Talk:Seattle Sounders FC/Archive 3

Statistics and records section

I just reverted an addition of a "statistics and records" section. My main reason for reverting it rather than just discussing it first was because none of it was referenced. Nevertheless, we should still discuss whether such a section should be added to the article. My thoughts... the attendance numbers are avaialble in the season list and the ovarall individual statistics/leaders are be available in the players list. I know that most/all other MLS team articles probably have these types of tables/lists, but remember that none of those articles are feature articles either. I'd be interested if these types of sections are present in any other FA-level club articles before we add them to this article. What do others think? --SkotyWA^T_C 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

David Estrada's #

I changed it from 9 to 16 because I read looked at the roster on one of the newspapers and they had him down as #16. – Michael (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. He was #9 during preseason but I really doubted that would be sticking. We'll be able to verify in 24hrs!23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Move/redirect proposal

I have proposed a move that has an indirect impact on this page but has had minimal discussion. Please see Talk:Seattle Sounders#Requested move if you would like to participate. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Coaches

I created a chart of our coaching staff, which was later deleted. I looked up almost every MLS club and they all had the chart. I will re-put the chart.If you have any comments, please tell me. Antoinefcb (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the other MLS club articles are of WP:FA quality. They are not a good measuring stick for what should and should not be included. Please take a look at other WP:FA level articles when looking for ideas of what tables need to be added. Furthermore, There has been only one coach in the history of the club. We don't need a table with a single row. The article prose contain all of this information anyway, so the table provides little to no additional value. I'm removing them again. Sorry for not commenting here when I removed them the first time. I had explained the removal in my edit summaries, but those are easily overlooked. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we put it in the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season? Antoinefcb (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You certainly could. I wouldn't immediately remove it from there though it will probably get removed once that article goes through a quality review (WP:GAC) after the season is done. Do any other season articles of WP:GA quality have a managers table? --SkotyWA^T_C 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most of them do. I will put it in the 2010 season. Antoinefcb (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Kit Template Naming Conventions

Spent some time today creating some custom templates for the kits and thought I would share the naming convention. Essentially, I copied the convention they used for Chelsea F.C.. First, a team identifier (sounders); next, the year that the kit was introduced (YYYY); and last, a kit identifier (h=home, a=away, t=third). Udeezy (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging other articles?

There's many other teams that carry the Sounders legacy since the mid 1970s. I was considering making it all in one page under the history. Input? Thoughts? Yes or No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.227.230 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

An extended answer is that they are separate entities so merging them would not be appropriate. The article is at Featured status which means it is badass. That does not mean it can't be improved though. Do the previous incarnations need more attention or better links or anything else from what you see?Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they should not be merged. This has also been discussed at least once previously. Please take a look at the archives of this page for the previous consensus. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounders FC: "2010 Professional Sports Team of the Year"

The SportsBusiness Journal and SportsBusiness Daily have honored the Sounders FC as their 2010 Professional Sports Team of the Year. Here's some sources:

• Soundersfc.com
• Times
• Puget Sound Business Journal
• SportsBusiness Daily

Maybe inclusion in this article (or the 2010 season article) would be possible? –CG^Talk 17:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This should definitely be mentioned in the season article. Eventually, I think the fact you suggest above as well as a bunch of other stuff should be added in a new section with a heading of "Significance" or "Influence" (any other ideas?). Below is a luandrey list of items I've been collecting that could be included in the section. I'll take a crack at writing the section soon and post a draft here on the talk page for review before it's added. This way we can ensure that the prose are of high quality before they're added to this WP:FA level article. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• 11.19.09 - economic impact of Sounders FC on Seattle
• 12.12.09 alt - Don Garber: "Our country celebrated what soccer could be here in Seattle, and now we in the league can take that and show the world that this sport really can matter."
• 11.30.09 - Leiweke recognized for successful expansion launch in a recession.

