Talk:CenturyLink Field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Qwest Field)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article CenturyLink Field is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject College football (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Event Venues/Sports task force articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Football (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Seattle Sounders FC task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject National Football League (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as Low-importance).

Loudest stadiums[edit]

J. D. Redding 13:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) [ps., be nice if someone would put in the citations for this]

False starts[edit]

As a result the NFL has had representatives monitoring the noise levels which in conclusion came out negative.

I removed the above sentence because it was unreferenced and ambiguous. If someone has a citation as to what the NFL monitored, what the purpose of it was, and what the result was, feel free to put it back in. hateless 03:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

paul nenema-- (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)paul nenema

The NFL was monitoring whether crowd noise was being piped in over the public address system. The NFL has rather byzantine rules on what is or is not allowed when it comes to stadium noise (which might be worthy of its own article). The Vikings were once busted for pointing speakers at the visiting bench and plasting music at them "for the crowds entertainment" of course. Anyway, once play starts there can't be anything coming out of the stadium system that isn't something like "save your ass, we're all gonna die." If a team was found to do so intentionally (systems break have feedback get fixed etc) they would probably be fined some chunk of change. Goodell would think of something, there don't appear to be fixed standards. If it continued to be a problem they might lose draft picks. Perhaps absurdly, some of the other noise rules involve whether the team can employ cheerleaders to actually lead cheers (they can't). Which is a little sad in the case of the Seahawks as they used to have Bill "The Beerman" do just that back in the 80s. And I do remember the Kingdome being generally much louder than Qwest, the NFC Championship game which I think Fox unofficially measured peaking at 130+ dB was a routine kind of volume from the games I remember from my youth. Now some of that is bound to be bias on the part of my memory, but the impression remains strong. The allegation, which is uncommon but not unheard of (the colts have also be accused) was that crowd noise was being fed over the stadium speakers. The NFL found that wasn't happening. And indeed it was the skycam operation on primetime games that had to be changed as a result of the noise at Qwest (they added a light). The camera is suspented by guide wires, and they give or take up slack to move the camera. Apparently this is handled by radio, the guy who was supposed to take up the slack couldn't hear the direction because of the crowd noise, causing the camera to drop, nearly hitting 2 Seahawks players. One of which was Matt Hasslebeck. But if a random claim was made, then unsubstantiated, and forgoten, does that really merit inclusion?--Insancipitory (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a few editors have shown over the last month or so with their removal: False starts seen on the scoreboard during a game cannot be added here unless it is backed by a published source due to verification purposes. It also would be a pain to update it every week so it is best to leave it out. An update at the end of the season would be great but per game just doesn't seem like it is going to work.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


In a school trip a guide told us the other side of the stadium was open so the visiting team would have trouble playing if it rained/snowed because it would go in their face. Is this true? If it is should it go in the article? Jose Me (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the teams switch sides every quarter. The team that wins the coin toss can pick which side they will start on (or whether they get first possession). Cacophony (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Cacophony, you missed the point. The stadium design is balanced but part of the decision to have the visiting team's bench on the east side was because on hot days the home team would be in the shade and if there were blowing rain it would tend to impact the east sideline more. --Coz (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact during the glory days of the Kingdome it was the Seahawks which were on the east side, the visitors on the west.--Insancipitory (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WaMu Theatre[edit]

A redirect to a disambig page has been for the WaMu Theatre (which is also in Madison Square Garden in New York). There's no mention of the theatre in this article now. However I see the webpages that it exists. Somebody who is familiar with it might add a section. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I thought it was important to add that soccer games are played on grass at seahawks stadium. didn't add this but I know that the first time the added grass they removed the turf first. Does anybody know if they use palletized grass now like they do in Huston? I promise I will come back with a reference for the arguement over turf or grass at the stadium. It was a big deal at the time I don't know why I can't find an article now. I wouldn't mind if someone help me find one. 26, February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

