Jump to content

Talk:2009 Seattle Sounders FC season/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Article moved

I've moved this article to 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, to match the naming format used for other American sports teams, such as the 2008 Seattle Seahawks season, and to use the full team name of "Seattle Sounders FC". ← George [talk] 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The naming format I tried to follow for the original name was the same as Real Madrid C.F. season 2008–09 or Chelsea F.C. season 2008–09. I don't think it really matters that much though.--SkotywaTalk 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It all worked out regardless if the name might have been a bit off or not. Starting an article for this season alone was in its self a needed and good move.Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like this page has been moved back. So while I agree that most, if not all, European clubs use the format (Team) season (Year), I can't find any American teams that do (in soccer, or other sports). Also, the MLS seasons (1996-2009) use the format 2009 Major League Soccer season. I think that this is an issue of American formatting vs. European formatting, but I'll hold off on reversing the move until we can discuss it further. ← George [talk] 07:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that's fair. It should be moved back. I hadn't even considered the other American sports. I was just going by the other European football articles. I'll move it back now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Player info from main article

So I had suggested when this article was created that we might move the player info from the main page to this (season specific) page. The info is now here (thanks Cptnono!) but it remains on the main page as well. Are we keeping it around there for any specific reason or can the duplicate info be removed now? Most football club main pages just have a list of the current roster without any more season specific info.--SkotywaTalk 08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Big Changes

Grant.Alpaugh, way to dive head first into this article! You've touched up a ton of stuff here. A couple thoughts:

  • I had been debating the removal of the flags for the MLS season games for a while. The only reason I hadn't done it was that there actually are two flags represented in the MLS, so it's not all US flags, just most. In the end, I think what you've done is fine. The flags were mostly pointing out the obvious.
  • I'm kind of bummed that the shared football templates were abandoned in the tables at the top of the Regular Season section. Have you thought about creating some new MLS specific templates for this rather than "going it alone" with the tables?

Anyway, I'm glad to see someone else digging into this article. Keep it up.--SkotywaTalk 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, never mind about template point. I just found this discussion and I don't even want to touch it. Jeez! I think I'll be creating some new MLS specific templates in the near future and trying them out on this article. Hopefully they won't be contentious.--SkotywaTalk 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as it is verifiable and notable content it should be no problem. Worse comes to worse we toy with the formatting but just getting the info in is a huge first step. Regardless, I think the article is coming along fine and your table will improve it even more.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for the recognition. I can understand the passion for your team and wanted to get things off to a properly formatted start before things got too crazy. As for the flag issue, my position was, like it is on List of transfers for the 2009 Major League Soccer season, is that we should only use flags for non-MLS clubs, since they are usually used to denote international competition. You wouldn't expect to see English flags over and over in the FA Cup, for instance, even though there are a few Welsh teams in the competition. It is generally understood to be a "domestic" competition. Same with MLS. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, not sure I understand. I'm talking about shortcut/reusable templates. I've done an MLS specific one tonight following the consensus I pointed to above around using W-L-T for soccer articles about American teams rather than W-D-L. The templates I had originally found and used in this article were removed by Grant.Alpaugh without an explanation (which initially irked me). On my own I've figured out why he did that now, and I agree with his changes. However, I'm a big fan of reusable templates in general and will be trying to bring them back (MLS specific ones this time), to this article at least, and would encourage their use in other articles of the same nature.--SkotywaTalk 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I only briefly scanned the wikilinked discussion so am not to familiar with it. I was trying to say that I like the fact that you were attempting to throw in the data in the form of a table.Cptnono (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Player salaries

What's everyone's opinion on including player salaries? MLSPU puts out the info twice a year,[1] so its available and relatively easy to maintain. Downside, we'd either have to use different templates for the players, or repurpose the "other" field to display the salaries. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is cook information to have but it isn't common in Wikipedia for some reason. It could work in the table unless aesthetically it comes across funky. It could also just be a separate paragraph in the subsection.Cptnono (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If we were to use the other field it would look something like:

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No. Pos. Nation Player
1 GK United States USA Chris Eylander ($45,500/season)
3 MF United States USA Brad Evans ($44,550/season)
4 DF United States USA Patrick Ianni ($72,000/season)
5 DF United States USA Tyson Wahl ($34,650/season)
6 MF Cuba CUB Osvaldo Alonso ($65,000/season)

