Talk:Seattle Sounders FC/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Nom and First Review

Hello. I have completed the GA Review of this article and I am now in the process of seeking a second opinion as this is my first GA Review. Right now, I have it listed as a pass. MobileSnail 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Capacity

Recent edit summary by Socrunningman "I added in yesterdays attendance record and logged in the higher attendance cap(that of the stadium itself) for non MLS regular season games for the 2009 season. Should I make a note that it was cappe" I have used I have used "32,000 (MLS) (expandable to 67,000 for special events)" at Qwest Field by the way.

  • The cap is mentioned in the prose so I don't think we need a special mention of it being capped in the info box. If there is a way to fit it in that doesn't clutter it ("capped at ####"?) it could work. Also, does anyone have a source with an official position othe capacity cap? I think that is worth a line or two if there is a good source.
  • 69,000: The official capacity is 67,000. It is common for events to go over and I have seen 69k there but the official figure should be used. Hopefully, Sounders will cram that many in sooner than later so it can be represented in the record attendance mention.
  • I have seen 32,000 and 32,400. Everything I have read says 32,000 but for whatever reason 32,400 was the capacity for the opening game (which I assume is the configuration currently used). Does anyone have a source or know? The discrepancy isn't a huge deal but would like to be accurate.Cptnono (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a credible source here for the 32,400 number. I've updated the prose. The infobox currently makes the claim that the capacity will be 67,000 for playoff matches which I don't think is known yet. That should be removed. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
How did they fit 32,705 people into the stadium for Thursday nights game if the capacity is 32,400..? ← George [talk] 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Very common in sporting and music events for there to be an overage. Qwest has x amount of seats and the team probably accounts for no-shows (I think the number I I head on average in the industry was 5% or something). They probably had the extra bodies in the restaurant, GA, and divisibility (companions) sections. The building itself could hold God knows how many but according to the operator it is set. There s also a variance in public capacity, seating capacity, and actual capacity. There are only so many seats and the fire marshal wouldn't be happy if capacity was ignored. Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagship

I love it but the recent addition seemed off. Anyone have any ieas how to use this: [1] Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of this Cptnono. Blog entries are not typically viewed as reliable sources so unless this is noted in a more credible source (such as the Seattle Times or the News Tribune) I think this needs to stay out. The article is pretty much "blog free" right now with the exception of some of the supporter group links (which I think are fine). Note that Jose Romero's blog entry links (there are many of them used as refs) should be considered just as credible as if they were published in the Seattle Times newspaper and not as typical blog entries (per WP:RS). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A call for pictures of the players

I figured it was worth a post here to ask if anyone has any quality pictures of the Sounders FC players. I've uploaded everything I had that was any good, but there's still a number of player articles without any picture of the player. If you have a good picture of one of the players with a missing picture and are willing to "donate" it to Wikipedia, please upload it.

The following players don't have any picture in their article at all:
Sébastien Le Toux, Tyrone Marshall, Sanna Nyassi, Peter Vagenas, Zach Scott, Taylor Graham, Michael Fucito, Evan Brown, Lamar Neagle, Terry Boss, and Stephen King.

The following players have old pictures of them in gear from a previous team:
Brad Evans, James Riley, Fredrik Ljungberg, Leonardo González, and Sigi Schmid.

I added pictures to the following articles, but if you have something better, please swap it in:
Fredy Montero, Steve Zakuani, Patrick Ianni, Tyson Wahl, Nathan Sturgis, Jhon Kennedy Hurtado, and Roger Levesque.

The following players are the only players that already had what I would call a good picture in their article:
Chris Eylander, Osvaldo Alonso, Kasey Keller, and Nate Jaqua.

Montero discussion

Here

Home/Away kit changes

An IP editor recently made some changes to the kit colors in the article info box. The contents of this has been discussed previously in the talk archives. While I agree that the current state of the infobox reflects the most recent reality, I don't think the goal of the kit diagrams is to always be "live". Rather I think it's to convey what the club considers their "official" home and away kits. It's obvious at this point that they're going to mix and match things as we've seen at least 4 different combinations from them so far this season: G-B-G for all home matches so far[2] and some away[3], G-G-B for most away matches so far[4], most recently B-B-G[5], but we've also seen G-G-G against Chelsea[6], Barcelona[7] and at least one away match[8] (key... G=green, B=blue, ordering: shirt-shorts-socks). As the infobox sits right now, only two relatively uncommon combinations are represented, neither of which is the most popular G-B-G home combination, so I think some change is needed. I think G-B-G is necessary for the "home" kit. The second "away" kit is going to be contentious though. I'd prefer to go with B-G-B even though they've never actually worn that simply to illustrate all possibilities/combinations. Another option would be to add a 3rd kit and have both G-G-B and B-B-G represented. I'd prefer to keep it to two as 3 kits would spread the infobox out a lot (like this). Can anyone think of any other ideas or have any other preferences?

For reference, the kit shown on the season page is as it used to be on the team article. This isn't a huge deal to me (which is why I haven't reverted anything yet) but I do think what's up there now needs to be addressed. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is "official" according to the team is what it should be.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the press release regarding the "official" kit from last December: [9]. After reading that, I'm pretty sure it should be put back the way it was. Even though they've never actually worn B-G-B, that's their "official" away kit. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 09:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

US Open Cup

It would be awesome if someone has a picture they could add of the trophy ceremony at the US Open Cup. If not, I suspect it will be on display at the next home game for pictures anyway. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounders FC management requested 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility..?

YukataNinja recently reverted my change to the statement: "Sounders FC management requested 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility..." in the footer of the Year-by-year section, citing the wording used in the source. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, so thought I'd request some comments on the issue. The source says:

"...if Seattle should win its quarterfinal game next week at Qwest Field, Adrian Hanauer will be asking federation officials, 'What if Seattle goes all the way?'

'We’ve started that conversation with U.S. Soccer, and if we’re lucky enough to get past Kansas City,' says Hanauer, 'there will be another one next week, and I’d say the urgency level would be fairly extreme.'"

I don't know that my wording was correct, but I'm not sure that the source says that they had requested eligibility either (versus the source saying that they would request eligibility if and when they entered or won the final). Thoughts? ← George talk 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That source = "plan". If I recall correctly someone had another source that said he actually did. Anyone have it?Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Took me a second but I found the archive. I wasn't sure if it was the booze but it turns out we have had this conversation before! It looks like Yukata asserts that "“We’ve started that conversation with U.S. Soccer" = they talked about it. The whole quote "“We’ve started that conversation with U.S. Soccer, and if we’re lucky enough to get past Kansas City,” says Hanauer, “there will be another one next week, and I’d say the urgency level would be fairly extreme.”" and "Hanauer will present a case that binds the two clubs together; one that makes Champions League berth transferable."=they planned on talking about it/did talk but it was not formal request. This isn't a big deal at all and I don't want to screw around with it too much so does "Sounders FC management expressed an interest in 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility if the USL Sounders secured an automatic berth by winning the 2008 US Open Cup." work? This asserts that it was some sort of discussion but not necessarily a formal request. There is a source for inquiring minds and then we can be done with it.
Also, I'm blaming SkotyWA for losing the archive since no one else has worked as hard as he has which leaves no other culprits :) Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What about "discussed" instead of "expressed an interest in"? It's shorter, and I think a bit stronger than expressing interest (not as strong as formally requesting though). ← George talk 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm way late on this but this looks best to me. Yukata Ninja (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to update this after I made the change. I change it to: "Sounders FC management discussed the possibility of 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility should the USL Sounders have secured an automatic berth by winning the 2008 US Open Cup. The USL Sounders lost to the Charleston Battery in the semifinals." ← George talk 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC task force

I'm thinking of creating a Seattle Sounders FC task force, as a sub-task force of the US & Canada footy task force. I've started a discussion on the topic here. If anyone is interested in joining, or has any thoughts on the idea in general, please feel free to join the discussion over there. Cheers. ← George talk 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Year by year

I am removing the year by year from the article per the peer review. Please see the discussion and thoughts on it Wikipedia:Peer review/Seattle Sounders FC/archive1. I'm not married to the idea so if you hate please feel free to bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Year Reg. Season Playoffs US Open Cup CONCACAF
Champions League 		SuperLiga
2009 TBD TBD Champions Ineligible1 Ineligible
2010 TBD Ineligible2
I've moved this table over to the List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons page I just created. I think that's the proper place for it long term. ← George talk 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no big issue here. I like tables, but this one needs more standardization throughout all football articles, I only really noticed it in MLS articles and everyone does it a little different. Yukata Ninja (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox clutter

I feel that the infobox currently has too much information. This distracts from its purpose of being able to give the most pertinent information quickly to a reader. It also makes it scroll very long vertically, becoming hard to read and messing with the layout of the article. It expands into sections that it is not related with that could instead contain informative pictures. I make these suggestions with the peer review in mind of working towards FA. If you look around other articles, it seems mostly MLS teams are filling out as many of the infobox fields as possible. Just because this template has fields doesn't mean they need to be added in. Other soccer clubs around the world, ones that have reached FA status, contain much less information.

