Talk:Seattle Sounders FC/Archive 1

Title

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

Agree, the listing on the MLS template is for "Seattle" not "Seattle, Washington". Team won't be called "Seattle, Washington XXX", just "Seattle XXX". Oh Snap 05:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is needlessly long. I suggest "Seattle Major League Soccer team". --D. Monack | talk 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2009 Season

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

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

No Soccer Specific Stadium?

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

Qwest Field (from wp): "Qwest Field is a stadium built for football and soccer located in Seattle, Washington." Perhaps intent is good enough? Oh Snap 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the general SSS requirement is still there, and San Jose is planning on building a stadium. I think that the fact that one of the owners owns the stadium too perhaps waives the SSS requirement, because it looks like New England aren't going to build a stadium. The owner of the team, Bob Craft, also owns the stadium (Giants Stadium). The main reason for building an SSS is so as not to pay massive amounts of rent to play in huge stadiums with attendance capabilities that they don't need. -Bardiak (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Qwest Field isn't owned by Paul Allen, he just has a sweetheart lease since he paid about 1/3 of the cost. The stadium is technically owned and operated by a public authority. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a big debate about whether to put FieldTurf in back when Qwest Field was first built. Here's the article. It turns out that voters approved the taxes needed for the stadium construction on the condition that it would be suitable for football and soccer. If the MLS/FIFA would listen to player feedback/complaints and get their story straight on FieldTurf we will likely see natural grass after all at Qwest Field.--Skotywa^Talk 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Players

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

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

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

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

• http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=644883
• http://seattlepi.com/soccer/357491_mls03.html

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

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

• http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/seattle-already-in-the-rumor-mix/

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

Name Choices Narrowed Down

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

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

Adrian Hanauer

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

Fan Sites

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

By and large fan sites are not allowed because the question becomes, where do you draw the line and what encyclopedic value do the sites add to the general article. Fan sites rarely meet the criteria laid down in the What should be linked and Links to be considered portions of WP:EL. This is particularly true of GOALSeattle. GOALSeattle is a NW soccer fan site, it is not a Seattle MLS FC fan site. If/When a site is created that is uniquely for the MLS team (even better if it is accepted by the team itself), then it may be considered for inclusion, but until then, I don't see how a site that is a general NW soccer fan site meets the requirements. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across GoSounders.com it seems to be only about the MLS team. Miketown (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am including a link to this website b/c I feel it is fan specific for the Seattle Sounders FC team and not a combination of the USL team or Seattle Soccer in general. Miketown (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Adding GoSounders.com back as an unofficial site. It seems to meet all Wikipedia's external links guidelines and offers alternate information. Dan 201 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Long term future of page

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

Most of the current article can be put into a Team history section as you said. Once we find out more information we can start changing the article into something similar to the Los Angeles Galaxy or Red Bull New York articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs Found the template for football clubs. Oh Snap (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I started the update per above. Does this article warrant leaving start class and moving to B class? I think it does but not certain enough to change the rating. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment#Quality_scale Oh Snap (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You generally want a person that is not involved in editing the article do the re-rating, which is why there is a section on the assessment subpage of WP:Football. I'd place a request there. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo

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

Done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever changed it to a .png! Oh Snap (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jersey/Sponsorship Information

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

{{sofixit}} --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just looking for opinion. There are plenty of overzealous users that might consider my logic above as crazy-talk. Cheers! --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your hesitancy might make sense on an article with a history of edit warring, but this article doesn't have that (at least not yet). Until then, WP:BRD is your friend. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone edit the Kit information (I don't know how to)??? We do not know how the jerseys and the shorts will be paired at this time. The green-blue-green and the blue-green-blue color combos are pure speculation. Miketown (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no evidence as of right now that the blue shorts will be one with the green tops (and vice versa). Dan 201 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. The only source that shows the away shirt is EuroSport, and EuroSport clearly labels the home and away shorts as contrasting with the main shirt color (i.e. home shirt is green, home shorts are blue, home socks are green, and vice versa for the away). -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record here is what I'm talking about. And I guess the socks are still up in the air, but I'm willing to bet they will go with green/blue/green and blue/green/blue, rather than green/blue/blue or blue/green/green, but I guess they could go with a third color for the socks, what do I know? -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had 3 "official" game's now - 2 home and 1 road - and the "Kit" description seems to be wrong. The away Kit was Green tops, green shorts and blue socks, so that at least needs to be changed. It seems the blue top will be used as part of a third kit, and it could be that there actually isn't home and away kits as such... just First Second and Third kits. Xanstarchild (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