--Bobblehead (rants) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and is relevant info. Go for it. Just because most other articles do not list them doesn't mean content on this page should be limited.Cptnono (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Most other MLS teams don't have season articles from what I've seen. But my main concern with using the "Other" field is that it is already in use in some cases, i.e. Montero's is used to reflect that he's on loan from Deportivo Cali. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If two fields in the table look a little off by reading "$$/season (on loan)" and "$$/season captain)" I don't personally think it is too big of a deal. There will also be blank fields since it doesn't look like the PDF states everyone's. I personally think it is interesting and notable so inclusion somewhere in the subsection would be cool. Just an external link could be sufficient if needed.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a stats/info table for the team here: User:Skotywa/Sandbox/2009 Season. It's not done yet, so don't laugh. I've been debating about whether or not to turn it into reusable templates. Still need to figure out the best way add more columns for US Open Cup stats and still keep everything sortable. We could add another column to that table if you guys like for salary. I was going to add it to the season page once I got it into a more "final" state. That said, I'm not sure how interesting/notable it is to put MLS player salaries on Wikipedia. It almost seems like an invasion of privacy a little. These guys are professional athletes, but they don't get paid like that (except for Freddie). What I'd really like to see (and have considered creating) is a whole article around MLS player compensation. The league minimum is something crazy like $25,000/year. There was controversy last year about the slim bonuses that were handed out to the winners and runners up of SuperLiga. The collective bargaining agreement is up at the end of this season and will need to be renegotiated. There's an outside chance that the league could end up in a strike before next season. There's the salary cap, alocation money, and award bonuses (for Golden Boot, MVP, Player of the Month, etc.). More information on all of these facets in one article would be very interesting. Anyway, I'm not sure on posting the salary information on this page. They get paid so little for what they do in comparison to other professional athletes. I'd hate to put too big of a magnifying glass on the individuals rather than on the league rules and compensation practices. --SkotywaTalk 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you've done a good job on the season stats table. Only concern is having USL Sounders as how some of the players were acquired. While they didn't come in via a draft or the like, they weren't technically acquired because they were USL Sounders. They were signed onto the team the same way Hurtado, Keller, and Alonso were. They weren't on contract with another team, so they were fair game for FC to sign. I'd also considered putting the GKs onto their own table so you can add some GK specific stats (Games Played, Shots on Goal, Saves, Goals Against, Goals Against Average, Shutouts). But as for your concern... Their salaries are up on the web and relatively easy to find, so I don't see how there is any privacy concerns. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not privacy that concerns me (that's obviously out the window with the player's union web site), it's more of a respect thing. If the league minimum was more like $285,000 (that's the NFL's) then I wouldn't think twice about it.--SkotywaTalk 05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Those guys have plenty of other things to worry about like so and so sucks on the wing and whatever dude has garbage for defense. Salaries are a commonly publicly discussed and reported. They may not be bringing in the big bucks compared to other professional athletes but it is interesting and notable. Honestly, if a player or the union said "hey, this isn't up for public scrutiny" I would be inclined to agree but that is not the norm in professional sports.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so it sounds like most of you are interested in putting the player salaries on this season page. I'm going to be putting the "final prototype" of my sandbox table onto this page after this weekend's game with the full stats for that game added in. I've tried to address Bobblehead's suggestion about the USL Sounders in the acquired column so take a look and let me know if you have a better suggestion. After I add the table, one of you can add the salary column with all of the data. Sound good?--SkotywaTalk 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One more question. Should I replace the current roster table with this sortable stats table, or does it belong somewhere else in the article (maybe in the MLS regular season section)?--SkotywaTalk 04:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Poked around a few other teams pages and it looks like it is typically a separate section but I can't find a set standard for where. Directly after either the Squad or Games sections looks about right but don't care which one.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I took Cptnono's suggestion and added the Squad Stats section with the polished up version of the tables. I'm half-heartedly opposed to the player salaries being added, but I see your points above and so if you want to add a column for that, I'm okay with it. I'd recommend adding it on the right near the "How acquired" column. --SkotywaTalk 04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse but to put our minds at ease: The program from the game vs KC has salaries listed.Cptnono (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

MLS season article naming convention

I was perusing the MLS articles and noticed that there really wasn't a convention on how the season articles should be named, so I started a discussion on the USA/Canada Footy Wikiproject. If you with to join in the discussion, you may do so here. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template for Standings in season pages

I've created a template for the MLS Table to be used on club's season pages- the Template can be found here this is an exmample of what it looks like on a season page KCW if you want to use it you simply must add this ""2009 major league soccer season table|team=SSFC"" contained within {{}}.Morry32 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I've added this to the page. I think there's more that can be done to the table to indicate playoff, US Open Cup, Champions League, and SuperLiga placement, but it's a good template to start re-using even before these improvements are made.--SkotywaTalk 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Alas, Grant.Alpaugh had decided to call the addition nonsense and reverted it. I've put it back, but it's addition should be discussed now. Seems like potentially a much better way to communicate playoff position, US Open Cup, Champions League, and SuperLiga qualification. Anyone else think this is nonsense? --SkotywaTalk 05:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a useful tool but it certainly needs work- I encourage anyone with the skills to improve the template to bring it up to a workable and acceptable level. I don't see much of a risk of it not being updated in a timely manner, I believe it is Grant's opinion that if it included everything he is looking for then it could be placed on the MLS season page giving it more exposure for updates.Morry32 (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I rather like the standings myself, so I'd be in favor of including it. No reason to make people wade through an entirely different article to get something that could just as easily be included here. Is there a centralized discussion on the template that I'm not seeing? I'm not seeing anywhere that Grant is saying the template should be included at all. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
the discussion began [[2]] but you've already commented there.Morry32 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I was hoping there was a list somewhere that Grant thought was missing. However, it just looks like he's opposed to the use of the template because it's not the main article. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cleanup" undo

I just hand reverted (due to history issues) some of Grant.Alpaugh's recent cleanup work.