• 12.18.09 - in-depth Leiweke profile

• 11.1.09 - LATimes - "In fact, were it not for the expansion Seattle Sounders and the MLS-record average of 30,897 fans they attracted to Qwest Field, average attendance leaguewide would have plummeted by 9% rather than by only 2.6%."

• 10.28.09 - SI - "Without the expansion Seattle Sounders, who set an MLS record with an average attendance of 30,897 fans a game, the league's average attendance would have been down 9 percent."
• 10.27.09 - Sports Business Journal - "...down 2.6% from 16,460 fans per game a year ago, despite the expansion Sounders FC finishing out their inaugural season with the highest average attendance in league's history."

• 12.31.09 - Sounders fans discussed
• 11.4.09 - Headline: "Success story: Sounders FC has been winner on and off the field in first season"
• [1] - January 2010 Washington State Senate resolution honoring Sounders FC
• 5.20.10 - Sounders named Pro Sports Team of the Year

Finally getting back to this. I just added a few of these to the article (marked with a strike through). The rest feel more like interesting trivia than facts that should be included in the article. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^T_C 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The balance looks about right to me, both in that section and the article as a whole. I have to say, you guys have done a very good job in keeping the page well-proportioned since the FAC. I haven't forgotten the 2010 Cup final FAC by the way, just trying to do a Wikipedia stock check while I have all of my Watford sources in one place. Will make certain to have a look before it gets too old. —WFC— 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Just as a heads up, ref #76 is dead. Regards, WFC (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Maybe it was down just temporarily. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Estrada

Estrada was born in Mexico but came up very soon after. I assume he is American citizen and is US sporting wise. Anyone have any sources? Also, Estrada is badass.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind [2]. Stop reverting.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And there is nothing pointing to Jennings being on the team. Players not signed by the club have played in friendlies before.Cptnono (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg listed for deletion

A file used in this article, File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is. If you believe the photo should not be deleted, please add a comment explaining why. Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stadium capped capacity

How can the stadium be capped at 35,700 for the 2010 season when every game this season been over this. The lowest has been 35,900, the highest 36,344 and a average of 36,145? Xenomorph1984 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty common to oversell in sports. Let me see if I can find a god source explaining the reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Drew Carey

The article refers to Drew Carey as a comedian (I think I may have written this initially...) but it is rubbing me the wrong way now. Perhaps he should be referred to as an actor or TV personality. Carey's page refers to him as "an American actor, comedian, photographer, and game show host." Any opinions? --Oh Snap (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actor or TV personality is fine by me. My only preference is that we keep it abreviated to a short phrase (as we have with the other owners), so change it to the one you like best. Each of the owners are wikilinks, so their complete bio is just a click away. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

squad list

If you have concerns about the recent changes to the squad list, please join the discussion at WT:SSFC. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New "2010 season" section plans/ideas

I can see that an IP editor has added a sentence to the lead (along with a ref) about the 2010 USOC final. I almost reverted it and said "wait till the end of the season", but I'm thinking that's it's probably time to start a "2010 season" section. I want to develop the prose of the new section here on the talk page before we add it though to ensure that the article stays high quality. Here's a list of things I think the section should cover:

• First Kick at Qwest again hosting the next expansion team
• Season ticket holder stats for this year (if I can find a ref)
• USOC championship, first MLS team to repeat
• CCL results summary
• New MLS average attendance record (once we know it)
• Playoff qualification and results (once we know them)

Did I miss anything? Remember that this section is only supposed to be the highlights of the season. All the details belong in the season specific article. I'll try to take a stab at the prose for this tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it) and post them here for discussion and revision before I add them to the article. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Addition:

Before the first game of Sounders FC's second season, the club increased the season ticket holder limit to 32,000. The first game of the season was played at Qwest Field with Seattle hosting the new MLS expansion team, the Philadelphia Union. Sounders FC won 2–0. However, the 2010 season began poorly for Seattle with the club losing 8 of its first 15 games. In the latter half of the regular season Seattle was able to reverse its fortune, culminating in a 2–1 win on October 10, 2010 at Kansas City which clinched a playoff berth for the second consecutive year.