https://proshop.soundersfc.com/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=37435 http://proshop.soundersfc.com/ProductDetail.aspx?CategoryID=2680&Page=1,2&ProductID=37434 Also, the article: Kit (association football) sums it up well: "...that in the event of a match between teams with identical or similar colours the away team must change to a different kit." Home or way colors are handled differently in MLS than MLB. Surprised myself but it looks like that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Their shirt sponsors will be XBOX 360 Live., in which the local Microsoft is a techincal sponsor. -76.111.67.200 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Almost every article for every soccer team in the entire world has a flag next to the name of the team owner or chairman. Don't remove it. Charles 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:FLAGCRUFT. The use of the flags in this infobox is for purely decorative purposes and doesn't further the understanding of the team's ownership group. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You understand where they are from, in football clubs owners and escpecially managers from other countries are very common. — chandler — 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Their nationality is conveniently provided in their articles and if it is important (such as the Glazers owning Manchester United), then it is better conveyed in the text of the article rather than a flag icon in the infobox. A simple flag icon in an infobox is less than useless in regards to providing encyclopedic content as many flags are similar and/or unknown to the readers of the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

name

why is it just FC? why not football club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.174.33 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody would have Football Club on their name, that's why it's FC for short. Michael 5:00pm Pacific Time, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemor92 (talk • contribs)

The team's name is not Seattle Sounders Football Club, or even Seattle Sounders F.C., so we can't assume that the FC stands for anything. This is just like Toronto FC or FC Dallas, where the FC doesn't stand for anything, or like AFC Wimbledon, where they chose the AFC because it sounded "non-league." They just wanted to sound like a traditional football club. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The team name is Seattle Sounders FC or Sounders FC. It should never be referred to as "The Sounders". Please ref many articles on SoundersFC.com. [This one for example http://www.soundersfc.com/Article.aspx?id=2278&languageId=1033] has multiple notations of "Sounders FC". Never "the Sounders". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketown (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The team can't be called Sounders FC for the same reason you can't call Bolton Wanderers F.C. by Wanderers F.C. The English language doesn't work that way. You can call Bolton Wanderers F.C. just Bolton, and you can call them the Wanderers, but you can't call them Wanderers F.C. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The English language doesn't work in lots of ways. It's not our job to be the word or grammar police when it's very clear, from the front office... "Call us Sounders FC" http://soundersfc.com/article.aspx?id=1274 Miketown (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and updated all references to the team to be either "Seattle Sounders FC" (once per paragraph, usually the first reference) or "Sounders FC" (all other references in the same paragraph). Any time you find the words "the sounders" together it's in reference to someting else such as "the Sounders FC Association Council" or just the general "sounders" namesake from previous Seattle teams. I don't know if the nickname listed in the infobox should be changed to Sounders FC or not.

The english language can work that way if you assume that Sounders FC is a proper name all by itself like Mike or Joe. You wouldn't say "the Mike". Similarly, you wouldn't say "the Sounders FC", just "Sounders FC". Personally, I really have no opinion on how the team is referred to here, just that it's consistent throughout the article. If anyone wants to adjust how the team is referred to in the article, please be sure to go through the whole article and update all references. --Skotywa^Talk 01:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The full name of the club is Seattle Sounders Football Club. Look at the title of the page at the top of your browser on the team website, and while the most common usage is Seattle Sounders FC (which should remain the page title), I think that the full name should be included and bolded in the article. --DerRichter (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing a paragraph

What happened to the paragraph about Thierry Henry? Michael (User talk:Mikemor92) 5:15pm Pacific Time, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like 68.215.124.150 got rid of it on July 2, 2008 and nobody undid it. --Skotywa^Talk 07:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just put it back. The ref is still valid and no reason was given for it's removal. At some point, the Players section is going to need to be rewritten in more coherent, encyclopedic prose, but probably not till after the 2009 season starts. Facts are just rolling in too quickly right now. --Skotywa^Talk 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Ljungberg

The Freddy Ljungberg signing is now official, check his page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.198.12 (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag for Sigi

I'm not a fan of the use of flags in infoboxes for this specific reason, but it should be noted that according to MOS:ICON, the flag is supposed to be for a person's sporting nationality, not their actual nationality. So my earlier comment about him being a US citizen is a bit moot. However, having said that, Sigi has only been associated with the US National team, so that would seem to place him as a US flag, not the German flag, with whom he has had no sports related association. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. Like I said in the edit summary, he moved to the U.S. when he was 9, and he's 55 years old now.-Bardiak (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have become a slow edit war.. I've started a discussion on [Football] about what flag should be used for Sigi. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Zakuani's nationality

