG anyway, so if you can do that I say go for it. Jay eyem (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to where consensus was reached? The newest discussion on WT:FPL hasn't concluded yet. Perhaps its best to move this discussion there? BLAIXX 12:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Former Clubs: Miami FC

Ottawa Fury FC exercises right to relocate USL Championship franchise rights after cross-border sanctioning was not received for 2020 https://www.uslchampionship.com/news_article/show/1070305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anttipng (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Former Clubs: Fury

Do we have any confirmation on Fury being out? Or is it conjecture? Not saying it isn't the case or the inevitability, just haven't personally seen a source on the matter. Pirmas697 (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well they formally announced they were withdrawing from the Fall season and it has been complete radio silence since then. At this point I think we'd need proof that they ARE returning to the league. BLAIXX 16:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Things this far down in the US soccer pyramid are always 100% certain, until they're not (cf. Miami FC). I'd still want to at least get some evidence that the Fury have been left behind by the league before moving them into "former". Pirmas697 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New York City Map

If any more New York City teams are announced, as is currently rumored, I have an inset map of just New York City prepared (basically how the Premier League deals with London). Pirmas697 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiatuses

@ColeTrain4EVER: With regards to hiatuses. I am okay with including the teams in the count, but I am wary of including them with the rest of the active teams, as the purpose of any wikipedia article is to provide up-to-date information for folks who might be seeking it and in this case it's there's 10 teams affiliated with the league and 2 of them are on hiatus. A more accurate count would be, "8 active, 2 on hiatus" but that's getting messy for the space in the infobox so I don't really want to do that. The other thing on my mind is that a) Toronto FC II is affiliated with a full MLS member, and thus the chances of surviving the hiatus are much higher than either of the teams we have on hiatus and b) just because USL-wiki is doing it, doesn't mean it's the right way. Pirmas697 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Independent Cup, GCPL partnership, & "Regular Season Champions."

Some parts I was wondering about. First of all, should we make a new section regarding the NISA Independent Cup or should we just include it with the history portion? The same goes for the GCPL partnership that was announced. Should that just be part of the history portion or should a new section or sub-section be made? Finally, when I made the "Champions" section I included a part called "Regular Season" - for the team that finished the season as the best overall team. Should that be there, and furthermore should Miami or LA Force be awarded that honor? Miami FC never claims to be the Fall 2019 Regular Season champions anyway. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The usual process would be to start it in a section and when the content for it becomes large enough, we spin it into its own section. MOS:LAYOUT states that, "very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose", so I don't think it makes sense to add it if it's going to be short. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Announced Markets"

I haven't heard or seen serious discussion regarding either of the announced markets in quite a while, and given that we're not putting Maryland Bobcats on this page until they're properly accepted by the league and USSF, I don't think we should have the markets either. Any strong reasons why I shouldn't remove them? Pirmas697 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

In "quite a while" what timescale are you referencing (with COVID-19 in view). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Last updates predate COVID by quite a while as far as I am aware. I'd also point out there's no public ownership group or team waiting in the wings, it's literally just an announcement of official interest in a market. Maryland Bobcats isn't included because, even though they've applied for sanctioning, they haven't actually been approved by USSF. The two markets are like four or five steps behind them. Pirmas697 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick note here, I only advocated Maryland not be on here because they haven't been acknoleged by NISA. Example, the NJ Teamsters are now on the association's website. Maryland isn't. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear - I back that up fully. Unless a team is approved, they don't belong in the list. Pirmas697 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Update on this - "CT United" was an ASL team that was apparently joining, but some research by a user on the NISA subreddit shows that their owner stop listing himself as involved with the team in March which was around when the team webpage went down. CT United's twitter has been inactive since 2016. There's no Providence ownership group even a rumored one as far as I am aware. Pirmas697 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact, when you clicked on the Connecticut team's link on the NISA web page you used to go to a "More info coming soon" holder page. When you ispected the code there were a few references to CT United. Also CT United FC has an awful Wikipedia page. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be a different "CT United FC", but I'm not convinced. The Fury were also an ASL team that made an abortive attempt to join NISA. Pirmas697 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey maybe we should talk about the Chicago announcement along with this. There was a NISA press release but like Maryland it only was that they "applied" and have not been accepted yet. Peter Wilt even gave an interview where he said the application still needs to be reviewed by the league. Should they get a spot on the map / table? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Table idea for Non-Active Announced Markets / Bids