MLS Examples (What I feel is a bad trend):

Good Examples (FA):

I propose shorting stadium text and removing first game, largest win, largest defeat, top scorer, and supporter groups. Yukata Ninja (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(LOL @ Colorado Rapids largest wins) I'm not opposed to your suggestion, though I'm not really opposed to including the information either. The difference seems to be enumerated at Template:Infobox Football club, which lists firstgame, largestwin, worstdefeat, topscorer, fansgroup, and honours as "MLS specific" parameters. Since none of the MLS teams has made FA status, none of the FA articles would include these parameters. That said, however, I'm not sure why these are MLS specific parameters... maybe an MLS-specific template was merged into the main template at some point. My instinct would be to follow the MLS standard in general, and leave them here for now, but to start a discussion at Template:Infobox Football club asking why they even exist. A better solution than just removing them here might be to remove them from the template itself (and thus, all MLS teams), if there's consensus to do so. ← George talk 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As you suggest, they were inserted when merging an MLS-specific infobox into the main one. However, this move was largely to mollify a single editor (who has since been banned for sockpuppetry) who threatened to form a "breakaway" football project for US soccer if he didn't get his way. I agree they should be got rid of. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I usually like as much data as possible and having different navigational tools available. That being said, having a more uniform infobox across the project would be nice. We really don't need such a lengthy one and the largest wins and defeats is begging for trouble. Should we buck the trend for MLS teams and use Template:Football club infobox/doc?Cptnono (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the issue over here. I'm really fine either way - removing the information here and removing the fields from the template, or keeping the fields and adding them to the non-MLS team infoboxes - but we should be consistent. ← George talk 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll self revert and make a mention on the main project page.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you needed to self revert when I opened the discussion (you can if you like, of course). I just wanted to get a discussion going on the template page to be sure we're all consistent. Cheers. ← George talk 01:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. Better safe than sorry.Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! This was a good suggestion and I think the article looks a lot better without all of those knick-knack details in the info box. I did add one item back regarding the current season and position just because all of the other WP:FA examples had it. If the preference is to not have that though, I'm fine with removing it. Anyway, overall, this is a big improvement. Good suggestion, discussion, and actions taken. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think things come across better too now. I think that the ranking is for the previous season, but we can leave it for now because the season will end in a week. But should stay there until this time next year when that season has ended. Yukata Ninja (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I went ahead and removed the season, can add it back when the season is over. I shortened the text for capacity as it was somewhat confusing in the first place and the article covers it in more debth. It could even be argued that only the capacity of 32,400 should be listed, but I do not think that matters much. Yukata Ninja (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The capacity thing bugs me aesthetically. Maybe just having: "Capacity 32,400(MLS)" and then letting the reader click on the link if they care to.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What about just "32,400, expandable to 67,000"? The current "or" phrasing bugs me a bit too. ← George talk 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think Cptnono's suggestion is perfectly viable too. ← George talk 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize someone already did "32,400 or 67,000" I don't mind that.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually didn't like the "or" phrasing, as it seems pretty vague. Maybe we can add a footnote explaining why we're giving two numbers? ← George talk 00:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't really like the footnote idea as that can be confusing too, unless we can deep link into the article. How about just having 34,400 as this is the majority of the time and the set amount for MLS which is the main focus. I dont think (MLS) is needed as that is the focus of this article also. The article covers when and why it can hold more. Yukata Ninja (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

Do we need to make a distinction between Vulcan Inc. and Paul Allen on the various articles and template? I am under the impression Allen does not personally own any part of the Sounders.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can probably treat them as one and the same. Vulcan's website says that "Under the auspices of parent company Vulcan Inc., Paul Allen is invested in more than 50 companies..."[10] and "Paul Allen's holdings in NFL and NBA franchises underscore his great enthusiasm for sports and his belief in their positive effect on the greater community."[11] Basically the company manages Paul Allen's holdings and investments (in the way a stock broker might manage your investments), but they're still his, as far as I can tell. ← George talk 23:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The article I used as a reference for him joining the ownership group mentions him and his company First and Goal. I've never seen Vulcan listed as being involved in his sports team activities at all. First and Goal is his "sports company" per se, but the only thing I've seen them (First and Goal) officially owning was the maintenance contract for Qwest Field (for both the Seahawks and Sounders FC). So, my conclusion based on what articles I've read, Paul Allen is the correct entry as the owner even though the company First and Goal has involvement as well. First and Goal has never been linked directly with owning Sounders FC, but they are usually mentioned in articles that point out Paul Allen as a Sounders FC owner. So basically what I'm saying (based on news articles) is that Paul Allen is the owner, not First and Goal, and not Vulcan. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
First & Goal Inc. is one of the "50 companies" Vulcan Inc. invests in, but I think you're correct - sticking with Paul Allen is probably the most accurate thing to do. ← George talk 03:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable former players

I think this section should be removed. Such sections are common but are not required. From what i have seen, there is not consensus at the footy project on what makes a former player notable (fan favorite, went on to play international ball, scored x amount of goals?). I it is also unsourced and they read like a list of trivia.Cptnono (talk)

Follow-up: I don't personally feel that Jon's disclaimer makes it OK. It is still without consensus, unsourced, and trivia. Good attempt in all seriousness though. Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Most of the WP:FA club articles do not have a section like this and the ones that do have a deterministic way of listing players based on an external club source such as a "hall of fame" or "league top 100" or something. Jon's disclaimer is also interesting, as I don't think Le Toux actually meets any of the requirements listed. He never had a national cap while with the team, did not contribute significantly in terms of goals or assists, and recieved no league honors at all. I'm removing it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What about Jarrod Smith, played in the 2009 Confederations Cup while being a Sounder. Yes, he didn't play a game in MLS but did play two games in the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. (Antoinefcb (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
He never appeared for NZ in the tournament and never made a league appearance for the Sounders. No way is he a notable former player. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The bigger point that I hinted at earlier which I'd like to reiterate, is that most WP:FA club articles (which this article will be counted among shortly) do not have a "notable former players" section. It's arbitrary and therefore not encyclopedic. At best it may be worth adding someting to All-time Seattle Sounders FC roster calling out "notable" players, but not here. Unless Sounders FC themselves have a method for recognizing notable former players (such as retiring a number, a team hall of fame, etc.) which can be added to the article and properly sourced (with an inline citation), this section should not be added. It seems like some of the comments above just want the section for the sake of having it. These types of contributions should be avoided I think. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL. You said "grammer" (I've done worse). As mentioned earlier, there is no precident for what names are included. This is something that needs to be taken care of at the footy project before it is done here. From the previous conversation on it:
  • Sourcing is an issue (Who says they are notable? Are we doing original research and deciding on our own based on our set parameters? If so:
  • Is it notability while at the club only, what they went on to do in there overall career, both?
I am not completely against the idea in general but do recomend bringing it up at the footy project. From experience with the current lack of a guideline, it will do nothing but clutter up the page with what might be considered excessive stats.
Alternativley, we could include this informaiton like La Toux being liked by fans due to his great USL days. Put it in the season article, his article, or as a line in the history section as the first signing. We don't need this list.Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah we don't need it but it would be nice to have.(Antoinefcb (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
I disagree to a certain extent. In my opinion, it would be even nicer to expand upon in related sections or articles since prose are preferred over lists. And as mentioned above, an appropriate list format is utilized at All-time Seattle Sounders FC roster and prominently Wikilinked at the top of the section.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Links for the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season for the Transfers are too be put. (Antoinefcb (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Look, for a player to be notable, his contributions count to more than just goals, doesn't really matter how many the player has scored. International ball and fan favorite are not important. So Removing the section was kinda pointless, SkotyWA, if I were you I would've just left it there. – Michael (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how it's removal was pointless given the first two sentences of that comment. Regarless, the topic has been discussed repeatedly on WP:FOOTY the most recent of which are here, here,here, andhere. The bottom line is that without some "official word" from the club or league (and inline citations to said "official word") sections such as these ammount to nothing more than WP:POV. Myself and a couple of editors have put a lot of effort into getting this article to WP:FA quality and will succeed at some point (hopefully with the next review). Looking at the other WP:FA club articles that exist, some have a notable former players section and some don't. All of the articles that do have such a section have inline citations or simply link to their "list of players" article. Having an unreferenced notable players section in this article will cause issues in the WP:FA review and need to be removed. I preempted that discussion and just removed it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FA review failed