  • I don't agree that yellow card and red card info for the box scores should be removed. I can point you at any number of season, league, or tournament pages on Wikipedia where this is done for both America and international topics. This stays unless you want to drive some new consensus with WP:FOOTY.
  • The sellout information in the article is notable though I agree that the current parenthetical inclusion may not be the appropriate place for it. Do you have a better suggestion? Don't just remove it without discussing it first.
  • Originally in this article an attempt was made to use the "fb rbr" templates (fb rbr ground, fb rbr position, etc.) but in a previous "cleanup" effort Grant removed those templates and decided to "go it alone" and create custom tables to show the information. I agree with this temporarily to align with consensus around W-L-T formatting, but I fully intend to create MLS specific templates that mirror the "fb rbr" templates following MLS specific statistical formatting. In light of that, I've reverted the placement of scores in the table since that represents further "drift" from the standard football templates used across Wikipedia. The scores are available right below the table and I don't believe provide any further value. Let me know if you disagree.

Since there are a few of us who regularly edit this page (myself, Grant.Alpaugh, George, and Cptnono) I'm going to have to ask Grant.Alpaugh to show a little more discretion before he makes major changes to formatting (especially those resulting in information removal) without first bringing it to the talk page. Disregarding this plea would be approaching WP:NINJA behavior (at least as I see it).--SkotywaTalk 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the templating, I agree with you more or less. The one thing I disagree with is the Round by Round, as the color coding for places changes from year to year, due to the criteria for qualification to other tournaments changes year by year. This is the main reason I never templated the standings tables we use in the main season articles. As for everything else, most of my edits are attempts to keep this article from "drifting" (as you would say) too far away from other articles like this one. Sell outs aren't included in the footballboxes used in other articles, and aren't really that notable aside from fanboyism. I apologize for what you are percieving as a lack of working through the consensus process, but would emphasize that all you ever have to do to an edit you disagree with is revert it. I'm not under any obligation to clear every edit I make with this talk page, and will continue to keep the level of fanboyism that falls outside the pale of normal Wiki-practices under control, regardless of whether I have the backing of the talk page. Sorry if that comes across too harshly, but that is my only interest in this article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Skotywa in regards to the inclusion of cards in the game results. Carding is an important part of the game and, as Keller's red card shows, can be game changers. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Grant, come on man, the Ad hominem responses are getting old (now I'm a "fanboy"??). Stick to the facts please. You only responded to the sellout and template bullets, are you in agreement with the yellow/red card info? As I said, I don't disagree that the sellout info probably doesn't belong in the box scores. It is notable though. Only two MLS teams are regularly selling out home games. This is notable for both the teams and the league. The other, Toronto FC makes note of it in their article. If you can suggest a better place for this info, I'm open to that. Also, can you point me to more information about the changing colors you speak of? I would want whatever templating I do to satisfy whatever criteria you intend to inflict on them. Finally, what I asked for and what you read were obviously different. I asked for "a little more discretion" when making "major changes to formatting (especially those resulting in information removal)". The talk page is the best place to get agreement from the regular editors of any page. What you seem to have read is that I am expecting you to "clear every edit [you] make with the talk page." I'm not your mother. I'm just asking for a little respect amongst active editors.--SkotywaTalk 02:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw Grant.Alpaugh's most recent reverts. He's now in violation of WP:BRD and if this continues I'll seek an administrator's help to resolve this. To respond to his edit comments, the card info is not in the pre-season space because they don't card the players in non-competitive matches (friendlies are the same way). Try finding any other team (American or not) where anyone has included card info. I also see you've done a second revert now on the sold out info and the round by round table without any consensus on this talk page after your first removal had been reverted. To avoid having the page locked can we please talk about this before you lash out again? Please provide a better reason than "fanboyism" for the removal of this information. I've explained why it's notable for both the team and the league. If you disagree, explain. And why the scores instead of "W", "L", or "T" like every other team season page on Wikipedia(American or otherwise). Again, your actions are speaking louder than your words, and they're showing a blatant disrespect for other editors and consensus. --SkotywaTalk 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with Grant's edits and threatening to seek administrator assistance is a bit premature at this juncture. At this point, Grant's edits seem to be inline with BRD. He made a bold edit to remove the cards from the game boxes and alter the table to "score" instead of WLT, then he reverted your revert, and now he's discussing. The revert in BRD is not a revert by another editor, but a revert by the person that was making a "bold" edit. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular with my comments about fanboyism, but the fact that you thought I was brings a certain Carly Simon song to mind... Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this article is not just a catch-all repository for Seattle Sounders FC WP:FAN nonsense. The only reason I made my initial cleanup of the article a few weeks ago was to try to keep things from getting out of hand. Don't get me wrong, the project needs dedicated editors to do the grunt work of making these articles, and those people are only likely to be hardcore fans, but there has to be limits. As to the issues currently of contention:

  • Yellow/Red cards - Wayne Rooney would be very interested to know that they don't give yellow or red cards in club friendlies. Sir Alex Ferguson would probably be more interested, seeing as he lost Rooney at the beginning of last season for a red card he received in a preseason friendly with Porto. My original objection was based on their not being included in the preseason section, but as with flags, I'm willing to accept that sections can differ, so I'm willing to bite my tounge on that issue.
  • Sellouts - There is simply no reason for this to be included in the footballboxes. If the Sounders play the whole season at home in front of sellout crowds, then that is notable, or if they play the first XYZ games that way, fine, but put it in prose in the article, not as a parenthetical in the footballbox.
  • Round-by-Round template - MLS changes the qualification criteria for tournaments by the year. If you don't believe me, look at the 2007, 2008, and 2009 main MLS season articles and you'll see that every year is different. Trying to work this into a template is impossible, and is the reason that the standings templates in those articles are untemplated.
  • Score rather than simply W, L, or T - Why not use two additional characters to provide a whole lot more information at a glance? We should either delete this row entirely (not recommended) or we should provide a lot more information very quickly. You can see whether a team has a huge scoring streak or a great shutout streak by seeing the scores, and the result is already given below as well, so the argument that you can just look through the footballboxes is silly. I think this is a small tweak that provides a lot more information to the viewer in a very efficient manner.
  • Starting 11 section - Where a player plays on the field is a matter that is hard to verify. This is why we list players simply as GK, DF, MF, FW on both club and national team articles. What if one center back plays half the season at left center back, but then his partner is injured, and with another partner he plays the second half of the season at right back? More pertinant to the discussion, at Arsenal (I should know, as I'm a Gooner) Ljunberg often played as a withdrawn striker, but also played on the wings quite a bit, too. If he continues this with the Sounders, where do you list him? Quite simply, it is an unencyclopedic way of presenting information, as it implys something that isn't necessarily true.

