Talk:Seattle Sounders FC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Seattle Sounders FC is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the USA and Canada task force.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Seattle Sounders FC falls within the scope of the Seattle WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Seattle, Washington, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Washington Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Washington, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Washington. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.


Contents

[edit] Title

Is "Washington" really necessary in this title? It looks silly, and confusingly looks like a report has been sent from Seattle relating that DC is getting a new MLS team. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the listing on the MLS template is for "Seattle" not "Seattle, Washington". Team won't be called "Seattle, Washington XXX", just "Seattle XXX". Oh Snap 05:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The name is needlessly long. I suggest "Seattle Major League Soccer team". --D. Monack | talk 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Season

Everything I have seen leads me to believe 2009 is a fixed date. The lead says "possibly playing as early as the 2009 season.". Any input? Oh Snap 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

MLS is making a formal announcement today about the expansion. Let's wait and see what they say. --D. Monack | talk 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Soccer Specific Stadium?

The Official Press Release really placed an emphasis on the "intimate atmosphere" that would be created when the upper bowl of Qwest field was tarped over for the MLS games. There is also no mention like there was when the new San Jose Earthquakes were announced of plans to move to a new SSS. Is this supposed to mean that there are no SSS requirements for MLS anymore? Or does the fact that one of the owners also owns the stadium that it has been waived? Grant.alpaugh 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Qwest Field (from wp): "Qwest Field is a stadium built for football and soccer located in Seattle, Washington." Perhaps intent is good enough? Oh Snap 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the general SSS requirement is still there, and San Jose is planning on building a stadium. I think that the fact that one of the owners owns the stadium too perhaps waives the SSS requirement, because it looks like New England aren't going to build a stadium. The owner of the team, Bob Craft, also owns the stadium (Giants Stadium). The main reason for building an SSS is so as not to pay massive amounts of rent to play in huge stadiums with attendance capabilities that they don't need. -Bardiak (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Qwest Field isn't owned by Paul Allen, he just has a sweetheart lease since he paid about 1/3 of the cost. The stadium is technically owned and operated by a public authority. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players

"Although the team is far from naming players or coaches, Roth expressed interest Tuesday in starting the team with U.S. national team goalkeeper and Lacey product Kasey Keller. Keller has played his professional career in Europe since 1992, but has said he would like to finish his career in Seattle." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/othersports/339731_socc15.html

Is it too early to start including properly cited player speculations? -- Oh Snap (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no, myself. As long as it is properly cited (and in multiple sources, probably) I don't see a problem with adding rumored players. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been enough rumors in the news to warrant a Thierry Henry reference. Any problems out there with that?

Oh Snap (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued public rumors on Thierry Henry deserve note, and a proper addition to the page has been made, with the following as a reference:

Guywhofixesthings (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Choices Narrowed Down

"Seattle is an international city with international commerce, and our goal has been to make the name ring true throughout the soccer world.But not all names work. No on Atletico Seattle. No on Sporting Club Seattle. No on Partizan Seattle. No on Seattle Wednesday, Seattle Rovers or Seattle Juniors. The list of submitted names has been winnowed, but there still remain many options." -MLSinSeattle.com Greecepwns (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now "Seattle Sounders FC". Case closed. Malpass93 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Hanauer

I've created an article for Adrian Hanauer and frankly, it's crap at this point.;) The article could definitely do with a lot of expansion, so if anyone wants to help out, that'd be great. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Sites

I think certain fan sites should be allowed per Wikipedia:External links. Maybe I am missing something but it seems beneficial. Oh Snap (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By and large fan sites are not allowed because the question becomes, where do you draw the line and what encyclopedic value do the sites add to the general article. Fan sites rarely meet the criteria laid down in the What should be linked and Links to be considered portions of WP:EL. This is particularly true of GOALSeattle. GOALSeattle is a NW soccer fan site, it is not a Seattle MLS FC fan site. If/When a site is created that is uniquely for the MLS team (even better if it is accepted by the team itself), then it may be considered for inclusion, but until then, I don't see how a site that is a general NW soccer fan site meets the requirements. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I came across GoSounders.com it seems to be only about the MLS team. Miketown (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am including a link to this website b/c I feel it is fan specific for the Seattle Sounders FC team and not a combination of the USL team or Seattle Soccer in general. Miketown (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

http://seattlesounders-fc.blogspot.com/ is also only about the MLS team. Many other teams have links to team-specific blogs, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Timbers_%28USL%29; why is that not allowed for this particular team?Scharfy (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Each site is monitored by different editors and in some cases (such as an article for a USL team) will receive low enough traffic that it isn't visited by experienced editors or editors that are not familiar with Wikipedia's external links guideline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and every external link must have value for it's encyclopedic content, not just because it is related to the subject of the article. Unfortunately a link to a blog does not meet these requirements. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet other articles are allowed to have blog links, under the exact same circumstances? It doesn't make sense.Scharfy (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* Welcome to Wikipedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the ECS being linked to as an external site. At the time they are NOT supporters of Seattle Sounders FC. Per the cite- they will begin in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketown (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long term future of page

I deleted some info today because it was dated and got to thinking about how the page will transition into a fully fledged team page. Not quite sure how this will happen, just hate to see info deleted when it could be developed into a "Team history" section. Is there a template we can begin implementing, etc. Just wanted to start a discussion here. Oh Snap (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the current article can be put into a Team history section as you said. Once we find out more information we can start changing the article into something similar to the Los Angeles Galaxy or Red Bull New York articles. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs Found the template for football clubs. Oh Snap (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I started the update per above. Does this article warrant leaving start class and moving to B class? I think it does but not certain enough to change the rating. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment#Quality_scale Oh Snap (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You generally want a person that is not involved in editing the article do the re-rating, which is why there is a section on the assessment subpage of WP:Football. I'd place a request there. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I uploaded the logo but I don't understand the fair-use process, someone will need to make sure it is legit and not subject to deletion. Oh Snap (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to whomever changed it to a .png! Oh Snap (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Jersey/Sponsorship Information

Is it necessary to give a detailed description of the jersey? Not only do no other teams give such a recount, but it really does nothing meaningful for the article. Plus repeating the cutesy names "Rave Green," "Sounders Blue," etc etc is repetitive and an eyeful to reread (They're already mentioned at the very beginning of the section). I'd simply do away with the kit description altogether. On another note, it seems like any kit and sponsorship information more appropriately belongs in the History section instead of Team name and colors. Neither the jersey announcement nor the Microsoft/Xbox deal are related to the unique backstory of the club name and colors. This is club history - not club background. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} --Bobblehead (rants) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just looking for opinion. There are plenty of overzealous users that might consider my logic above as crazy-talk. Cheers! --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Your hesitancy might make sense on an article with a history of edit warring, but this article doesn't have that (at least not yet). Until then, WP:BRD is your friend. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)