The FA review of this article was cut short because some of the prose constitute plagiarism when compared to the inline citations. For Wikipedia's guidance on how to address this, look here. I have begun a review of the entire article comparing the prose to the wording in the sources referenced. I've finished reviewing the article from the beginning through the "Stadium" section. Just taking a quick look at the first paragraph in the "Supporters" section, there is an obvious sentence that is taken verbatum from the source. I'll continue my review of the article for plagiarism over the next week. User:Awadewit has offered to assist in helping prepare this article for FA review again. After she gives the nod, it can be submitted again. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done going through the article and comparing the prose with the sources being cited and rewording/removing any obvious similarities. There were a lot more violations that I expected. While my edits may accomplish the goal of removing plagiarism, they probably are not written in the most professional manner. Please, please review them and improve them as you see fit. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Schmid details removed

As I've gone through the article removing plagiarism issues, I decided to remove most of the following paragraph as well:

In early December 2008, Seattle Sounders FC reportedly offered a coaching contract to Sigi Schmid, who led the Los Angeles Galaxy to a MLS Cup in 2002 and the Columbus Crew to a MLS Cup in 2008. However, before Schmid could respond to the contract offer, the ownership of the Columbus Crew filed a tampering complaint with the MLS that put the offer on hold. The Crew's ownership believed that Schmid had contact with Sounders FC despite being denied permission to talk to other teams during the season and that he shared confidential information with Sounders FC after his contract with the Crew ended.[2] The MLS ruled that no tampering occurred, but ordered Sounders FC to financially compensate the Crew before signing Schmid.[3] Sounders FC officially introduced Schmid as their first coach on December 16.[4]

I don't think this level of detail is relavant any more in the article. It might be interesting to add to the Sigi Schmid article, but I don't think it belongs in this article any longer. Please revert/discuss if you disagree. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note also that if it is decided to add this information back, the third sentence in that paragraph appears pretty much verbatum in the cited source. :( --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That amount of detail speculative wasn't really needed. Nice work on all the touching up.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've added this into the background section of 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season and rewrittent the plagiarism problem. --SkotyWATC 05:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of content and sources

After the recent FAC, I agreed to do a line-by-line check of this article against its sources. I have now completed the "History" section.

  • Wikipedia: "In 1994, as the US was preparing to host the FIFA World Cup, Seattle was one of more than 30 cities that expressed interest in acquiring an MLS team." - I would either quote or rewrite this.
  • Source: "Seattle is one of more than 30 cities that have expressed interest in acquiring a team"
  • I've rewritten this: In 1994, as the US was preparing to host the FIFA World Cup, more than 30 cities were pursuing the rights to an MLS team. Among them was Seattle. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Cities seeking consideration for an inaugural MLS team were also expected to secure 10,000 deposits for season tickets. - I didn't see this information in the source.
  • It was in an earlier source. I've fixed it up now. Somewhere along the way they got jumbled. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia: "Many of the state's voters who supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium did so because it was promoted as a venue for professional soccer." - I would rewrite this.
  • Source: "That may come as a disappointment to some of the state's voters who helped pass the stadium referendum, in part, because it was promoted as a venue for professional soccer."
  • I've rewritten this: Many of the state's voters who supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium did so because it was expected to be a professional soccer venue.--SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally, in 2007, Hanauer worked with Hollywood producer Joe Roth to make another bid for MLS expansion into Seattle at an estimated cost of $30–$35 million. - This source appears to be an opinion column and notes that the cost will be $30-35 million, not that it actually was. I would suggest finding a more reliable source for this figure.
  • I've found a better source that specifies $30 million exactly rather than an estimated range. I updated the prose to match. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The announcement also meant that the Seattle Sounders of the USL First Division would disband as the new MLS franchise was formed. - It is a little hard to pull this information out of the source. Do you have a more explicit statement of this fact in another source?
  • There's a quote in the article from the owner which says: There has been a lot of speculation about the Sounders and what they'll do in 2008. They'll be back, and they will play their final season in Seattle in 2008," Hanauer said. This is in the context of the expansion anouncement for the 2009 season. What do you think of changing "disband" in the prose to "play their final season the year before the new MLS franchise was formed"? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Your proposed rewording sounds fine. Awadewit (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the update. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite the names having been selected by internal committees and research with fans, the lack of an option to continue the Seattle Sounders moniker was an unpopular decision. - Is the phrase "unpopular decision" based on the following detail from the source - "But dozens wrote in protest that the name Sounders -- the name of Seattle's current soccer team -- wasn't among them"? Are "dozens" enough to generalize in this manner?
  • I think I've found a better source for this. It more clearly characterizes how unpopular the decision was: Fans proved much, much more vocal. They swarmed the online forums, newspaper editors and pubs, pushing for an all-out wave of write-ins. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's another source discussing the unpopular decision to leave "sounders" off the list of choices: [12]. Let me know if you think it's worth adding this additional source to the article. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That first description you gave sounds excellent. The second source seems to be a good example. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason that first description sounded so good was because I was quoting it from the source. I probably shouldn't add it or we'd have plagiarism problems again. :-) I've added the update reference already, but I'm not sure if that's enough to justify the current "unpopular decision" wording in the article. With the updated source, do you think it needs to change still? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding the source is fine. Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Seattle was the first MLS expansion team to win their first three games, and they did so with a clean sheet in each. - I didn't see anything in the source about a clean sheet.
  • The source says: posting three shutouts. A shutout is a "clean sheet" in soccer terms. They are synonyms. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm misunderstanding - what does "clean sheet" mean? Does it mean no red cards, yellow cards, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It means no goals scored. The wikilink went to Shutout. However, I'm going to change the wording in the article to "with a shutout in each" rather than using the phrase "clean sheet". Based on the WP:ENGVAR guidance, since this is an article about an American team, we should use the American term which is shutout. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Seattle finished the regular season with a record of 12 wins, 7 losses, and 11 ties. - I didn't see those stats in the source.
  • That source is for the next sentence which states a fact about the attendance record. The club's final record for the season is not referenced because I didn't expect it to be a fact that would be challenged. If you think a source is necessary for this, I'm sure I can find one. Does this seem like a fact that is likely to be challenged to you? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do more later. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your efforts with this article. It is great to have a fresh set of eyes on it. I'm a little embarrassed that I missed the two plagiarism violations in the history section. I hope I haven't missed any more. I look forward to your next round of comments. I also noticed a number of minor tweaks you've made as you embarked on your review. Thank you for those as well. The devil is in the details for sure. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Seattle Sounders FC plays home games at Qwest Field in Seattle, also home to the Seattle Seahawks. - I don't think the source actually says that the Seahawks play at Qwest Field.
It was mentioned in a later reference (42). I've added a second footnote link to it at the end of this sentence. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Prior to the start of their inaugural season, Seattle Sounders FC created a web site identifying seating arrangements for season ticket holders based on personal interests, including preferred method for watching a game and foreign team preference. - I don't understand the "foreign team preference" bit at all.
Yeah, this sentence has bothered me as well for different reasons. It's dated at this point and the effort really didn't pan out as the club had hoped I think. I'm just removing the sentence and merging the other sentence in the paragraph (about the training facilities) into the first paragraph. Maybe this sentence could be added to the 2009 season article when we rewrite it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This source does not say that the Sounders are "the only professional soccer franchise in America" with a marching band. You need to add a reference for that fact.
  • This primary source says it is the first (instead of only). Goal.com (not sure if it is considered RS also says first.[13]. Do either of those work for adjusting the wording?Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Found a secondary source which reported on the press release you mentioned above here. I think citing press releases from the club is fine, but secondary sources (from newspapers etc.) are preferred. This should work. I've added the ref and updated the prose to say "first" instead of "only". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Gorilla FC was formed as the reincarnation of a local politically liberal group to support Sounders FC. - The source does not seem to support this statement.
  • This one had some promotional issues originally (see the first archive). Mathew Halverson (senior editor) wrote in the Seattle Metropolitan "Gorilla FC is the reincarnation of a local anti-globalization activist group, Gorilla FC." This source may only be avilable offline. Monica Guzman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer's first online reporter and the main contributor to The Big "Blog") wrote "Inspired by the liberal German soccer club St. Pauli".[14] We tried paraphrasing it without going into too much random detail. Will these be alright if I format the refs? I was also considering replacing the soundersfc.com source with this.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Your link from Monica Guzman was a bum link, but the sentence helped me find it here. I've updated the sentence and the ref in the article. Thank you. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This source doesn't say anything about how the rivalries between Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver "were only formalized in 2004" with the creation of the cup. It only discusses the creation of the cup.
I've reworded the sentence to match the source: In 2004 the fan based Cascadia Cup was created to formalize the competition between the Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver USL teams.. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why the Spanish announcers were left out of the article.
  • "Calling the game in Spanish on THIS-TV (Comcast channel 114) will be Jaime Mendez with analysis from former USL Sounder Hugo Alcaraz-Cuellar, and on 1210 AM Ke Buena will be Rene Aleman, Noe Menendez and Victor Hernandez."[15]. Any thoughts on how to paraphrase this, Skotywa?Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at it. Thanks for finding the ref. I'm embarrassed that something obvious like this was missing from the article. Thank you for pointing this out Awadewit! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I was talking to a soccer fan about this article and he was telling me that the reason that the Sounders did so well is because they bought foreign talent. I didn't remember reading that in the article - is that really the case?
  • MLS has a set number of foreign players each team can have, and I haven't heard of any shenanigans. I was actually trying to look this up since one player might be considered a refugee (would be exempt if I recall correctly) and another is Puerto Rican (not sure how its status as a territory is handled by MLS). I was not able to find and coverage. Seattle did use the Designated Player Rule/Beckham Rule for Ljungberg. I think any addition might be SYNTHy unless someone does know of a source discussing it. Also, they did good but not amazing. There performance (good and bad) can be credited to a number of things.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting they did anything wrong. I was suggesting that one reason they did well was because they had as many foreign players as possible - that sort of thing. Their stars are foreign, not American - is that right? Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I suppose it isn't a stretch looking at the numbers. There top goal scorer and 3 of the 4 all-star selected for the '09 all star team were foreigners. I haven't seen anything equating foreign talent to overall performance, though. Detail would probably be best in the season article but a line saying something like "in there first year, foreigners such as so and so and so and so made x impact" could work if there is a source tying it together. Skotywa might have come across such an analysis of the season (would be really curious, actually) but it hasn't come through as a major variable in the coverage I have seen.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they "bought" one major foreign player in Freddie Ljungberg and then discovered a few more players who turned into stars after arriving with the team in Fredy Montero and Jhon Kennedy Hurtado. These details are discussed more in the specific season articles (or will be once Cptnono and I start focusing on them). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I've finished going over the article now. I'll start looking back over your responses later today. Once I strike through everything in the above lists, you are free to renominate. However, as a lot of people brought up prose concerns regarding the article at the last FAC, I would recommend some more copyediting first. I am willing to work on this and can suggest some good copyeditors as well, if you are interested. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for your help reviewing this article. Given how far the subject matter is outside your normal body of work, I'm honored to have had your help with this article. It's cool to hear you're discussing the club with your friends. If it's not too much to ask I'd appreciate any further help you can give on copyediting and I'll follow up with any editors you suggest as well. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the eyes Awadewit. Nice work as always for spearheading this Skotywa.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome - it is nice to stretch my comfort zone. I'll start copyediting tonight. I would also recommend: Scartol, Brianboulton, 4u1e, and almost-instinct. Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm done copyediting. If you respond to the comments above, I'll finish striking off my concerns in the above list. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything has been stricken! Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit's copyediting questions