I think that is everything (for now). I don't mean my edits as an affront to anyone, and I hope they are not taken that way. I'm simply trying to keep the level of enthusiasm in check so that the article remains professional and encyclopedic. If I'm not explaining something well enough, I have no problem trying again, but go easy on the threats, and try not to take everything so personally. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is all sorts of different ways to do box scores and tables. For example, BBC mentions cards in the match report summary boxes but Sky Sports does not. The referee is mentioned in ESPN's but not in some others. I think both are common enough and important enough to mention. I think the sell-out thing is never mentioned but since it is so cool I like it (biased).
The qualifying thing is weird just because I could see a casual reader being confused. We could put in a few lines of explanation or hope the reader looks up the tournament for more info.
Starting 11 is a little complicated just due to the nature of the game. We have a table with appearances listed already so the reader can see who typically plays.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
1) So I was wrong about friendlies. Thanks for making a spectacle out of it. We're still keeping the card information when the data's available. 2) I'll go along with putting the sellout info in prose. That's probably best. I'll come up with something for that. 3) I also don't agree with the coloring justification. I was aware of the yearly MLS changes, but who said anything about needing to represent that in the round-by-round summary? As Cptnono is saying, that's just confusing to the typical reader. That type of coloring information is best left to Template:2009 major league soccer season table so how about you post your idea for that over there. I've been meaning to add that template to the summary area as well, but just haven't yet. I'll do that next. 4) I don't agree with the score rather than W, L or T. It's in the summary section, let's keep it a summary. If a reader wants more details (like the score, attendance, referee, goalscorers, etc.) they can easily find it below. Adding more details just makes it another representation of the full data rather than it being a summary. Furthermore, the Away/Home ordering of the score I think actually makes it more confusing. I admit I did a double take when I first saw your change. It would be better if the Sounders FC score was always either first or second. Nevertheless, I don't think it belongs in the summary table anyway. Find me another page where scores have been included in the round-by-round table. 5) And as for the starting 11 info, I'm going to revert that back. There are a number of examples where this is included (here, here, here, and, since you're a Gooner, here too) and I even found a WP:GA where it's included here. If this is "ridiculously unverifiable" then I think you've got more cleanup work to do than in just this article. Better get to work. (Just kidding) In all seriousness though, if this wasn't encyclopedic enough, wouldn't there have been disputes all over the place? I think the goal with season pages especially is to provide as much notable information as possible in one place. This page is currently a very good representation of tons of notable data from a wide variety of sources. There is a lot of precedent for starting 11 sections, so I think your reaction to it here is misguided. I suggest you start with WP:FOOTY perhaps. --SkotywaTalk 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not discussed the inclusion of either of your new templates here. I don't understand why I'm subject to protocol that you're not subject to. I also love how you get so annoyed by what you percieve as my attempts to take over the article, and then come within a hair's bredth of making "because I said so" arguments as justifications for your own personal taste. Just because information exists, doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. The same goes for templates. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What is this garvage, first loss isn't notable! (I'm just being biased again).
I know there is some back and forth right now but I did want to point out the following. Although sticking to guidelines is necessary and we should follow the examples of previous articles, it is a good thing if we are coming up with better and new ways to show information. The scores might be repetitive but they might also be nice to have in the summary. I don't really care either way on this one in particular but in the future I think it is badass if we keep our minds open.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to justify or talk about adds, just information removal and reformatting of existing work. It's a respect thing. But stop changing the topic. You don't have consensus with your reverts. I'm putting it back. At some point you'll have to get consensus once the page is locked. --SkotywaTalk 04:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can both of you stop with the reverts? There isn't any harm to including, or not including, the information while the discussion is proceeding. As for the discussion at hand, on the summary table, I think part of the problem is that the legend was hidden, so unless a reader tried to edit the section they'd have no idea that blue means a win and pink means a loss. Now that the legend is actually visible, perhaps it is acceptable for the score to be included and W, L, T in the field is not necessary. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the legend definitely justifies the coloring now. Nice work. My main argument with the W, L, T vs. scores has been continuity across season articles (even just MLS). I'm happy to be overruled though since it sounds like Bobblehead and Cptnono are in favor of the scores. Thanks for the civil discussion. --SkotywaTalk 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the opposition to inclusion of the sellout-status of certain games, and I think you may be mis-citing WP:FAN. WP:FAN covers situations where too much information is given on a topic, usually fictional, that would only interest fans of that topic. For instance, Wikipedia contains a paragraph on Da Soocha V, the fictional watery fifth moon of the planet Da Soocha in Hutt Space, that was destroyed by the reborn Emperor's Galaxy Gun... I have no idea what all that mess means, but something like that strikes me as true "fancruft", and what WP:FAN is intended to cover. Decisions on the inclusion or exclusion of material are weighed by its size, and in this case we're talking about a negligible amount of text.
I also suspect that your comments on "fanboyism" are a bit off the mark. Making a note of when games sell out isn't "fanboyism". A "fanboy" might claim that "my team is the best" – a clear violation of WP:NPOV's policy to "let the reader decide". However, statistics are a different. These numbers can be found in numerous, verifiable, reliable sources – sources unrelated to the team or its fans (USA Today, the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and ESPN), meaning it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's also something of interest outside of the fan base of the team itself, because some view it as a larger story in the context of the entire MLS (which obviously hasn't had the kind of traction that other sports leagues in America have). I just read an ESPN article this morning that made note of it: "League attendance may be taking a punch in the nose from the flailing economy... Average attendance (15,314) through four rounds is about the same as at this point last year (15,251). But Seattle's staggering contribution is obscuring the reality a bit. Strip away the Sounders' handsome 29,939 per game count, and the MLS average in 2009 falls to just 14,269."[3] I don't think it's a matter of fan pride (or of just fan pride, at least), but something notable in a larger context, and so should be included. ← George [talk] 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to get involved in this but I guess I am now- I do not support the sell out inclusion in the game box- I think it is best in prose. Include the attendance numbers in the game box, the season infobox, but please don't make a note for each and every game. Part of my issue in this case is that the Sounders have officially had three sell outs, all of which have had different attendance totals? The Kansas City Wizards had five home sell outs last season, I didn't include that information anywhere in the article nor do I think it is really that notable for these purposes. Morry32 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick response to the numbers thing without getting into inclusion or not. I'm not sure how they calculate "sell out" exactly but the stadium typically goes over capcity seats wise. Maybe it is more people jammed into GA or the suites.Cptnono (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
MLS uses a lot of fuzzy math when calculating attendence and generally uses ticket "sales" to determine how many people are at a game rather than the number of people that actually made it to the game. The reason why I put sales in quotes above is because they include actual sales and give aways. So if a team has a "buy one, get one free" promotion, each actual sale would be considered two people in the attendance even if only one of the tickets is used. Dallas has been rather infamous for artificially inflating their attendance by sending people out to give away tickets so their attendance shows as 5k-10k in the box score, but only 2k-5k in actual attendance. All of this is a long winded way of explaining that even if there are only 27,700 seats available in Qwest, MLS's fuzzy attendance math will artificially inflate that beyond the actual capacity of the stadium. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Good call. I think it happens at every sporting event and always wondered why.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the sell out information as prose, though I thought it would actually be more succinct and out of the way in the table. Maybe the label "(sold out)" is too long... what about instead just using some icon to represent this? Something like to the right of the attendance figure, as a way to represent "at maximum capacity". I'm not sure what the best icon is. As for what constitutes the game being sold out, we should probably just go with what reliable, verifiable sources say; if they say it's sold out, we should consider it sold out. I think anything else will be WP:OR. ← George [talk] 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I like either option (clearly I chose the box score first though ;)). The icon idea is interesting, but it makes it a little weird to add a footnoted ref to it perhaps. I definitely wouldn't want to add any sold out information without a ref. How do you think we could make that work with the icon plus a ref? --SkotywaTalk 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. I don't have a great solution for that... I actually think we need a better template to encapsulate this whole thing. Maybe if I get some free time I'll work on one. ← George [talk] 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw a great line in the paper (I think USA Today) mentioning 3 records (season tickets, average, and something else tickets wise) that were or are on track to be broken. I plan on having the line in here or at Qwest when the numbers are finalized at the end of the year.Cptnono (talk)

