Template talk:Seattle Sounders FC

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Washington / Seattle This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts This template is supported by WikiProject Washington. This template is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle. Football: Seattle Sounders This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This template is supported by the Seattle Sounders FC task force.

Adjustments 01-2009

• I added Starfire Sports Complex since they played open cup games there and there has been administrative offices/development. [1]
• I removed Cascadia Cup since Sounders FC did not participate and will more than likely not in '10. We'll see in '11.
• I was considering adding the Seattle Sounders – Portland Timbers rivalry since they did have a match last year. Available sources spiked due to both cities getting expansion teams as well. Timbers fans have even traveled to Qwest for games. I'm on the fence with that one.
• Would adding Brian Schmetzer (top assistant) be too much?Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't add the rivalry. I do think a link to Schmetzer should be added. --SkotyWA^T|_C 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much fine with any of these going either way. If the rivarly is added, it should be named like "Timbers rivalry" or "Portland rivalry" (see Template:Manchester United F.C.). Might want to also consider how we handle Cascadia Cup in the main Sounders FC article (it's still mentioned in the lead). ← George ^talk 04:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rivalry will be a must in the future ('11) but don't need it now if we aren't all onboard. Template:Newcastle United F.C. is an example of how other teams do it for consideration later.

Throw Schmetzer in as "Assistant Coach" next to Sigi in the box?Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the upcoming friendly with PDX is being marketed as the "Inaugural Community Shield". I'm leaning towards adding the rivalry now. Not a huge priority but jumps out as OK.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear whether or not the Community Sheild will always be against the same opponent. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Training Ground

Is it necessary to have an entire "Training Ground" section dedicated solely to Starfire when it is listed in the stadiums section as well? Why not do what baseball teams do and list a training ground subheading under "Stadiums" for Starfire. The distinction of Starfire being used for minor matches is not so overwhelmingly important that this could not be done, no? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary says why I reverted. It is more than a training ground. It is where US Open Cup games have been played, where offices are (note that this is similar to other US teams in various sports but different than other soccer teams internationally), and whee they train. The investment the team made into the ground was pretty substantial and important to the clubs gowth. Build the web and tell the whole story.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Important Figures" section

That is clearly WP:OR, unless someone can direct me to some sort of WP:Soccer guideline that states who is included as an "important figure". If I don't get some sort of reasonable explanation for it, I'm going to remove it on the basis of WP:OR. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should go. This is like the "notable former players" sections that many club articles have. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]