I'll just list questions here as I go:

  • The announcement provided a return of top-level soccer to Seattle for the first time since the dissolution... - What does "top-level" mean? Can we explain this in any way? Is this like Serie A? Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
In many countries, there are several leagues, each at a different level of play/pay/quality. Currently in the US, MLS it the highest level, followed by USL-1, then USL-2, then a bunch of other smaller semi-pro leagues. Back in the 60s (before MLS existed), the NASL was the highest (and I think only) level of professional soccer in the country. So to say "return of top-level soccer", the point is that we had top-level soccer once with the NASL team, and we finally have it again with the MLS team. Between those time periods, Seattle had the USL-1 team for a number of years, but that was not the top league in the country. England has a similar "soccer pyramid" as well but it goes much, much deeper in levels. Did all of that make sense? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this may help... You mentioned Serie A. In Italy, Serie A is the top-level league in the Italian soccer pyramid. For comparison, here is a link to the current United States soccer pyramid. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
So maybe it could be reworded to something like: The announcement provided Seattle with a team playing in the highest league in the country for the first time since the dissolution.... Ugh, that's pretty poor I think. My brain can't come up with anything better for that though right now. Hopefully the concept is clear even though the phrasing is far from elegant. You can probably come up with something much more satisfying to read that gets the point across. Sorry for my stupor of thought right now. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
How about: With this announcement, Seattle will be playing in the highest league in the United States since the dissolution .... However, this is not entirely true, as the APSL in 1994 and A-League in 1995 were the top leagues in the country, but were still not considered div-1 (see American Professional Soccer League). Quite confusing, I think the pharase top of the United States Soccer Pyramid or division 1 of the United States Soccer Pyramid could be used but not highest league. Yukata Ninja (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see how the lower divisions being considered "professional" and the pyramid structure being confusing to those who don't know all of the ins-and-outs. The previous Sounders were playing in professional leagues but not necessarily the premier professional league. It is different than the farm systems seen in US baseball and basketball. "Top flight" is a common term for the English game but isn't really a term used often in the US. "Top tier" is used in the lead of Major League Soccer. "Top tier/level/flight" is somewhat self explanatory and might work with a wikilink to the pyramid structure. "...a return of top something soccer to Seattle..." Alternatively, we could spell it out word for word but I'm not sure if that would be better since it is kind of long and complicated. Those unfamiliar might be better judges of what is and is not clear.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the link to United States soccer pyramid would help a lot - I'm not sure which wording is best. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried using YukataNinja's wording, but it didn't fit right with the rest of the sentence. Instead, I've just added the wikilink to United States soccer pyramid as suggested. Let me know if you think further changes are needed here. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments

Apologies for the abject pedantry, but that's my style :-/ I've avoided making many suggestions because my own prose style is very different to the one consistently employed by the writer/s of this article

History

  • "These low numbers were a result of competition between the ticket campaign for the MLS expansion team" - This European reader has no idea what an "expansion team" is
    Wikilinked. ← George talk 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Many of the state's voters who supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium did so because it was expected to be a professional soccer venue" seems grammatically unclear
Shortened to Many of the state's voters supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium because it was expected to be a professional soccer venue. Not sure if that's what was grammatically unclear though. The use of "it" here is semi-ambiguous until you get to the end of the sentence where it connects to "venue". Are we good here or is more change needed? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's an easier read :-) almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Just as the stadium problem in Seattle was resolved, a new problem emerged" - could be more elegant
Changed to However, after the stadium problem was resolved, a new problem emerged. Don't know if that is any better though. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest having the word "problem only once" - something like the lines of "While the problem of stadium was being resolved, a new issue arose" almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Changed it to almost exactly that: While the stadium problem was being resolved, a new issue emerged. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Seattle was again listed as a possibility for a MLS expansion team in 2002" - the purpose of the date in this sentence is unclear. Suggest putting it at start.
Agree. Moved. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:-) almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Despite the names having been selected by internal committees and research with fans" - again, not very elegant
Tweaked a bit to this: Despite the names having been selected through fan research and internal committees, the omission of the traditional Sounders name was unpopular. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Much nicer almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "In response to the fierce fan reaction" - What fierce fan reaction?
Changed to In response to fan feedback to tone it down a bit. The sources mention various levels of fan feedback/uprisings, but it's probably good to eliminate the editorial tone. "fan feedback" is clear enough and accurate. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Seattle Sounders FC began play in the 2009 season as the MLS's 15th team" - Were they no longer the 15th team by the end of the season?
Changed to Seattle Sounders FC, the league's 15th team, began play in the 2009 season. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:-)
  • "and they did so with a shutout in each" - does shutout means the same as a clean sheet?
    Yup; wikilinked. ← George talk 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha! Awadewit asked the same question only the other way around. It used to say clean sheet and I changed it to shutout based on WP:ENGVAR guidance. See her comments above. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree that you should use shutout - how about putting "with a shutout in each"?! almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I adjusted the wikilink to point to clean sheet as you're suggesting. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "(Chicago again was first)" - suggest "(again, Chicago had been first)"
    Changed. ← George talk 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "The club set an all-time MLS record for average attendance of 30,943 fans per game" - is "of" the correct preposition here?
Change "of" to "at". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's better. Also suggest either "a new all-time MLS record" or "the all-time MLS record". I think I would prefer "new" to "all-time". Why not just "a new MLS record"? almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Changed it to "new MLS record" as suggested. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "As part of the ceremony, the presenter of the Golden Scarf is also recognized" - unsure what this means
    I must admit, I don't understand this well myself. The source cited (the team's website) says: "Because of the arrangement of the ceremony, the club also has the opportunity to honor a presenter as well", but the website only lists recipients - not presenters. My suggestion would be to just remove this (somewhat confusing) sentence. ← George talk 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Attempted to clarify: The presenter of the Golden Scarf, usually a representative from the ownership group, is also recognized as part of the ceremony. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've decided that my brain has got a weird, unjustifiable dislike for the word "recognise" in this context. almost-instinct 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
How about this... I changed it to "acknowledged" instead. Different word, means almost the same thing and is appropriate in this context. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Stadium