Starting 11 section

Since Grant.Alpaugh seems bent on keeping the Starting 11 section out of this article and I liked it enough to be bold and add it, I'm curious what the other editors think about it. When I discovered a similar section in so many other team articles (some examples (here, here, here, and here with tons more if you want 'em) I figured if someone was willing to maintain it, it would be a nice addition to this article (I'm willing to maintain it though the season). If I'm the only one that wants it in the article, I'll happily remove it. Grant's only justification is verifiability, but the match reports often mention the starting formation and always mention the starting lineup, so I'm not buying. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? We're going to need people to share their ideas in order to get a consensus one way or the other. Thanks! --SkotywaTalk 04:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid the other stuff exists argument and focus on why it should, or should not be included? For every Chelsea article, you've got an A.C. Milan season 2008–09 or Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09 where the starting 11 is not included. One thought that I have is that the stats table includes a Game Started column and that is a more valuable measure than a simple table that lists the starting 11. On the other hand, the preferred starting eleven is rather easy to determine, so I don't think verifiability is an issue here. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair. Aside from similar info in so many other articles (but true it's missing from so many more) I think the visualization of the starters in their most common formation is valuable to the article. I agree that the table itself is redundant with the data above. The formation picture is where the value lies with this. --SkotywaTalk 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So I was thinking about this more this morning. I can see how my list of examples could be seen as my saying "everyone else is doing it so why can't I(we)". That's not my intention. In determining what content I had a desire to contribute to this article, I did look around though for ideas. I would also point out that there are a lot of things editors do in these types of articles that are awful such as sortable tables that don't sort and colors in every table with little to no explanation to the reader. My intent when pointing out so many examples is more to say "this is a good thing that other pages are doing that we could do as well". Part of the greatness of Wikipedia is the uniformity across articles. That doesn't come without a lot of effort from the editors to templatize common elements and encouragement of other editors to reuse them. This has been my thinking behind both the Starting 11 section as well as the round-by-round table. --SkotywaTalk 15:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
At this point the "Starting 11" section is a bit much IMHO. There has only been 4 games so far and they haven't had a single game with the same starting 11. Since you seem to agree that the table is a bit redundant to the stats section, perhaps just maintain the image without the accompanying table and section. I'd also wait a couple more weeks for those with injuries to get back and for the team to actual settle on a starting 11 for awhile. I don't want to dig through the links, but when I was checking into it yesterday I saw an article where they only had the image and called it their "most common starting lineup". --Bobblehead (rants) 22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll experiment with it on my sandbox page for a few more weeks and then try adding it again. Thanks for the civilized discourse. For future reference... if people weren't so quick to revert around here (really just one person) I would have happily reverted it myself at this point. --SkotywaTalk 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Round-by-round color legend

Without the color legend that Bobblehead created the coloring in the round-by-round table doesn't work at all. I think it should go or the legend should come back. I also think that the same information (with colors possibly) should be available through the standings template and have started a conversation over there. I think we're nearing consensus above to bring back the standings template. --SkotywaTalk 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "More detailed explanations of Conference Standings, Overall Standings, and the qualification criteria for related competitions can be found here" line seems OK. The legend was not amazing but we could always just copy and paste the legend from the linked article's subsection if it looks better:
color MLS Supporters' Shield, 2009 MLS Cup Playoffs, 2010 U.S. Open Cup, CONCACAF Champions League 2010–113
color 2009 MLS Cup Playoffs, 2010 U.S. Open Cup, SuperLiga 2010
color 2009 MLS Cup Playoffs, 2010 U.S. Open Cup
color 2009 MLS Cup Playoffs
2009 Major League Soccer season#Standings --Cptnono (talk) 15 April 2009
Now that Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table has a full legend with color explanations, addressing this problem could be as simple as including that template in the article above or below the round-by-round summary. --SkotywaTalk 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Washing my hands of the article