sod is brought in for friendlies to meet international standards. It is already mentioned.Cptnono (talk)
Thanks I also read that the sounders will be using the field turf. did they get special permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like FieldTurf is accepted by FIFA up to a certain level. It isn't OK past preliminary rounds of international competitions but does have some recommended/star rating. I'm not sure of all the ins and outs but it basically looks like the best artificial surface but isn't as good as grass. If it starts costing Sounders FC overseas players or causing injuries it will go in the article. FieldTurf Haven't checked neutrality but some teams already use it.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear more details about the surface for soccer. The article seems to imply that they do play on the artificial turf, but that real grass is also brought in for certain games. An explanation of when they use real grass vs. artificial would be great--especially with any details as to how real grass gets put in. (I also noticed that they water the surface during halftime at soccer that the real grass they are watering or artificial? If the latter, why do they water it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Capacity (soccer)[edit]

An IP keeps on adjusting the capacity for Sounders games by a couple thousand. I am reverting but if there is a source that says otherwise please put it in. Personally, I hope the editor is correct but have not been able to verify.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 27,700 it is


I believe this article needs a well written lead, grammar and prose tweaks, and some wikignoming to raise it to a higher level on the assessment scale. If anyone has any input or feels like improving the article it would be awesome.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FA failed due to the writing needing improvement. Any tweaks would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article is complete in it's coverage (including the lead section), it just needs a solid copyedit. I found this list of people that we could ping to get a professional level copyedit (which unfortunately I don't think you and I are capable of). You might open a new peer review page and then ping some of the volunteers listed under "Everyday life" in the list. If the copyedit experience of Seattle Sounders FC is indicative, I think we'll only need one or two volunteers to respond and I think the article will improve a lot, probably enought to bring back to FAC. The thing is, I don't think these voluneers monitor the peer review page and automatically review articles listed there. I think they need to be asked for help (by one of us) with a note on their talk page and then they'll gladly jump into an article and improve its readability. --SkotyWAT|C 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New media[edit]

I recently uploaded a new aerial photo of Qwest Field with Safeco Field, below. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a high resolution aerial photo I took in August of 2009. I've added it into the article twice, but it was removed twice. In case someone wants to use it in the future, I'm putting it here instead, so it doesn't get lost. Cheers, Jelson25 (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jelson, I removed it the first time due to sandwiching of the text and the second time because I thought the image that replaced it was superior in quality and describing the Surface section. I would love to see it in somewhere. I would like it next to the construction shot for comparison but it just doesn't fit. I was thinking about throwing it in the Contracts section since Qwest is featured on the roof. Unfortunately, it stacks if used there (another MOS thing). I hope you don't think I am just pooping on your image! Besides the dirt ( not your fault :) ) it is a good image of Qwest.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem - thanks for being so vigilant about article quality! Cheers, Jelson25 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Field of play[edit]

I found this new rule from IFAB:

In order to standardize the size of the football pitch for A international matches, the IFAB has decided to set a fixed size of 105m long and 68m wide (instead of a minimum and maximum length - from 100m to 110m - and a minimum and a maximum width - from 64m to 75m - as mentioned in the present text).

Will this rule have any affects on the stadium, since the dimensions listed in this article are slightly smaller than the new 'standard'?

Do you have a source on it? I'm not seeing anything on a quick search through google regarding the rule or anything from First & Goal but assume it is easy to make a yard.Cptnono (talk)
The rule is mentioned in Association football pitch, and I know it is a small change, but I am wondering why, if it is such a small change, they haven't permanently altered the field at Qwest to be in full compliance with IFAB.--Measure (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the change was implemented in '08 so the information here might actually be out of date. It is also for international games so they might play with the lines for those matches. I'll see what I can find.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I still can't find anything. Qwest Field has not updated their page mentioning the dimension since '07. The rulilng is for A international matches. Grass would more than likely be laid down for such events so they could chalk the lines differently. Plenty of teams in the States and internationally still have smaller fields than Qwest so I wouldn't worry about it too much.Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Richter scale[edit]