  • "While Seattle Sounders FC plays on FieldTurf currently" - this might be an American/British English thing, but this feels very odd to me
I think it's a minor grammar issue. I moved the word "currently" to before the the word "plays", yielding: "While Seattle Sounders FC currently plays on FieldTurf..." Does that sound better? I also reworded the latter half of this sentence, changing it from "Qwest Field has previously had a temporary natural grass surface installed for international soccer events" to "Qwest Field has previously had temporary natural grass installed for international soccer events"... it just felt too wordy to me, but editors should feel free to revert if they disagree. ← George talk 10:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Both good to me almost-instinct 09:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Supporters

  • "The Sounders FC Alliance Council consists of members nominated annually by receiving at least 25 nominations from other members" - again, inelegant
    I changed this to "Members can also be elected to the Sounders FC Alliance Council by receiving at least 25 nominations from other members annually." Is that any better? ← George talk 10:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    Yes! Does this mean that each member of the council requires 25 nominations each year? If not, suggest putting "annually" at start of sentence almost-instinct 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    Yup, that's my understanding. Each year, alliance members can try to get elected to the alliance council by securing 25 votes from their peers. ← George talk 10:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries

  • "Another of Carey's requests prior to his involvement with the team was that they have a marching band, making it the first franchise in the MLS to have one" - something seems to be missing from the middle of this sentence
I think you're saying that a comma is missing between "was" and "that". I've added it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the two sections don't quite agree - it starts off being about "Carey's request" and then it is "the first franchise". Suggestion: "Carey also requested that the Sounders be the first franchise to have their own marching band" and then follow it with something along the lines of "Since Month Year the xxxx xxxx Marching Band has played before matches and during half-time" almost-instinct 10:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
They don't actually play at half-time. I've split the sentence instead, like this: Carey also requested that Sounders FC have their own marching band. They are the first franchise in the MLS to have one. Does that work well? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "in the all-inclusive sections 100 and 144–152" - what's an "all-inclusive section"?
It means that food and non-alcoholic beverages are included with the tickets, however that details is not relevant at all. I'm removing "all-inclusive". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Agree not relevant almost-instinct 10:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Immortal Fury was formed in the fashion of South American torcidas" - more information would be nice at both ends of this sentence
Here's my attempt to expand this a bit: Immortal Fury, formed in the fashion of South American torcidas, focuses on bringing color to the sound end of the stadium by displaying the national flags of several countries. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's much more helpful, thank you almost-instinct 10:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "The fan-based Heritage Cup competition with the San Jose Earthquakes was begun in the 2009 MLS season" - what's a fan-based competition?
    Not sure how to handle this one. The Heritage Cup was created (and funded?) by the Soccer Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SSVCF). That group describes itself as "the only all-volunteer, fan-based philanthrophy in American professional sports."[16] Maybe changing fan-based to fan-sponsored, fan-created, or fan-funded would make more sense (not 100% sure which of those is accurate though)? ← George talk 11:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It means it's not an official league trophy. It was created by the supporters. I've changed "fan-based" to "fan-created". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if this means that the fans award the trophy on the back of already-existing fixtures, or whether games are played specifically for this trophy almost-instinct 10:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It's the first one. I've added the following sentence to clarify: The results of their league matches determine the winner. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and team management

  • "The team ownership is split among several investors" - again, could be more elegant; suggest something simpler.
Missed this one last time, sorry. I've reworeded it like this: The team ownership group is comprised of four investors. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Sounders FC officially introduced Sigi Schmid as their first coach on December 16, 2008.[63] Schmid led the Los Angeles Galaxy to a MLS Cup in 2002 and the Columbus Crew to a MLS Cup in 2008" - suggestion "Schmid had previously led..."
    Fixed. ← George talk 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Joining Henderson in the front office is" - I don't know what you mean by this
    I've wikilinked front office for now (a business term used to describe customer-facing operations). Others might have a better idea how to word this. ← George talk 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Since Henderson is "Technical Director" I don't see how he is customer-facing....? almost-instinct 10:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think that he has a customer-facing role, and I'm not sure if he's actually part of the front office. This article, for instance, describes him as "general manager Adrian Hanauer's right-hand man in personnel decisions and the top liaison between Schmid and the players and the Seattle front office." ← George talk 10:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the bit about "joining Henderson in the front office". It's just fluff anyway, and it may not be accurate (depends on your definition of front office). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is useful, to some degree! almost-instinct 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Any and all feedback is most welcome. Thanks much! ← George talk 10:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, almost-instinct! Your reviews are indeed very helpful! Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you almost-instinct. This has helped a ton. Let us know what you think of our changes/responses. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skotya – everything that caught my eye has now been sorted; I'm glad to have been a help. I have to admit that reading about Association Football (my national sport) in language that I had only previous heard used to describe exotic, alien sports such as America Football was quite bizarre for me! Often I wasn't too sure if I was merely unused to the style you use. My advice, for what its worth, would be that before you take this article to the joyless pastures of FAC, is to find a North American copyeditor with beautiful prose (and not necessarily any knowledge of this sport) and ask them if they think they could add a little gloss to the writing here and there—if they mess up the sense you can always revert. Good luck for the future! Oh, and congratulations on keep your sanity and sense of humour while going through FAC—I'm not sure its something I could manage ;-) almost-instinct 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe we got that level of review from Awadewit. She's from the US and did an excellent job improving the prose of the article. We needed her signoff before we could take it back to FA review which we have now as well as your additional copyedit suggested improvements. I think the article is ready now for another attempt at FA review. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Crap. Left town for a few days and only gave a shout out to to Awadewit at the FA review. almost-instinct's name is all over here now. Thanks for the input, almost-instinct! Cptnono (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede question

Is there a particular reason why Drew Carey is the only one that has his occupation listed of the three minority owners? Just seems odd that the name that is probably the most recognizable of the three is the one that actually lists an occupation. I wouldn't think the article would be harmed by the removal of Carey's occupation or the addition of Hannauer's or Allen's. --Bobblehead (rants) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning was that he was the only one that people were likely to recognize of the three. Drew Cary is the only household name in the group. As someone reads that sentence, without the occupation, they may ask themselves "oh, is it that Drew Cary that I've heard of before"? By adding the occupation, it saves them a click to double check. It seemed that this possibility was less likely with the other two, so I chose to leave them out (can only speak for myself though). The occupations of the other two don't provide the same value since they're not really household names per se. So while it may seem "fair" to have an occupation for all three, I don't think it provides much value. --SkotyWAT|C 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I really need to wander by more often. :) But anywho, isn't clickthrus pretty much the point of Wikipedia? I'm not sure we should be discouraging people from clicking links to read other articles. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You really need to join us on the Seattle Sounders FC task force! ;) For what it's worth, I consider the current wording, removal of Carey's occupation, and the addition of Hannauer and Allen's occupations to all be equally viable; I don't have any preference between the three. It might be worth opening a friendly request for comment to get comments on the matter from editors less familiar with the team and its ownership than ourselves. I think we should probably go with whichever wording is most useful for the average reader. ← George talk 03:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with either. Can you suggest a one-two word ocupation summary for Adian and Paul? Maybe "billionair" for Paul? I don't know what to put for Aidrian. Maybe it's just easier to remove "comedian"? --SkotyWAT|C 04:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hannauer is usually identified as "local businessman" and Allen is generally identified as "Microsoft co-founder". If you want current occupations (outside of the Sounders, of course), I'd still use "local businessman" for Hannauer and identify Allen as a venture capitalist. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Support source

Today, the Seattle Times published an article concerning the fans of the Seattle Sounders FC and also the inaugural season. This could be a good source of additional info, as it features interviews with leaders of the ECS and Immortal Fury. – ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading it right now actually. :) I agree, there may be a need for another section (possibly) discussing the impact of the Sounders on the community and league. There have been a number of articles like this one which point out various facets of this area. --SkotyWAT|C 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

David Estrada

He was born in Mexico.