Club	Location	Announced	Notes
NISA Connecticut	Connecticut	October 15, 2018	Inactive, was related to American Soccer League side CT United FC
NISA Providence	Providence, Rhode Island	2018	Inactive, ownership group was lead by David Borts which previously owned Rhode Island Oceaneers
NISA Baton Rouge	Baton Rouge, Louisiana	June 10, 2019	Inactive, originally located in Central Florida (Daytona Beach) before relocating

Thoughts on this for the main page so we can keep track of expansions that NISA has officially recognized that never took the field? I don't think this should include things like Astoria Knights FC or Palm Beach Breakers / Miami Beach CF which have either shown interest or were rumored to have applied to NISA, but nothing concrete was ever seen. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a table for non-active franchises, probably better to just list the announcement of them in the history section. As for bids, I'd recommend waiting until the NISA, itself, announces those said clubs. Just like with the Chicago club, the league only announced an owner being interested that expressed joining the league. Though, I'll admit, it seems likely for Maryland Bobcats FC and a Miami team to join sometime soon. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We should limit the inclusion of non-announced (i.e. non-USSF approved) teams and markets to the history section. Otherwise all we're doing is inflating the list, and who does that help? It might make the league look better, but that's absolutely not the point of an encyclopedic article. Bobcats, NISA-Chicago will get added after USSF approval, which for Bobcats at least should be in the next couple of months. Pirmas697 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I think my only reasoning was that MLS has a whole page in regards to expansion which includes the failed attempts (IE: Expansion of Major League Soccer). But looking at both USL Championship and League One, neither have a similar section. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Chicago

@ColeTrain4EVER:, @ThatOhioGuy: - Should Chicago be on this list? Per previous discussions I'd say "no". It's just an announced market like Baton Rouge, Connecticut, and Providence. I think the only reason people are giving it any credence right now is Wilt's involvement, but from a neutral standpoint, that shouldn't matter. Pirmas697 (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's just an announced team that is "in the works" or "in talks" they aren't confirmed to be joining. For instance, we all probably agree the Maryland Bobcats will jump over (after applying) and odds are the NISA will accept them. However, you wouldn't add them now because they only applied for membership. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 19:15

The question becomes, what do we do with Atlanta SC, they are listed on the map on the website. Walmart Frog (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

They're not active and honestly the fact that NISA's official pages still shows them is evidence enough as to why we need to not include "announced markets" on this page. Pirmas697 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-opening this discussion. Chicago has been accepted but has no details other than a CEO, COO and a market. No name. No colors. No venue. I'm still considering it an announced market. Pirmas697 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@ColeTrain4EVER: Looks like we have a pretty decent Chicago source here to start working on the article.. Now if only they could drop a name and maybe a logo. Pirmas697 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First thing I thought when I posted that to reddit lol. Honestly, a name would be the last barrier I have before I make the page myself. I'm still just super against pages like USL East Bay (which I got redirected) or the former Miami MLS team and the like. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

When to Add Teams to the List

A short guide that all you would-be editors probably won't read: basically what I'm running off of is a team needs two of three things:

1. NISA Approval
2. USSF Sanctioning
3. Notability enough for a wikipedia article.
   • General Notability Guideline
   • Project Football Notability Expansion