I concede that the battle against fanboyism is over, and I have lost. Have fun treating the article as your own private sandbox. Just remember, if some piece of information or style of template, or anything else, exists in another article, it must be in this article, for Seattle Sounders FC are the best football team in the world, and their season article must include every possible trinket. Consensus, consistency, or accuracy be damned! -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you input but good riddance if you are going to take that attitude. It comes across like your persistence in cutting down on any perceived "fanboyism" skewed your ability to participate productively. I think we are doing pretty well on looking for consensus and I don't know of any inaccuracies. Consistency wise, it doesn't hurt my feelings if this article becomes better than other MLS teams. Maybe this is the next step in improving the entire category. Sorry to hijack your discussion section but speaking of trinkets, having a summary of the games while minimizing the box scores was genius. I also think standings are important. As I mentioned on another talk page, we could follow suit with some other articles and reduce the overall table to Sounders position and the teams above and below. A summary like that might be more appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, what exactly are you complaining about? It's rather difficult to have discussions on topics as broad as "fanboyism". Looking through the article, I don't see anything that I would call "fanboyism"... nobody seems to be claiming that the Seattle Sounds FC "are the best football team in the world" anywhere in the article. Looking at your last edits to try to figure out what exactly you're complaining about, it appears that you were unhappy with including the standings boxes, and didn't like the collapsed season results. I don't really care about the regular season results being collapsed or not. On the one hand, it helps shorten a long article, but on the other hand, it seems a bit overkill because each section only has a few games. I actually don't think that either solution is ideal. I think a "best" solution would be a template that lists the games in a table with one line each, with each row expandable to show details about that game. That's how Arsenal's season page does it, and it seems both compact and useful. Maybe if I get some free time I'll work on such a template. I'm also not sure why you're opposed to inclusion of the standings boxes. I know you're a fan of Arsenal, and Arsenal's article is FA quality (making it a good template to try to imitate), and their 2008-2009 season article has standings boxes for both the Premier League and UEFA Champions League. Obviously the Sounders aren't Arsenal, and don't have as long or storied a history, but it's quite common (and encouraged) for articles to imitate their more mature, well-written cousins. ← George [talk] 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
He's not going to be responding any time soon on this page. He's been blocked for 1 month because of edit warring and sock puppetry. If you want to ask him questions about his opinions he is still able to respond on his user talk page. However, my response to his above post is one word: WP:DIVA. --SkotywaTalk 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Box Score Groupings

I like where the box score groupings are taking this article that Grsz11 did. I'm wondering if the groups by month is the best way to do this though. I'm thinking there should be more games-per-group. One idea I had to address this was to just have two groups, a pre AllStar game group and a post AllStar game group. Another (minor) concern I had was around the color used. When they're all minimized, the green blocks look funny to me. I think using the default wiki color would look better. Look at 5th Avenue Theatre for an example of many hidden tables next to each other. Again, this color think is a minor grip and is totally not a big deal. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did it so the article wasn't so damn long. I figured months was the easiest way to do it, but I didn't think to much on it. Grsz11 03:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's funny since everyone has their own preference on layout. I would be happier with one huge drop down personally. Like it more than enough as it is, though. Is a different shade of green easy to fiddle with or is that hard? (I know hardly anything about templates and drop downs) And good move overall, Grsz11.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know how you guys love stuff. 1)Do subs belong in the box scores? It isn't uncommon and thought it might be a nice touch. Also, 2) dude made a pretty page. It needs clean up on certain things but I like the line ups being easily available. This addresses the whole staring 11 discussion from earlier. It would fit in well with the drop downs being used. Tons of work when we already link to the report but thought it might be funCptnono (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think subs is a bit much. I'd also be concerned about the amount of work it will take to maintain that level of detail for every MLS season article. Not to mention the size of the article after that detail is added. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit right now I won't put the effort in. If someone wants to put starting 11 and subs in the drop downs I am not against it but doubt anyone is willing. It could be more data than is necessary, too.Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Schedule format

Sorry about changing the team order on the schedule. I'm starting to go through and create season articles for the other team and didn't notice my order of teams was different from this one until I had already created three articles, so I just went ahead and altered the order of the teams on this one to match the others. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Results by Round summary template usage

I put the results by round summary templates back into this article. I know this was a heated discussion a month ago. Things have died down now and Bobblehead has done a great job creating a number of other team season articles. I think using the standard templates (which now support T for Tie woohoo!) will make things easier going forward. Hope this is cool with everyone. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tryouts

I am removing dude who is in trials for the following reasons:

  • It can be argued that this coverage is not notable enough for inclusion. If he makes the team it is notable for sure.
  • Adding a single player in a table gives undue weight atheistically. The effort to bring in foreign players can be expressed in the prose.
  • Upkeep. Yes it gets trivial news coverage but are we going to give any breaking news like this a place in the article? Is there going to be a press release if he does not make it on to the team? Will you update it either way?