Argh. We should have had a discussion on how to handle the draft so it wouldn't be breaking news.
In regards to nationality. It is sporting nationality not birth. He has been in the states for several years so there is the possibility that he grabbed citizenship. I'm OK with removing the flag altogether since it is unknown at this time.Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
He has American sporting nationality. He has played for the US U-18 team, as per his UCLA bio - [18] --JonBroxton (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Is he on the roster already or does he need to go through camp and get officially picked up?Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, he's on the roster. Drafted today. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The draft only designates the rights (Sounders and no one else) to sign the player. He still may not make the cut if my understanding is correct. Draft (sports) might explain it better. Good find on the nationality thing. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
At least 75% of draftees make the roster and play a game for their team. I don't see any harm with leaving it as it is for the time being; we can just delete him if he does end up being cut (which is VERY unlikely for a first-rounder). --JonBroxton (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is very unlikely. However, keeping inline with the parameters that made this a featured articles and may make the all time list a featured list (ongoing discussion going on at FLC), it is not accurate at this time. It certainly deserves a mention in the '10 Sounders article. Until he is officially signed, he can't be mentioned here.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cptnono. In England, we wouldn't list a youth (academy) player, or a player on trial, until the club said that he was a professional, or he was named in a first-team matchday squad. I don't fully understand drafting, but it strikes me as a surprisingly similar situation. At the moment he's a Seattle Sounders FC youngster, who may or may not become a professional. WFCforLife (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Forgot about the other picks (second round guy confirmed). It is highly doubtful that all will make the roster before the beginning of the season.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake. Come on. People will come to Wiki for info on this guy. You're damaging the usefulness of your own page by doing this. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah put the American flag Antoinefcb (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Maybe MLS clubs in general should have a seperate section for draft picks? Something along the lines of what Arsenal F.C. do for their reserves. On the one hand you're right JonBroxton, on the other it's misleading to suggest that these players are part of Souders FC's current roster. WFCforLife ([[User talk:WFCforLife|]) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the guys don't even meet WP:ATHLETE (they might meet the GNG though). I think the info should be in somewhere... just not here. Give their information at 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season. If the guys get signed than cool. We aren't being accurate (more important than breaking news) by mentioning them here. We are also kind of giving the finger to the guys who were seen in Vegas.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
2010 MLS SuperDraft already exists as well.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Estrada definitely meets GNG. I spent a grand total of 5 minutes on the google and found a handful of articles were completely about him. I'd imagine if I spent some more time I could find a few articles about him from his standout freshman year. As for whether or not to include them on the current roster. I'd lean more towards no than yes. As noted, the draft does not mean they are going to be part of this year's team. I've added them to the 2010 season article, so if people want info on them, they can hit those articles up. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
With a quickness! I was about to strike that bit out. Definitely meets GNG.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they should be included in the roster until the Sounders FC website or the MLS website lists them. It's currently inaccurate to have the roster cited to the second of these links, when it doesn't include the three drafted players. Just because they're drafted doesn't mean they'll even make it onto the roster. By mid-February last year, the Sounders had 30+ players in camp, trying out for 20 senior roster spots and 4 developmental roster spots. Maybe the roster could be broken up into senior & developmental rosters, but the drafted players wouldn't be on either list yet. They definitely belong on the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season page though. ← George talk 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been standard practice for years to add new draftees to MLS rosters immediately, due to the fact that Wiki readers use this site as a primary source of information and will understandably want to know who has been drafted. New draftees have historically been viewed differently than triallists and camp members purely because of the fact they were drafted, rather than just turning up to a tryout, and in 90% of cases, new draftees feature for the team which drafted them. But, hey, you guys always seem to want to go your own way and screw up the league consistency, usefulness and ease of finding information for readers for purely pedantic reasons, so knock yourself out. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
And how many featured articles are there for the MLS? Sounders.
Jon is right though. People come here for news even though it isn't. I would like to stick with Wikipeida protocol while still having the info to people. I was originally against "In camp" and still am to a certain extent but there has to be other options. Link to the draft page is a good option (I don't know the best way to implement it). Lets do it. How do we make Jon (and presumably tons of people looking at the page) happy within Wikipeida's sometimes annoying rules? Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
While providing useful information to the reader is important, and I'm all for consistency, I just don't think adding the draftees to the roster list is accurate or especially useful. Looking at the roster, how would your average fan, who doesn't know every single player on the 2009 team by heart, even know which players were from the draft? A better solutions would be to create another subsection after the roster, and either put the players selected in a single sentence (similar to the one in the 2010 season article), or add a second table, named something like "Drafted players". Other FA soccer articles, like Arsenal F.C., have several player tables, like "First-team squad", "Reserve squad", and "Players out on loan". I think we could have "Roster" and "Drafted players" during the pre-season, or "Senior roster", "Developmental roster", and "Drafter players". Something to that effect, anyway. ← George talk 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There was a "Players in camp" table. I actually was against it since I thought it would be impossible to maintain (big news when a new guy comes in but nothing when he leaves without making it). It is looking like a better option now but I am still not certain.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I started the Players in Camp just for these types of situations. You might remember Reda Doulyazal and Terry Cooke being on that list. Doulyazal was "rumored" to sign this January and Cooke left to go to Australia. (173.89.187.212 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC))
I think puting this player information on the 2010 seaon page is the best place to put it, not in the team article. I know it's probably frustrating that the standards of a high quality article may get in the way. I've already done the work to create a season page for most MLS teams (2 had already been created). Why don't we move the information on recently drafted players to the 2010 season pages for all teams. I think adding them to the squad list directly is synthesis (the synthesized fact being "the players were drafted, therefore they are already part of the team"). --SkotyWAT|C 19:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"Drag it down"? "Compromise the quality"? My God, could you be any more arrogant? Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to provide useful, accurate, user-friendly information for readers on topics they will want to know about, and as contributors to this project we have a duty to show this. Removing (or hiding in sub-pages) information is the exact opposite of that ideal and contrary to the whole point of the site. Wiki-rules are meant to be ignored if they compromise or hinder the usefulness of the articles in question, and that's what should be happening here. New draftees are hugely important, highly publicized, newsworthy players, and MUST be shown on the main page; they are different from trialists and in-camp players because they were drafted in a high-profile way, as part of the common standard for the American sports landscape. If they don't ultimately sign a contract, we remove them. It's that simple. If they are pass WP:GNG (which they do as a result of their drafting) and are properly sourced (which they are), it's the height of pedantry and obstinateness to move them just because they don't fit the restrictive and inreasingly frustrating mantra of "if it's not part of WP:FA we must not show it". --JonBroxton (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree with you to an extent, we also shouldn't overblow the importance of the draft for Sounders fans. This page averaged 597 page views for the two weeks leading up to the draft, and got a slight bump up to an average of 864 page views on draft day and the day after. That's significant, but to put it into perspective, the article averaged 947 page views a day for the entire month of November—despite being knocked out of the playoffs November 8—including a one day total of over 3.2k page views on November 23, 2009 (the day of the MLS cup, even though the Sounders weren't competing). The draft was far more important to Philadelphia, which averaged just 580 page views a day during the two weeks leading up to the draft, but saw a major bump up to 3.6k page views on draft day and the day after.
That said, I'm still not totally opposed to including the information in some way, at least temporarily, I just don't think flatly including them in the roster is a good idea. Again, how would an average reader have any idea which players were part of the draft and which weren't, presuming, as you suggest, that they came here looking for draft information? If they already knew the names of the players drafted, I suspect they would just go straight to that article (having most likely Google'd the person's name). In the two weeks leading up to the draft, the David Estrada (the boxer) article saw less than 20 page views a day on average, but on draft day it received 251 page views. The David Estrada (soccer) article received 345 page views on draft day. If the goal is to help the average reader looking for information, it would be more effective to add an "other uses" link at the top of the boxer's article (For the soccer player drafted by the Seattle Sounders FC in 2010, see David Estrada (soccer)), because it's pretty apparent that a lot of people are going there looking for the soccer player. ← George talk 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, my comments didn't seem that arrogant when I wrote it. Sorry it was received that way. I can see how it could be taken in such a manner. I'm removing the worst of them. I guess the spirit of what I was saying is this... we're all working to produce a high quality encyclopedia and nothing less. My long term goal (which I'll never accomplish on my own) is for every MLS article to become an WP:FA. I was clumsily trying to suggest a way to possibly improve the other articles, but I obviously did a poor job. Again, sorry. --SkotyWAT|C 04:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the "Stadium" section