I removed the unsourced 3.0 on the Richter scale line. The first thing I heard a few hours later in in Pioneer Square was "dude, you know the news said it got to 2.4". So I have heard it in passing and it has been blogged about. If anyone finds a source or hears it on the news please add it! We can use cite episode if it is on local news I think.Cptnono (talk)

Infobox image[edit]


Although Cacophony has added some great images to Wikipedia I personally don't feel the Qwest one is the best. The panorama causes the field to look warped, it is a little out of focus, perspective comes across confusing without something central to focus on, and it is out of date with the change of the end zone color. If anyone wants to go through the commons and find one that might be better for this use I would be curious to see the results.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

North stand capacity[edit]

Does anyone know what the capacity of the stand-alone North Stand is? The C of E (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the "Construction and layout" section is says 3,000.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit concerns[edit]


The following section in the lead concerns me:

The MLS expansion team, Seattle Sounders FC, began its inaugural season with a home game in 2009. The stadium was the site of the 2009 MLS Cup.

It is very disconnected from the rest of the paragraph, but doesn't make much sense on its own, either. A potential solution I almost added was "The Seattle Sounders' MLS expansion team, the Seattle Sounders FC, began its inaugural season...." but I don't know if that's accurate; I'm not an expert on this subject. Any insight on how this section might be reworded would be great. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First Section[edit]

Allen agreed to pay the $4 million cost of the vote and the legislature approved.

I can't understand from context; what is this "$4 million cost of the vote"? I almost changed this to "With Allen agreeing to pay the $4 million cost, the legislature approved" but realized this might be factually inaccurate. Is this correct? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounders attendance[edit]

Has there been an official word on why they restrict attendance for Sounders games to such a low number? I would have thought, with them selling out or coming close to selling out almost every game that they would have increased available seating. Just seems strange. (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. It has been speculated that it was to increase demand by limiting availability. I personally feel part of it was for show and part of it was trial and error to not bring in too much staff on game day. It has been reported that it was to make a more intimate atmosphere by reducing empty seats and that the Hawks Nest is covered due to the already inked Xbox deal. They have slowly opened up more and more seating. If you see a good source please discussing it all please bring it up here since it is not completely clear.Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

First Event[edit]

There are two references to the Sounders (USL, not MLS) having played the first ever event in Qwest, however this isn't entirely accurate. There was a double header that day and the Sounders Select Women played the first game. There are a few references about that can be tricky to track down. Other than having been there myself, here's one a real reference to appease the doubters. ("SELECTS WIN: The Sounders Select Women defeated the Vancouver Breakers 4-3 in overtime in a warm-up to the main event."

Granted, the women weren't as prestegious a team, and it lacks the parity with the Sounders playing the first ever game in the Kingdome. But since the Sounders Select were a professional team in a professional league, I can't really justify disrespecting them by ignoring the fact that they played before the Sounders men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contagion21 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Seattle PI news story from July 28, 2002, that also describes the Sounders Select Women game: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the source! I feel kind of bad for not seeing the women's game and not knowing about it. I can add it in but feel free to do it if you want. Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I learned just enough about wikipedia to post in this discussion section; I wouldn't consider editing the article myself. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contagion21 (talkcontribs) 01:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

FixedCptnono (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained color change[edit]

The article explains why the roof was painted white, then a caption references the blue roof. What's up with this? HuskyHuskie (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. If you can fine a news article or other reliable source that explains the color change, it would probably be a good addition to the article. --SkotyWATC 02:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually did see one but never put it in. It mentioned the contractor and a few other bits. If I come across it I will put a note here. On a personal note: Took them long enough. That roof was filthy.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


I have seen sources that construction of the stadium (not demolition of the Kingdome and not of the complex) began in April 2000. But since I am not finding anything about a groundbreaking ceremony I am simply removing it. The parameter is still in for the complex but if it causes confusion that should be removed as well. Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:CenturyLinkField Logo-small.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:CenturyLinkField Logo-small.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated Photo[edit]