Sounders FC alse competed in two additional competitions in 2010, the CONCACAF Champions League and the U.S. Open Cup. In the Champions League, Seattle progressed through the preliminary round, but in the group stage, was unable to win or tie any matches until they had already been eliminated. In the U.S. Open Cup, Seattle won games at Portland, and hosting the Los Angeles Galaxy and Chivas USA before reaching the final, hosted at Qwest Field, against the Columbus Crew. Seattle won the U.S. Open Cup final 2–1, becoming the first MLS team ever to repeat as champion, and the first team since 1983 to do so in the history of the competition. The victory ensured the club's return to the Champions League in 2011.

There will need to be one more sentence added to the end of the second paragraph about the outcome of the playoff campaign once that's done and another sentence noting the new record for average attendance. If you have any suggestions or changes to make, please either suggest them in a comment below or just edit this proposal in place. After everyone's had a few days to chew on this, we'll see about adding it to the article. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall looks pretty good. One small thing, "was unable to win or tie any matches until they had already been eliminated" doesn't look right to me. —WFC— 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• I would add a comma after "In the latter half of the regular season".

Done.--SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• After mentioning "Seattle was able to reverse its fortune" and before "culminating in a 2–1 win", it would be nice to quantify that in the same way you quantify that they lost 8 of 15. I know it's early, but something like "losing only X of their next Y matches" or something.

Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, you have "Seattle progressed through the preliminary round" - I would write that as like "Seattle beat (team) (score) to progress through the preliminary round".

Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would reword "but in the group stage, was unable to win or tie any matches until they had already been eliminated" as "but was eliminated in the group stage before winning or tying a single match" or something, dunno exactly.

Yours is better worded. I've changed it to that. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• For "and the first team since 1983 to do so in the history of the competition", the "in the history of the competition" is redundant with "the first team since 1983". I would just remove "in the history of the competition".

The reason I had it there was to contrast it from "the first MLS team ever" that appears earlier in the sentence. I think you're right though and it's probably unnecessary. I've removed it. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• What about mentioning the record attendance for that final? That record was much older, and an all-time record for a U.S. Open Cup final.

Added. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do we already mention that the attendance for the 2010 was record breaking elsewhere? I'm not sure if every game was sold out like in 2009, but the 2010 attendance broke the Sounders own 2009 records, so I would mention that somewhere.

It wasn't yet known when I proposed this. It is now and I've added it. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. ← George ^talk 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Great for the most part. The attendance line(s) might be better in the stadium section.

We might need to consider a quick restructure. It looks like we will have individual season sections in the history section which I don't believe is common across the project. "Team name, badge and colors unveiled" and "Golden scarf" might be better outside of the history section while the history section focuses on the formation and seasons without subheadings.Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not common. I think in a year, after the next season, it would be good to split out most of the history section into a separate "History of Seattle Sounders FC" article. That seams pretty common with many clubs. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Addition Updated:

Before the first game of Sounders FC's second season, the club increased the season ticket holder limit to 32,000. The first game of the season was played at Qwest Field with Seattle hosting the new MLS expansion team, the Philadelphia Union. Sounders FC won 2–0. However, the 2010 season began poorly for Seattle with the club losing 8 of its first 15 games. In the latter half of the regular season, Seattle was able to reverse its fortune, winning 10 of it's last 14 matches, and clinching a playoff berth for the second consecutive year with a 2–1 win on October 10, 2010 at Kansas City. The club broke their own single season attendance record averaging 36,173 per match and again sold out every league match.