Some more notable facts have come to light since this section was originally written. I'd like to concider adding the following sentences to the end of the second paragraph in the "Stadium" section:

Sounders FC hosted a 2009 playoff match against the Houston Dynamo with an expanded capacity of 35,700 seats. This configuration included the opening of upper-deck loge seating.[19] In 2010, Sounders FC announced that a similar configuration would be made available for season ticket purchases. It was later announced that the team would cap 2010 season ticket sales at 32,000 total seats.[20]

Obviously I'd clean up the refs once there's consensus to add this. What do the other editors of this article think of this addition? Maybe it's too early to add this (should we wait until they announce all 32,000 season tickets are sold out in a few weeks?), or maybe the 32,000 stat belongs in a new 2010 season section? How about the wording/grammar of what I've suggested? Any tweaks to suggest? Thanks! --SkotyWAT|C 04:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of information is appropriate for the main article. Details about specific games and the season ticket cap for a specific season should be in the articles for those seasons. If this kind of information was included in the main article, that section would get incredibly long as it is likely that both the seating capacity and the season ticket caps are going to be changing every year. I notice that the second paragraph does currently have the changes in seating capacity for the inaugural season, but even that seems too much to me. I would think a single sentence that lists the current seating capacity would be most appropriate for the main article. I don't believe the Sounders have officially announced what the capacity will be set at for the 2010 season is though. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bobblehead. Although if the lower tier capacity is permanently changing to 35,700, that's worth an update both here and at Qwest Field. WFCforLife (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The goal with what's currently in the article and this addition is not to detail attendance numbers on specific games, but rather to chronicle the milestones of each decision by the club to increase stadium capacity. It provides complete coverage of Sounders FC capacity increases in a single paragraph. Given the uniquness of what's happening with Seattle in comparison to the stadium capacity numbers/situations of every other team in the league, I believe this information is notable and should be included in the main article and not pieced out to the season articles. --SkotyWATC 06:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Then find a source that documents why these changes are significant and include that in the article. Just noting that the capacity has increased and not providing some context as to why the changes are significant makes it seem like useless trivia. Your average Wikipedia reader is not going to know that having 32,000 season ticket holders is unheard of in MLS. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I say throw it in but rework it to take up less space. "Qwest Field... Tarps and stuff... Capacity was increased twice during the 2009 season due to yada yada yada. It was again expanded to # before the 2010 season. Completely open for friendlies... x amount record for Barca. Yada yah..." Obviously more filled in than that but we can trim it up a bit by removing the '09 dates. The biggest thing to take note of is the high demand and actual amount of seats filled.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
And how is this historically significant for the main article? Is this section going to be updated every time there is a friendly listing what their attendance was? Is it going to list every single change that happens throughout the life of the team? As I noted previously, without something to explain why these attendance changes are significant, it's just useless trivia. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think calling this "useless trivia" is a bit harsh. If it indeed was useless triva, it wouldn't have survived 2 independent copyedits and the FA review. Many have agreed that it is notable. Higher up in the article it is explained that the 2009 average attendance was an MLS record (with a source saying the same). It is appropriate that in the stadium section, more information be provided that explains the events/expansions that lead to such a record being set. A similar record is obviously going to be set again this season and the addition I proposed is information that will continue telling the story of how another record is set. Obviously nothing can be added without being properly sourced. No one here is proposing unsourced material. --SkotyWATC 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(another EC!)::::::::Attendance and the seating configuration has received a good amount of press. I consider it "thorough" and not "trivia". I don't think every date and every number is needed, though. I would consider removing the season opener (only to make it more readable) and would drop some of the details of '09 (basically shrink it down). The current capacity along with the reasoning should be mentioned. If it gets increased again (we don't know if it will) then we can do some retooling again. I would also include the Barcelona game because record attendance for a team is something that should be included. I would replace Barcelona if it is surpassed in the future. We can keep an eye on WP:RECENTISM while still providing info.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Cptnono has the balance spot on I think. "Recentism" is so hard to define for a club formed recently. WFCforLife (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like:

Qwest Field is a 67,000-seat stadium designed for both American football and soccer. Capacity is limited for soccer games with certain seating sections covered with tarpaulins to provide "a more intimate atmosphere". Capacity was increased twice during the 2009 season due to successful season ticket sales and repeated sell-out crowds. Seating was again increased to 35,700(?) in 2010. The complete stadium is open for international friendly matches. The record attendance was set at ##,#### against Barcelona on DATE.

We might be able to stick the opener in the third line or up in history since it is relevant to both.Cptnono (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This is really good. The second source in my original proposal states the 35,700 capacity for the 2010 season, so we can use that one. Sources for the rest of the sentences are already in the article and just need to be inlined into this. Let us have a day or two to stare at the wording a bit more. We need to fully copyedit additions like this so that they maintain the high quality of the article. Again, excellent proposal Cptnono. --SkotyWATC 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning the attendance records in the team history section is very appropriate, as is the inclusion of the current capacity for the stadium (regular season and friendlies) in the stadium section. The area you run into problems is the continued maintenance of the section as the Sounders continue to modify the capacity for soccer games in order to meet demand. From a historical perspective, it is more important to explain why the capacity is being increased than the actual numbers of those increases. Cptnono's proposal is a lot closer to what I'm thinking would be appropriate for the stadium section than the original proposal was. The one exception being the Barca attendance record, while it's inclusion in the article is a good thing, it is more appropriate for the team history section than it is the stadium section. My proposal for the addition would be:
Qwest Field is a 67,000-seat stadium designed for both American football and soccer. The Sounders artificially limit the stadium's capacity for MLS games with certain seating sections covered with tarpaulins to provide "a more intimate atmosphere" and open the entire stadium for international friendly matches.[source] Capacity for the stadium was originally limited to 27,000(?) for the start of the inaugural season, but due to high demand, capacity has increased multiple times with capacity currently set at 35,500(?) for the 2010 season.[source]
--Bobblehead (rants) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Bobblehead, I'm glad to see you've come around from the "useless trivia" position. Telling the story of how the club has expanded its stadium capacity is an important part of this article. Based on Bobblehead's and Cptnono's suggestions, I've added a not on record attendance to the history section and I've updated stadium section as suggested (with a minor tweak to how the club is referenced). Here's the diff. Thanks for the discussion on this addition. The article has been improved without diminishing quality thanks to your comments. --SkotyWATC 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Full Name is Seattle Sounders Football Club

The full name of the club is Seattle Sounders Football Club. I changed it and it has been changed back.

NOTE: The FC is not superfluous, it has been stated that it stands for Football Club. Go to www.soundersfc.com and look atop your browser. Or look here: http://www.soundersfc.com/News/Articles/2007/11-November/A-Tuesday-to-Celebrate.aspx

I am changing the full name back to Seattle Sounders Football Club. FC is an abbreviation for Football Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.183.71 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. There is a discussion in the archives Talk:Seattle Sounders FC/Archive 1#Full name. This was verified in an email from the team.Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The club name is Seattle Sounders FC. As Cptnono says, it's been verified with the club. The expanded name "football club" does not appear in any news articles nor any press releases from the club. Even the one you link to doesn't have it (not sure why you linked to it). --SkotyWATC 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Look atop ever web page on www.soundersfc.com Now go look at the wikipedia entry for FC Dallas and look at their full name. There are certainly more references to Seattle Sounders Football Club than "Football Club Dallas"

The club themselves refer to themselves as Seattle Sounders Football club right atop every page on SoundersFC.com

It's right there in plain HTML: 

<title>Home - Seattle Sounders Football Club</title>

HOME - Seattle Sounders Football Club

You want further links? Here:

You can't get more official than Washington State recognition of the official name "Seattle Sounders Football Club"

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Resolutions/4659-Seattle%20Sounders%20Football.pdf


And

http://newsroom.housedemocrats.wa.gov/zack-hudgins/hudgins-leads-house-in-honoring-seattle-sounders-fc/

From the above links:

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives urges all citizens of the State of Washington to join us in congratulating and recognizing the players, the owners, the staff, and the fans of the Seattle Sounders Football Club."