Aerial November 2011

I shot some updated photos around Seattle yesterday. Putting this photo here in case it's useful to you. Jelson25 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously a very good article, and that is a really good picture, giving the areal side view. I'm not an editor on this page but i think it would be cool to be added in.Millertime246 (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice image. Most of the ones from above aren't as clean. It could work in the "Facility contracts" section but there is already an image there. Yours is actually more relevant but I kind of dig the mountain in the current one. But if you guys think it would be better there or somewhere else just say so. The only place I would object is in the infobox because the current image is too badass to replace. I added it to the commons think also. Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I am adding it to the 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final article.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


I have removed attmepts to add "Clink". I hear the name some myself but so far it has not taken off as big as originally assumed. If ti gets more media attention then we will have a reliable source. So far the best we have is speculation. See this.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have added a line regarding the speculation. I am for it going into the infobox after it turns out to be really seen and heard. I prefer reliable sources (since this is Wikipedia) but would also be happy if it really took off and we all notice it. I did see another funny article where the company rep actually discussed how he doubted that Clink would take off. From personal experience of numerous events there in 2011, Clink is rarely used (at this time).Cptnono (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

When it takes off as a nickname (it probably will) then it will be good enough for the lead. Google News Archives shows less than 20 hits regarding the nickname. Several are speculation from the Summer while several are blogs. Not a big enough deal to worry about I guess but think that Wikipedia should not be used to force your preferred name change. Give it some time. Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the other editor is evading scrutiny by switching to the IP I will cease edit warring for the day since there is a talk page section open. This source and the wording ("commonly") are disputed. Thiel thought it would be called The Clink from his reading of Twitter feeds when it first switched over. KING5 (who picked up the story only) did not put it in its own words by specifically pointing to his name in the title. Thiel ended up also being wrong. He thought that other sportswriters would have fun with the name in headlines. It has not happened yet and it has been several months. Please see Google News Archives for the sources covering the recent season. Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---It is commonly referred to as "The Clink" by sportscasters on the local news in the Seattle area. And here is an article from late December 2011 using the nickname ( I'd say it's here already and should be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not have a source or a collection of sources to prove that. We both watch coverage in the local area and what we consider "commonly" is different. I hear "The Clink" very rarely. And since we can look at reliable sources (since you know how to edit I assume you know what a reliable source is) then we have to let those settle the dispute. An informal poll of readers and a story about Twitter comments (based on one free lanceish writer who started his own website) are not sufficient. That is compounded by the issue of them both being from before the name was even officially changed. You will need to back up your reasoning based on RS and not your interpretation of what you might sometimes hear on the radio. Keep in mind, I am only removing it for now. I expect it to go back in someday but refuse to let Wikipedia dictate if and when the name takes off.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
A few mentions are not good enough. You need to show that it is common. So common that it deserves to be one of the first things in the article. That one headline does not do it. I will save you some time and do some searches for you.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I disagree with it being called "Royal Brougham Park" but this blog does summarize my position. Wait to see if it "sticks". Cptnono (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Home Field Advantage[edit]

Stop edit warring.

I don't care if the 12th Man thing has been picked up by the media. I don't care if Baylor sucks. I do care that you are edit warring. The edit you requested is live. I had to spend 5 minutes cleaning it up since it was against the MoS and placed inappropriately. Enough is enough. This is a Featured Article. It is now time to bring it to the talk page if you have a problem. The false starts are in. but it was moved since the line was in the wrong place, removed another sourced line, and was not formatted correctly. hat else do you want? Stop fucking up a Featured Article. I plan on reverting potentially nonconstructive edits that do not come to the talk page first. It shouldn't have even come to this or a request to ave you blocked (stop edit warring on other pages as well).Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Baylor? What does that have to do with this article? I have no problem discussing the content of this article on the talk page. And if I make an error in formatting, I will always be appreciative of a correction. But I do wonder why you are so insistent on including a statement in this article about a statistic that covers only a three year period that ended five years ago, when we already have a statistic in the very first paragraph of that section which covers the same issue but over a ten year period and covers up to 2012? Of the two statistics, which seems the most reasonable to use? And why do you think that the 2005-2008 statistic adds anything to the article? Additionally, what does reference #78 have to do with that 2005-2008 false start claim? Why did you add it back to that statement? I'll hold off reverting your revert as I certainly don't wish to engage in an edit war, and am happy to discuss out here first (And I don't even need to resort to F-bombs in my discussions). But I have yet to see justification for the inclusion of that bit of information and hope that you can eventually provide such... Macae (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It has now been a week and a half and not and no one has offered any justification to include a statement that is 1) covers a smaller time frame than information already provided in the same section, and that 2) covers information that is more out of date than the information already provided in the section. Based on the lack of apparent dissension concerning the issue, I will go ahead and delete the redundant bit of information from the article. Macae (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


