Template talk:Sporting Kansas City

Thought i'd touch up on the template. Great job for doing this. Hope the Wizards and MLS can be as big as the Chiefs and Royals and KC someday. Conman33 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to add the seasons tab at the bottom- I am not terribly skilled in Wikipedia however I am making the pages for each season- slowly Morry32 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The war over Kansas or Missouri has been resolved by the Wiki Football Project- it is agreed to make it Kansas City and no state for the time being- Stop changing it back and worth and screwing up other changes that have been made between your "undo"s wars.Morry32 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:NYCWikiKid, not trying to edit war here, but it was perfectly fine as it was. Some of your edits were also wrong, such as listing the team as the Kansas City Wiz as being the name from 1995 through 2010. It was only the Wiz for the 1996 season, then changed to the Wizards til 2010. The team didn't exist in 1995. Also, even though I live nearby it, the Blue Valley Sports Complex doesn't count as a stadium. It has only hosted a handful of games. Orlando City should have USL after it. MLS conference champions and conference titles are not seen by the club as honors. If it isn't on the wall, (image here pre-2012 US Open Cup), it's not a major honor. Thanks for trying to change it and for referring to the talk page, but it was right how it was (other than the colors, which I will change back). Elisfkc (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elisfkc. First off, the issue with the previous template and that of several is inconsistency of arrangement. I improved this and others to create a consistent layout. Second, I do know about the Kansas City Wiz and the Kansas City Wizards and their years. I only did not mention the Kansas City Wiz because it was easier for people to read as both names were undoubtedly similar. Regardless, that very minor discrepancy is corrected. In terms of the clubs founding, in this case, you are mistaken. The club was found in 1995 and as this template is about the club, the year is placed as 1995 as that is when it was officially found. Also, Blue Valley sports complex is mentioned because the club has used it for the US Open Cup for numerous games and have also used the pitch for practice purposes. It is part of the sports facilities section, not stadium. The Sports facilities category encompasses and defines it. Next, Orlando City SC does not need to include USL next to it, because it already links to the specific club. It is about affiliated teams (clubs), not affiliated leagues. It is unnecessary. However, if you truly believe that this is of great importance, I will include it as a compromise. Conference championships are also honors. This concept of mentioning "major honors" is an opinion. Honors list all honors earned by the team in their respective league that are earned in league play which is fact. As you mention, you are not trying to edit war, but I asked anyone interested in discussing to do so here. I am fixing the details of the name Kansas City Wiz and inserting the USL Pro in parenthesis. Any other thoughts, let's discuss here and together we can figure out what's best. NYCWikiKid (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no one asking for the changes on here, but I'll work with you on this. I see your point on Blue Valley Sports Complex. For the other arguments: if the team doesn't reconize it as a honor, it shouldn't be recognized. The color format you changed it to is wrong. The history part where you put KC Wiz, Wizards, and Sporting is redundant in my mind. The Honors and Seasons part shouldn't be collapsible. No reason to put Major League Soccer under Seasons, as the team hasn't played anywhere else and isn't looking to. Players line also seems redundant. Same with having colors under Culture (that's the template's colors), which can just be listing the culture. Other topics/Related Articles falls under All articles on the first line. I have made the changes as such, without hitting undo on your version. I think what I submitted is the best compromise we are going to get. Elisfkc (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elisfkc. In truth, from what I see, the only real compromise you made was to include Blue Valley Sports Complex in the old version of the template...

E, You say that the team does not recognize the conference titles. Where are you getting this specific information from? The club's FO? Sporting Kansas City's official website actually list some of the achievements they have gained from 2010 and on, under the Sporting Kansas City name only: Read here. They mention conference finalist, but notice that they don't even mention the MLS Championships the club won in 2000, their honor as 2004 MLS Cup finalist, and the 2004 and 2012 US Open Cup Championships. Should we go ahead and omit those also and simply keep the 2011 conference finalist because that is all they acknowledge? (I am being hypothetical and using friendly sarcasm; - of course we are not going to do this). I hope you can see the point that I am making and why all honors related to league play (not friendlies) and international competition should be mentioned. A list of the club's achievements are also distinguished here on Wikipedia.

The history part that I placed really has everything to do with the club having three team names. Each time a team name is introduced there are legal procedures taken for the new identity. Again, notice how Sporting Kansas does not even mention their awards from 1997 and on. But the club itself is exactly one.

Regarding collapsible or not, that is something of preference and that doesn't bother me. If you like it without, then that is fine.

Major League Soccer was placed under seasons because the template is about the club and not the league (this goes for all templates). The club itself can have any individual teams they want in multiple leagues, whether indoor or outdoor. MLS is there so readers can distinctly know in which league the specific years mentioned were played at. Also, the club choosing to play elsewhere, or as you said isn't looking to, is something that is somewhat of an opinion. I am not disputing the contrary, but neither you or I can know for certain what the club wants to do. But the fact still remains that the years the club has fielded the team are from Major League Soccer and should be categorized under it as it pertains to that point in history.

The players category I introduced was not redundant as it lists three separate parts: Current Players, All-time roster, and Notable former players. Now all you currently have with the old version is the word players which only links to the current roster. And what about former players, as well as the entire list of players who have played at SKC for 18 years?

Colors and badge was placed under culture because part of the culture of any club is their colors. Linking to it helps readers understand what they represent, not just what shades they see. They are chosen for a reason. Their crest is also designed in a specific way, which readers would like to discover more about as well. Also, the Supporters were listed and linked in one group so readers can see all of them and read up on their existence. Now, you just listed several supporters groups with no links and there is no real understanding of what they are or mean. (Try not to think as a someone who knows about soccer or specifically about this team, but someone who is interested in learning about it and them, so you can place yourself in their shoes and others alike who are looking to explore further).

Again, I don't know which compromise you thought we made as we didn't really finish talking. You just simply placed the old version and inserted Blue Valley sports complex. (Good start). I do believe that what is currently up is missing key details about the history of the club and it does not allow for the general readers to dive into further knowledge. Though you say that no one asked for the template to be developed, I did not know that in order for an article to be improved we have to wait for someone to request it. At that pace, the majority of articles on Wiki would remain without any improvements. ElisfKC, seriously, I think we are both trying to keep a detailed template that can guide readers to specific points about the club. Based on what I have just said, let's try to work together on improving the old and making it better. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)