For example as of writing, Maryland Bobcats FC has 1 and 3. They will likely pickup 2 shortly. They have been approved by NISA, and they are notable enough to have a wikipedia article preceding their addition. The same goes for New Jersey Teamsters FC. Say what you will about the issues they're having, they're approved by NISA and notable for a wikipedia article before joining NISA. The Chicago group has 1, but lacks 2 and 3. This will probably change very quickly, I'm not denying that. But I want consistency and commonsense applied to why teams are added to the list and why simple market announcements are excluded. I want to avoid folks "fluffing up" the article as part of the "Soccer Warz™". We must adhere to encyclopedic neutrality and if you can't, please don't edit the article. Pirmas697 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel like Chicago NISA does fit #3 though, Peter Wilt has helped them do a lot of press in my opinion but I don't want to make a page for a team without a name. Guess once Moniker Madness is over then it can happen? It's kind of confusing. Flower City has had some local coverage but not sure if it fits Notability. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, once Chicago comes up with a name and some branding, I'm sure we'll get a release with significantly more info than has been dropped as of now which will make for a more substantive article, and as long as there's enough of both local coverage and independent national coverage (and not just the soccer blogs) it shouldn't be hard to make that case. Same with Flower City. I guess, in theory, NISA dropping a schedule that includes them or USOC dropping a schedule that includes them will also meet Project Football's notability. Pirmas697 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm kind of confused by Number 2. Have Queensboro FC or Austin FC been "approved by USSF"? I remember in early NISA (late 2019) when the association had provisional sanctioning that there was an announcement when Detroit, CFC, and Michigan got approved by USSF (this was separate from when they got accepted by the league by a few months). But now that NISA is a full member of USSF we aren't going to get those anymore (IE. USSF isn't going to double check our work). So is it really fair to have USSF approval as a thing? If I'm missing something please let me know. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: I saw what you said on Twitter about how MLS teams have a major buy-in lending credence. Does that also apply for Queensboro? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't maintain USL pages, so I wouldn't know. This argument that "well the USL editors have very lax standards" has been thrown at me a lot in the past 36 hours on Twitter after some NISA-supporters in the soccer warz got wind I was an editor, and it is very clear their only desire is the fluff the list so NISA looks better than USL to passing users. I do think USL gets away with a lot on here, and I do think it has something to do with MLS involvement (and being older on wikipedia in general), but as you pointed out in the "fully professional" lost talk page - USL doesn't meet those requirements any more than NISA does (or does not). Once Chicago drops a name, let's get them and Flower City on the list while also showing we weren't bullied into it, and I have a good source that there will be at least one more big announcement soon that will meet at least two of the three requirements, so they can get added as well when that happens. Pirmas697 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

One suggestion I'm going to say - just tell people they're allowed to make the pages in general. Like, a team page can exist for Chicago NISA (there's no barrier to do so and I've some real shoddy NPSL team pages that are still up). Peter Wilt's page can link to Chicago NISA, Rochester sports can link to Flower City, etc. Seems our debate is just having them on here for now. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My main issue is making sure folks don't fluff the article. If there's enough for whole articles, that's #3 - notability per wikipedia's guidelines, but I think we would actually get those articles written as concurrently as we reasonably can so it's not just red links or dead space. If there isn't enough to hold up a whole article, or we don't have the drive to write a whole article, then adding them is purely an act of embiggening the list. Maybe start with some drafts? See if there are any folks on the other Rochester teams willing to help out on that? Pirmas697 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think that's your job or prerogative (Not trying to be mean but more suggesting you're taking on too much). We both want to make NISA pages as nice as possible, but if people want to take a shot at making a page I'd rather see that interest/dedication than saying "no not yet". The mentality of "all the cool kids are doing it (ie. MLS & USL)" is pretty bad on wiki and leads to some weird trends spreading around, but at the same time having your application accepted by NISA (a full USSF member) might qualify you for #3 and getting a page. Over time it can be trimmed down if it has some fluff but I'd rather have people showing interest now ya know? Ask for forgiveness, not for permission and what not. The draft idea is fine though if you really want to take a leading roll on it but honestly if "Actual Soccer" (or whatever he/she is on Twitter) wants to take a shot I'd say let him. Personally I'd wait on Chicago NISA until they have a name and do Flower City but hey their call. Merry Christmas BTW. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying they should make those pages. I welcome their efforts 100% and will fully support as I usually do. I've never removed or rejected a draft or new page. But only one twitter user who was fighting with me actually showed any interest with helping on that sort of thing. When I gave another user tasks that would be helpful to work on, including creating drafts for Chicago and Rochester, the response was "I don't want to do that, that sounds like work." And frankly, I don't trust NISA's announcement process, especially not in the current COVID times, unless they're announcing actual teams that would have business ramifications if it was falsified or fell through. One NISA exec admitted to me that they can't scrub some teams off the map because of shareholder issues, and if they can't be transparent or trusted in removing defunct teams from their page, they can't be assumed to be transparent or trusted for adding new teams to their page. They can't have it both ways. And as for #3 coming from NISA acceptance - it would if NISA were "Fully Professional", which we know Project Football does not include them on that list. Since NISA is semi-professional (to Project Football's standards) being accepted by NISA does not guarantee notability. Anyway, yes, happy holidays and a festive new year to you and yours. Pirmas697 (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my mistake I was misunderstanding what you were saying. If people truly are just complaining about it not being on the main page but refuse to make the team pages themselves, that's really on them. Your points do hold merit, and even though I feel at odds with not trusting NISA while also editing wiki pages in regards to NISA I can't find any reason to disagree with you (especially if the sources from NISA say as you claim, plus we both know how bad NISA is at mundane things like stats). ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)