I have updated the article to mention that the Seahawks organization is now referring to their fans as "12s" rather than the "12th Man". I also have included a citation from that uses that fan description. I included mention that the fans were originally referred to as the "12th Man". Recognizing that both terms are currently commonly being used, I don't believe that making reference to the "12s" moniker is in any way a violation of WP:COMMONNAME:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macae (talkcontribs) 15:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The existing citation(s) say "12th man." And 12th Man is the WP:COMMONNAME per coverage (including MEDIA) as resolved at Seattle Seahawks. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have left reference to the fans originally being referred to as the "12th Man". Your citation that you are using to support the current reference to the "12th Man" being used is six years old. That begs the question as to whether that citation is therefore "current". But rather than argue that point, I included reference to the fans being called the "12th Man" originally and also mentioned that the Seahawks organization now refers to the fans as the "12s". And I support that statement with a citation. I believe that both "12th Man" and "12s" probably fits within WP:COMMONNAME. Which makes it reasonable to include both mentions within the article as I have done. Macae (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The statement as written is about the 2003 event, hence the language used and cited is contemporaneous. Your edit removes the well-cited text and focusses on 2016 for unknown reasons. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear that the statement is referring only to an event from 13 years ago. If you wish to make such a clarifying edit, we can then also include the fact that the Seahawks currently refer to their fans as the "12s" as supported by the provided citation. Does that work for you? Do you wish to make the change?Macae (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
What is the defect in the current consensus statement and/or citation in your view? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a defect in the current statements. The Seahawks ARE currently referring to their fans as the "12s" as supported by the citation. Directly from the official source that I cited - "At every home game just before kickoff, the flag is raised in honor of the 12s." I have also kept/included the statement that the fans were originally referred to as the "12th Man" as supported by the previously supplied citations. I'm not certain as to why you are so opposed to including a mention of the "12s" within this article. If you think that there is a better way to state the previous usage of the "12th Man" and the current official usage of the "12s", I certainly would appreciate the attempt to propose a new statement. As previously stated, I am more than happy to have you suggest a compromise edit that you feel is more accurate. But please do not continue to arbitrarily remove the citation supported mention of the "12s".Macae (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not contesting your new content, per se. I'm contesting your removal of existing citations and changes to well-supported language. You're attempting two different edits, 2003 vs 2016. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As stated previously, if you think that there is a better way to make the edits, than I welcome the assistance. But so far, you have simply deleted the references to the 12s everytime that I have added them. Macae (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Your edits haven't only added new content, you're choosing to remove existing content and citations. Please separate the two. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As you continue to remove both content and associated citations without discussion (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing), when adding new content and associated citations, in good faith I have attempted to add your new desired "12s" content on your behalf. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Didn't realize that your concern was with the initial statement rather than inclusion of the new information. I have made one minor addition to the original statement clarifying that the fans were what was being referred to as the 12th Man during the time that the citation was written. Hopefully this compromise edits works for you?Macae (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Stadium creation / public vote[edit]

There are (only) two sentences on the public vote. The second of which was recently deleted (and now re-added):

This was a controversial out-of-cycle election financed privately by the football franchise owner.

The citation could be improved, but removing editor did not include an edit summary. So their issue is unclear.UW Dawgs (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There are only 2 sentences if you are too high on crack to read the section titled "Funding", stupid.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)