When it is all said and done, hopefully he will be a good player who makes it on so we can add his name in this article without any fuss.Cptnono (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i would update it whenever I learn that a new player is on trial, if he leaves Seattle to go to another club, I will take him/them off the list. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.187.212 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I have two names why not put it like this,

Players in Camp

As of August 29, 2009.[1] [2]

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No. Pos. Nation Player
13 MF Morocco MAR Rida Lah Douliazale
— MF England ENG Terry Cooke

(sigh) I see that this has been added back again. I guess it's fine if it stays for now even if it becomes outdated (as this level of detail always does). On Sept. 15 the MLS rosters lock for the remainder of the season and it can and should be removed at that time since it will no longer matter who's "in camp" since they'll have to wait till next season to have a chance as playing time. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the including editor's defense a proposal was attempted. I am still concerned that this is relativity trivial sports news. We can go on and on about WP:NOT but the chance that there will not be any coverage if they don't make it could easily lead to this not being kept up to date. Since I am on the fence and Scotywa seems so against it I am going to remove it. They could be out right now and we probably wouldn't know it. I would recommend commenting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if there are any other thoughts and poking around further to see if there are any standards for such a table. I know you are trying to improve the article so I hope this doesn't piss you off or come across as being bitey.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, no you don't piss me off. Sounders win first trophy !! Antoinefcb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinefcb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

YEAH! If I would have been editing that night the page would have looked like garbage after that many beers.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Reda Douliazale On Trial With Seattle Sounders FC". Major League Soccer (MLS) Rumors. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
  2. ^ >"Terry Cooke to Seattle Sounders FC?". Major League Soccer (MLS) Rumors. Retrieved 2009-08-28.

Montero discussion

Here

Terry Boss?

Shouldn't Terry Boss be listed in the Goalkeepers subsection of the Statistics section? ← George [talk] 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When the tables were originally added, they just had the current squad members added. Since then I've added any players that made appearances in MLS matches (like Leo Gonzalez). Terry Boss could be added, but his stats line would just be all 0. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about that, too. Did he get any play time in the Open Cup?Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Reason I asked was because Taylor Graham is listed as well with all 0 stats. I don't really care if we do or don't include them, but it should probably be consistent. I don't think he played in any of the Open Cup games, but he did play in the friendly against Chelsea. ← George talk 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

GA prep

I agree with your points. Good work! ← George talk 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This is silly but I hate using "season" twice like that but am stuck like a 1st grader. Any suggestions?Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What about "2009 was Seattle Sounder FC's inaugural season in Major League Soccer." or "The 2009 season was Seattle Sounders FC's inauguration into Major League Soccer" (that sounds odd to me, but I think that's correct usage). In the second sentence I think you could replace inauguration with "debut" or "first". ← George talk 07:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that my grammar was off here, as "debut into" might not be proper English. What about something like "The 2009 season was the Seattle Sounders FC's Major League Soccer debut." Or, alternatively, we could use "debut in" rather than "debut into"? ← George talk 15:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I just moved all of the box scores down to the bottom of the article. I'd been meaning to do that for a while now and just never got around to it. Did you have more restructure in mind, or was that pretty much it? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I was actually constructing a draft when you did it. I have this so far. If we decide to add more prose, please feel free to fiddle with the draft. We also do not need to adjust it anymore than you just did. Most of the GA season articles have the months laid out but I do not think it is a style guideline. Let me know what you guys think.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking, maybe we should expand the article lead a bit, noting the US Open Cup championship win. We should also note the teams final position in the league after the season ends in the lead, but that won't end for some months still. Also, assuming they finish the season having sold out every game, I think that's noteworthy for the lead too. I read an article from earlier in the season that say the Sounders were on pace to break the MLS season records for total and average attendance. If true, and if that happens, that is also noteworthy. ← George talk 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded. There of course will not be all of the information needed just yet. Go check out my sandbox and feel free to fiddle with the prose if you like the general idea. User:Cptnono/SandboxCptnono (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting the push

I just copied in the work Cptnono and I had done in his sandbox. We reorganized the article similar to how the 2010 articles are (and other GA season articles). All the tables and stats are moved to the end of the article. The prose and lead need work still. I've mostly finished the background section filling it in and cleaning it up. I'll continue to work on it section by section over the next few days. I'd love for any editors watching this article to review the prose as they have time. I hope to be prepared to submit it for GA review by the end of the week at the earliest. --SkotyWATC 05:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is taking longer than I expected. I'm done filling in the preseason prose now. On to the month-by-month sections. --SkotyWATC 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Done filling in details for March. --SkotyWATC 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Preseason home/away

Is it just me, or is which column represents home and which represents away switched in the Preseason section? ← George talk 07:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I never noticed that before (haven't looked at it very closely since the preseason). I just fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Consistency is very important. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Seattle_Sounders_FC_season/Archive_1&oldid=1145063258"