Sounders FC alse competed in two additional competitions in 2010–the CONCACAF Champions League and the U.S. Open Cup. In the Champions League, Seattle progressed through the preliminary round beating Isidro Metapán 2–1 on aggregate, but were eliminated in the group stage before winning or tying a match. In the U.S. Open Cup, Seattle won games at Portland and at home against the Los Angeles Galaxy and Chivas USA before reaching the final, hosted at Qwest Field against the Columbus Crew. Seattle won the U.S. Open Cup final 2–1, becoming the first MLS team ever to repeat as champion, and the first team since 1983 to do so. The final was played in front of a U.S. Open Cup record crowd of 31,311, and the victory ensured Seattle's return to the Champions League in 2011.

Okay, I've incorporated the feedback provided. Thanks for the corrections and suggestions. If there is no further feedback over the next day or two, I'll go ahead and add it the the article. Thanks again! --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In "..regular season Seattle, was able...", the comma should be before Seattle, not after. In "...winning 10 of it's last 14 matches..." the it's should be its. Also, in "...won games at Portland, and hosting the Los Angeles Galaxy and Chivas USA before reaching the final" I think hosting should be hosted. At that point you'll have said "hosted" twice in the same sentence, so maybe join them together - "...hosted the next three games at home, including the final against..." or something.

First two done. I tried something different with the hosting/hosted thing. Let me know what you think. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "In the latter half of the regular season Seattle, was able to reverse its fortune, winning 10 of it's last 14 matches, culminating in a 2–1 win on October 10, 2010 at Kansas City which clinched a playoff berth for the second consecutive year." is pretty long, and gets a bit confusing to read at the "...which clinched..." part (the way it reads makes it ambiguous if it was Seattle "which clinched" or Kansas City "which clinched"). Maybe reverse this, to like "In the latter half of the regular season, Seattle was able to reverse its fortune, winning 10 of it's last 14 matches, and clinching a playoff berth for the second consecutive year with a 2–1 win on October 10, 2010 at Kansas City." Or split it into two sentences, dunno.

Your suggestion is better. I've swapped it for what I had. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A minor thing, and totally optional, but you could change the comma after "Sounders FC alse competed in two additional competitions in 2010" to an m-hyphen for added pause when reading.

Done. I like that better. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, looks great to me; feel free to reject any of my suggestions. Good work! ← George ^talk 07:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I added this section to the article yesterday and updated the lead section today. I encourage editors to review both changes and make sure they make sense. Thanks again for the help developing this new section while keeping the overall quality of the article high. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New Article and edit to main template

Created this: List of Seattle Sounders FC managers

I also edited the main template to make it look more like the other clubs and too add managers.

Antoinefcb (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for Today's Featured Article on March 19

A note for the regular editors here... this article has been nominated to appear on the main page on March 19, the 2 year anniversary of the club's inaugural game. Getting this article featured on the main page will be a great way to recognize how far the club has come since their inaugural game 2 years ago, and is an opportunity to put a spotlight on the league during their opening weekend. I'm very excited for this to appear on the main page. We've all worked hard on this article and many others related to the club and this is also an opportunity to draw attention to our great work. I encourage regular editors of this article to take a moment to read the blurb (literally only 7 sentences long) and add your support to the nomination. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Cup Photo

Please replace with one from the Qwest win. The empty stands look... empty. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the picture we have of the Qwest win: File:SoundersUSOpenCup2010.jpg. It also has empty seats in the background. They take these pictures of the team together with the trophy after most of the fans have left it seems. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Or we have all gathered on that side of the stadium. Qwest security was pretty cool so while some people left (nothing wrong with getting to the bars early for the party or getting the kids home for some rest) others made their way into the lower bowl's west sections. Both are good photos of the guys.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence

"Seattle Sounders FC is an American professional soccer club based in Seattle, Washington, that competes in Major League Soccer (MLS), the top professional soccer league in the United States and Canada" How about dropping the final clause? The sentence would be a bit punchier. The final clause has a minor amount of POV ("the top...."), and since the MLS is wikilinked immediately prior to the clause, anybody wanting more information about the MLS knows just where to look anyway. P.S. Congratulations to the contributors on getting an article to FA status. Mindbunny (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that MLS is "the top" league is not a NPOV problem. It indeed is the at the top of the United States soccer pyramid. The first two sentences of the Major League Soccer article go into greater detail about this. The first sentence of this article is trying to summarize these points, giving the user enough context to understand where (continent/country) the team plays, in what league, and at what level. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Thats normal language for association football internationally. 24.18.132.80 (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The writing style would be better without the last clause. Having a subordinate clause ("the top professional....") describe another subordinate clause ("that competes....") is awkward. The information is already given that they play in Seattle WA, so we don't additional clauses just to specify the location. Saying "Seattle, WA" and "American" and "United States and Canada" all in one sentence is redundant. Technically, "top" is POV, since it is a blanket statement. The sentence doesn't say "top according to USSF"; it presents that USSF POV as fact. For example, we wouldn't assert "The Kings Speech" was the best move this year, even though it was ranked as such by a widely recognized official body. I think the last clause can simply be dropped. Another possibility is a re-working. Something like: " Seattle Sounders FC is a Major League Soccer club based in Seattle, Washington." Mindbunny (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the sentence construction (subordinate of a subordinate). I've split the sentences and added "the club" as the subject of the second sentence. With that change, I think the use of the word "top" is now further clarified and given context. It's clearly refering to MLS being the top league in the United States and Canada. Hopefully your concerns are satisfied with my change. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Great job!

Hey guys. I was the GA reviewer of this article and upon checking out the main page today, I discovered that this was the FA! Great job guys! Very happy for you all. MobileSnail 05:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That has got to feel good. Cheers to you for being the reviewer at GA!Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

History of professional soccer in Seattle

So this article was created a while ago and has remained "off the radar" of the task force by not having a talk page (and therefore not being tagged). I discovered it this weekend (when it was still called "History of Seattle Sounders"). After looking through the article, I was confused about it's purpose and decided to move it to where it currently sits and rewrote the lead. An IP editor disagreed with me and did a copy/paste move back to the old location (which I've temporarily undone per WP:MOVE and WP:CUTPASTE). I invite the watchers and regular editors of this article to take a look at History of professional soccer in Seattle and then join the discussion on the article's talk page so we can come to some consensus about how to proceed with it. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate it. I respect the thought behind it and the editor who made it but it goes against RECENTISM and what we have accomplished in the topic area. It is such a mess that I have been happy ignoring it and will continue to do so.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you (though not as bluntly). If we have any hope of getting a featured topic for Sounders FC, then we can't ignore this article. It would very likely be pointed out by the FT reviewers. Personally, I think in order to do this article right with, appropriate detail, it would be way too long. I'd much rather see expanded history sections in the APSL/USL and NASL team articles. Regardless, let's not discuss it here. Talk:History of professional soccer in Seattle is a much better place to talk about it. Please though, if you have the time, don't ignore this article. It will likely become a roadblock for the task force if we ignore it. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Golden Scarf

I'm wondering what to do about the Golden Scarf section of the article. The idea lasted for the first two seasons, but appears to have run out of steam in 2011. They gave one out before first kick and haven't done another one since. I suspect they may do one or two more this season, but clearly not every game. I'm thinking that perhaps it shouldn't have it's own sub-section in the article. Maybe just a mention in the prose with a wikilink to the list of recipients. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^T_C 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. If the practice dies out, the list itself may become non-notable, so we should keep an eye out for that as well. ← George ^talk 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SuperLiga in table

I started a thread on Talk:Major League Soccer about the SuperLiga column in the Year-by-year table to see if there were comments about when to remove it, since I have to think its a matter of when and not if.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reserves