And if that's not enough here's CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/football/11/20/football.mls.seattle.sounders

"Film producer Joe Roth, comedian Drew Carey and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, among others, combined to convince the MLS to accept the city's bid and to create the Seattle Sounders Football Club."

Also:

http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/when_was_seattle_sounders_founded http://www.footballtransfers.co.uk/club/seattle-sounders/1569/

But I'd think the clubs official web page title would suffice.


You said you could find no media references. I refuted that and showed official recognition of their official name by the State of Washington House of Representatives.

I'm changing it back and will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.183.71 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to do so would be to continue to edit without consensus which will end up getting you blocked from editing wikipedia. Did you read the previous discussion on the topic? (linked to above and again here for your convenience) The HTML title of the web site was noted in the discussion. However, can you find any other official material from the club where they refer to themselves as anything other than "FC"? Here is the press release where the club announced their name: Seattle Sounders FC. --SkotyWATC 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
And I need to not threaten to take an IP to the edit warring noticeboard and no one should be reverting over and over again. We all need to chill since a handful of us on this page are fans and the name of the team we follow shouldn't be the cause of stress. That is stupid. So just to reiterate past discussions:
  • We have an email from a CSR (who knows if I am telling the truth or if they were wrong) that says that it is FC. You can see it in the archive discussion linked twice above.
  • Although the website says "football club" the mailing address is FC. We don't know if the web guy was incorrect or when he was incorrect if he was.
  • For every source found that says football club, there are more that say FC.
  • Just for fun: I have a shirt that says Sounders FC Soccer Club. At a minimum, the branding guidelines appear to be FC.
  • Does anyone know what the business license says?
  • Other MLS teams hop on the international bandwagon. See FC Dallas.
I did not think of this until recently but there is no doubt that the team's name has FC in it. There is onfussion as to if it stands for Football Club. Therefore, there is no reason to potentially misrepresent it by changing it.
Like I said up above, I don't care if it turns out to be Football Club. Whichever is correct needs to be in. For now, FC works just fine and is accurate as far as we can tell.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Let me see if I understand this correctly, Sounders FC's official website reads Seattle Sounders Football Club, the State of Washington refers to them as Seattle Sounders Football Club in an official recognition of their success by the State House of Representatives, CNN refers to them as Seattle Sounders Football Club and we're all lead to believe the FULL name is Seattle Sounders FC? FC is an abbreviation for football club. When I go to the stadium the announcer welcomes us to Quest Field to see our "Seattle Sounders Football Club" Yet an email should supersede the above? The OFFICAL website of the Sounders says Seattle Sounders Football Club but an email from a ticket rep is more important than the clubs own official website, CNN, and the Washington State House of Representatives. That's absurd.

The email response you hold to be the final say on this is most likely from a ticket agent (also known as Customer Relations). It should be superseded by one from further up in the organization.

--- If I show you an email from Zac Kaplan, the head of the Sounders Communications Department stating that the FC stands for Football Club would that suffice?

It should given that one from the Customer Service/Ticket Department the basis with which you have determined that FC stands for nothing and that Seattle Sounders FC is it's full name, despite FC Dallas's full name in Wikipedia being "Football Club Dallas" and Chicago Fire's full name being "Chicago Fire Soccer Club" despite little if any appearance of "Soccer Club" or "SC" in merchandise, print or online media.

For what it's worth I have personally talked with Adrian Hanauer, one of the owners of the Sounders who stated the full name is Seattle Sounders Football Club. Abbreviated names are Seattle Sounders FC or simply Sounders FC.

In summation there is a far stronger case for Seattle Sounders Football Club being the FULL name for the Sounders than Football Club Dallas or Chicago Fire Soccer Club being the full names of those teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.183.71 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And there in lies the problem. The only place where FC is spelled out as Football Club is in the HTML header and the resolution from the state. Everywhere else, press releases from the club, MLS, etc. the name is just Seattle Sounders FC. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There may also be some significance to MLS only trademarked Seattle Sounders and Seattle Sounders FC. As the owners of the club, one would think MLS would want to trademark the full name if it were Seattle Sounders Football Club, but that's just me. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The TM is yet another clincher for me. Also, Dallas and Chicago are not FA and it would be reasonable to question those articles.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Trademarks are not a clincher for anything of this nature. They are trademarks of what is used in commerce and merchandise. Toronto FC is trademarked for instance as FTC Toronto because that is how the logo appears. Full names are often and regularly too long to spell out on a logo. The NFL Chicago Bears full name is Chicago Bears Football Club:

http://www.chicagobears.com/about/privacy.asp

Yet only Chicago Bears is trademarked.

This is common practice which any trademark attorney can tell you. You do not necessarily have to trademark a full name if the mark's full name is implied.

It is really absurd to think that a trademark is the same as an official full name. Would anyone argue that Kentucky Fried Chicken's full name is KFC?

If there is some other, perhaps philosophical,reason why you do not wish to change the Full Name to Seattle Sounders Football Club then just state them as such rather than searching for things you feel support your argument that the club's full name is Seattle Sounders FC while selectively ignoring evidence I have provided, or am willing to provide, to the contrary from the club's own website, their communications director, one of their owners, the Washington state House of Representatives and CNN.

And Bobblehead Seattle Sounders Football Club was spelled out both in the House of Representatives declaration and the CNN article I pointed outwhich refutes your point that the only place Seattle Sounders Football club appears is in the HTML header.

Oh God. Assuming you know the history of Kentucky Fried Chicken and its never ending trademark disputes I hope you will agree that that is a discussion for another article. Address the points: More sources say FC than Football Club. We know FC is accurate. We don't know Football Club is. And make sure you are arguing this because you believe it to be so and not to WIN. Seriously, if you find irrefutable evidence (a business license that says Football Club or the like) then everyone saying "no" should be happy to say you are right.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to throw it out there. Business license for the Sounders says Seattle Sounders FC.[21] --Bobblehead (rants) 16:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft

Does everyone remember the fun conversation we had on draft day? Well this is why we don't assume anything. Estrada was signed. Someone put in that he was #9 but I don't see that anywhere. However, Seamon will be going back to school and Perdido will more than likely do the same. I have prodded Seamom's article. Best of luk to the guy and hopefully we'll see him when he is done.[22]Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what is happening with Seamon and Perdido. Both returned to their schools to finish their degrees, but are expected to return to the Sounders in May/June. Fucito did the same thing last year when he returned to Harvard and then rejoined half way through the season. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Crap. Mabe I should have had more coffee and read the news story closer. It is still questionable as to if they deserve an article but I'll remove the PROD ASAP. Anything on the #9?Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know a thing about the #9. Someone tried to add it to Seamon awhile back because he was wearing some shorts that had a #9 on them. As for missing the info about Seamon and Perdido, it's not in the MLSnet story. I believe Don Ruiz mentioned it in one of his posts. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like I was over-optimistic with my wording. The stories I'm finding are saying they may return once their degrees are received.[23] --Bobblehead (rants) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We can AfD it, do nothing, add a couple sources to see if GNG is met, or whatever.
Is there anything MoS wise that would be against removing #9 from Estrada on this article (leaving the number blank)?Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There isn't anything wrong with leaving Estrada's number blank for now. I don't see anything that indicates his number has been assigned yet. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Arlo White

Are you sure he's completely left the BBC? I think he's in a similar situation to his Superbowl co-commentator Greg Brady, who does Fighting Talk and most of the NFL season for the BBC, but is contracted to the Toronto Maple Leafs. I'm guessing that you guys will be in a better position to find a source than me, but I don't see anything to suggest that he's a "former" BBC commentator. WFCforLife (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell. I don't think removing "former" will upset the sentence too much so I did it.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the article with a better source, a Times newspaper article (rather than a blog entry), where he states: There has to be something big to entice you to get off that ladder [BBC]. --SkotyWATC 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Tonights game against Portland Timbers will be a Community Shield. If we win, will we post it as honours. The trophy looks pretty nice. Antoinefcb (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it a "Community Shield?" Seattle won the Open Cup, but Portland did not win a First Division title. KitHutch (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ MacDonald, Frank (July 4, 2008). "This Could Be Big". SoundersFC.com. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  2. ^ Shawn, Mitchell (December 11, 2008). "Crew: Separation anxiety". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved December 12, 2008.
  3. ^ Washburn, Gary (December 15, 2008). "Sounders to introduce Coach Sigi Schmid Tuesday". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved December 15, 2008.
  4. ^ Romero, José Miguel (December 16, 2008). "Sigi Schmid becomes Sounders FC's first coach". The Seattle Times. Retrieved December 16, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle_Sounders_FC/Archive_2&oldid=1140124745"