Can someone please explain to me the problem with naming the reserve team players on the page, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the standard "we don't want it because this article is a WP:FA" meme? The information is sourced, correct, is formatted in a style that follows the MOS for hundreds and hundreds of soccer articles across this site - including those which are GAs and FAs - and provides useful additional information for anyone who might be interested in this sort of thing. JonBroxton (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reserves come and go, first team players often play in reserve teams, you are making the edit in a way that does not comply with MOS:FLAG, and you are engaged in edit-warring. In answer to your unprovoked post on my talk page, I do not believe that I treated you like a two year old. But if you do know all about 3RR, you would know that three edits is an outside limit, not a three per day entitlement, and that it is considered polite to point out a potential 3RR violation before it occurs. —WFC— 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter that "Reserves come and go and first team players often play in reserve teams". The heading of the section clearly says "This list shows players who have played for the team in official 2011 MLS Reserve Division games, but are not part of the senior roster", which renders your point moot as it is clearly explained who is included in the list and why. Also, the layout doesn't seem to be an issue for Manchester United F.C. or Arsenal F.C. - both of which are FAs and either show the reserves on their pages, or provide a link specific to a page about the reserves, and use the same template formatting. So, again, I fail to understand your objections to the section. JonBroxton (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised. Hopefully other contributors to this page will be able to explain in a way you can comprehend. —WFC— 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully they can do it in a way that isn't condescending, too. JonBroxton (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WFC summarized it pretty well. Along with MoSFLAG, keep in mind that all articles (including FAs) should have properly formatted and refs.

There is also a major problem with upkeep. Are we doing current? If so, why? That smacks of focusing on recent news that has no historical impact. If it is instead to be ongoing and historical, then we run into an issue of length.

Although you enjoy updating this info, what happens when you leave? The stats at the Zakuani article are a perfect example of what happens when editors update one column and not another or stop updating so that the info is out of date.

It simply isn't needed. And yes: "we don't want it because this article is a WP:FA". There is a reason this is FA and other MLS articles are not. We have actually attempted to focus on things like accuracy and MoS.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "are we doing current"? Again, the heading of the section clearly says "This list shows players who have played for the team in official 2011 MLS Reserve Division games, but are not part of the senior roster". How is this ambiguous? It fulfils the same purpose as the current roster section; to show which players have played for the team in the Reserve League in 2011, but which are not senior roster players. If this smacks of "focusing on recent news that has no historical impact", then you should probably delete the current senior roster too. After all, that's recent and not every player listed on it will have a historical impact on the club. But that's beside the point; I'm sure many readers will find that interesting and useful information. As I said, the people who work on the articles for Manchester United F.C. or Arsenal F.C., both of which are FAs, don't seem to find it problematic or detrimental to the article to show the reserves, so I don't see why this page should be any different. The information I provided was accurate, referenced and sourced. If you're worried about the stupid MOSFLAG issue it can very easily be converted to the other format rather than just removed entirely. This just seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. JonBroxton (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We have had disagreement, and it is partly my fault for failing to check all of your edits to this page over the last day or so, and for responding in kind to a childish comment posted on my talk page. If all your insults were directed at me, I could live with that. But please refrain from assuming, or at the very least appearing to assume, bad faith on the part of anyone else who does not share your view. We're not all out to get you. Yet.

WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, and even if we were to discard Cptnono's argument about this being "current", there is a fundamental difference between Sounders FC and the teams you have mentioned. Namely that 90% of players that have lined up for their reserves aren't considered to be part of the first team squad. The reverse would appear to be the case here. —WFC— 06:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith at all. You and Cptnono work hard on a lot of great soccer artices and I would never be so underhanded as to accuse you of that. I'm just frustrated by what I percieve to be the overly-rigid resistance to anything added to this article which has not been "authorized" by one or more of you. I wouldn't go so far as to insinuate WP:OWN, but the regular contributors to this article do seem to take an unneccesarily hard line when it comes to what constitutes a good addition to the article. You can't just throw out "we don't want it because we're a FA" every time someone tries add some new information you don't like, especially when that information is on many other similar FA articles. Being an FA doesn't mean that the page stops evolving. If I had been adding some badly-researched or controversial material to the page, I could understand your reaction. But a little section about the team' reserves? Really? This is somehow going to undermine the page's FA status? But, whatever. I was just trying to make the article better by adding information which I thought people would find interesting and useful. You don't want it, oh well... JonBroxton (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"but the regular contributors to this article do seem to take an unneccesarily hard line when it comes to what constitutes a good addition to the article." Exactly. If it wouldn't pass at an FA review then it doesn't belong in. You have been given multiple reasons why it is being removed. IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with it. I like the reserve team. But the table is still a problem when it comes to the issues of upkeep, limited necessity, and MoS. Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(not ec) Thank you for your understanding.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have given me multiple reasons why it is being removed, and I don't think any of them are enough to remove the section entirely. Improve it, certainly, but I still think it would be useful and shouldn't be remoced. You saying "If it wouldn't pass at an FA review then it doesn't belong in" proves my point exactly - identical information to the information I want to add HAS ALREADY passed at FA reviews on several other articles, and the issues of upkeep, limited necessity, and MoS are easily solved. JonBroxton (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. does not have the table (and it didn't when it was promoted). Arsenal F.C. does have the table. However, it is an actual team that has less frequent promotion to the first team. 2 guys that may play a game or two then be right out the door is much different then a full-on squad in an academy or less cyclical reserve league. Also, finding those guys exiting will be much more challenging the it would be for a team that has an academy or reserve league with more players recieving more detailed reports. There are major differences.

If you brought it up to be uniform with the stricter interpretation of MoS (it is 2011) that was also uniform with the rest of the article then there would be less of a problem. However, with the already potential trivial nature of it and the continued lack of even attempting to standardize it with the rest of the article: I see no reason to even consider it and see if upkeep and continuous verification are possible.Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, does the EPL allow guest players like the MLS does? Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Premier League allows loan players (such as Tom Cleverley from Manchester United to Wigan). At reserve level you can play your own reserve and youth players, uncontracted players, and even players who are on loan to another club: Andreas Weimann played for Villa reserves during his time at Watford [3]. —WFC— 09:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Those guys on loan have a stronger association with their clubs then the players in the list had with the Sounders. Siniša Ubiparipović were just given the chance for management to see what they have but are not affiliated with the team. The list makes it appear otherwise. Not to diminish Sakuda's time with the USL team. Speaking of Sakuda, he isn't even shown at the MLS link that was provided (He did play at least game in May). There were only two names and it is already having verification problems.

The Sounders don't have an actual reserve team. They have guys who are on the actual team but are riding the bench or not picked at all so they play in the "reserve league". Sometimes trialists join them. Note the lack of a reserve team roster at the official site.Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. When Jon put the reserve list back after I removed it the first time, he corrected the link and stated that the game reports contained the info. When I follow some of the links, I can find the info he's referring to, but this does not constitute a "list of reserves" as it were. You have to piece together who the reserves are by removing players on the official roster, coaches, and probably others I can't think of. Those that remain are what we're calling reserves it appears. Trying to maintain such a list on Wikipedia like this is borderline WP:SYNTHESIS. Jon, you continue to do a great job maintaining the roster lists for MLS teams, and for that we are all grateful, but in the case of the reserve players list, unless the clubs are publishing an official reserve list, I think this may be beyond the mark. If we had a better source, I'd be all for including it in the article. The fact that all club articles have a list of active players on the team feels like WP:RECENTISM just as much as the reserve list would, so I don't see a problem there. The WP:FLAG concern can be sorted out easy enough too. It's the synthesis thing that makes this not work for me. Thank you for starting the discussion Jon. Sorry that my original revert started an argument. We're all friends here I hope. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

CenturyLink Capacity Incorrect

CenturyLink's MLS capacity is listed as 35,700, but that can't be accurate considering that 36,593 attended the Portland match.

In fact, there haven't been less than 36,000 fans at a home game all season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickj116 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is common for stadiums to be over capacity on game day. What the article reflects is the official capacity. Funny that you mention it since there will be two 45k MLS matches this season (NY a little bit ago was the first). Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)