Steve Zakuani is English. He and his brother Gabriel Zakuani moved from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to England when they were both small children, and took British nationality. Gabriel was subsequently called up to play for the DR Congo national team, which changed his sporting nationality back to that country; Steve has not played internationally for anyone yet, so he retains his actual nationality - which, for soccer purposes, is English. Here [1] is a source confirming Steve's hometown as "London, England" --JonBroxton (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can hardly be considered reliable because he is not born in London, it even says at the bottom "Born in the Republic of Congo", note that this isnt the same country as his brother who plays for Peterborough United plays for (or is born?). I don't know what the normal procedure is for cases like these. But I would think until a player plays for another country than his birth he should be listed as from where he is born. — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Josh Wicks was born in Germany. That does not make him German. Terry Butcher was born in Singapore. That does not make him Singaporean. Gabriel and Steve - who ARE brothers - were both born in DR Congo, but have had British nationality since childhood, which makes them English in soccer terms because they lived in London. Gabriel adopted DR Congo nationality when he was called up to their team due to his heritage; Steve has not, so he remains English. Steve's page for both Sounders and his college both show him as being English, and Gabriel's page outlines their life story and WHY they are English. I don't understand what there is to argue about? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it makes them eligible to play for Germany / Singapore. Because they're bornin DR Congo they are eligible to play for it, and when they later got British nationality they were eligible to play for England (or any of the other Home nations perhaps). They don't lose their eligibility for DR Congo. So until they've chosen birth country probably should be the choice. But I'm inclined to bring this up at WP:FOOTY to see what the policy is. — CHANDLER^#10</:::sup> — 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to MOS:ICON, the flag that is associated with a sportsperson is their sporting nationality, not their actual nationality. I'm not entirely sure what to use in association with Steve Zakuani since he hasn't played for a national team yet, but in instances where there is a dispute over what flag to use, the default is to leave the flag blank until a resolution has been reached. In Gabriel Zakuani's case, since he has played for Congo's national team, then his sporting nationality is Congo regardless of him being a British or Congolese citizen. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue was resolved here yesterday, and we had all moved on until you brought it up again: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Country_flags_for_players_of_dual_nationality. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when does one response resolve an issue? Seriously, give people some time to respond to a question before you jump to the conclusion that consensus has been reached on a subject. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this finally resolves the issue: http://web.mlsnet.com/pdf/mls/2009/superdraft/CombinePlayerBios.pdf. MLS considers him English. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that resolves anything. I don't think anyone is denying that he is a British citizen. Additionally the flag does not denote a person's citizenship. It is supposed to denote his sporting nationality. A link showing he is a British citizen does not clarify his sporting nationality, it certainly does not show that he should have the English flag. As a naturalized British citizen, he is eligible to play for any of the home nations. So to say a link showing he's a British citizen proves that the English flag should be used is doubtful. Particularly since no one is denying that he is British. He just happens to also be Congolese and is eligible to play on the DRC national team as well.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it does. For players who have not played internationally for ANY country yet, their default sporting nationality is their country of citizenship - which in Zakuani's case is British (except, there is no British team, so as he was brought up in London, that would default to English). His heritage is Congolese, certainly, and if they ever call him up his sporting nationality would change back to that country - just like Gabriel's did. But until that happens, IMHO he should be classed as English. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Zakuani was born in the Congo, and considers himself Congolese. I'm not sure there's any real defense for the "English" designation. It's silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.242.140 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Got a link which proves this? --JonBroxton (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Born in Condo, lived there until age 4: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2008686076_kelley30.html. Considers himself Congolese: http://sounderatheart.com/2009/01/steve-zakuani-6-days-a-sounder/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel (talk • contribs)

The Sounder at Heart blog does have a pretty strong indication that given the opportunity he would rather play for DRC than any of the Home Nations. Problem is, Sounder at Heart is not a reliable source so we can't exactly use it as a reference to support the flag. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this? http://soccer.fanhouse.com/2009/01/16/mls-no-1-pick-steve-zakuani-chats-with-fanhouse/ How many sources do we need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.242.140 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While it is clear that Zakuani is a British citizen, is there any indication that he has renounced his Congolese citizenship? Absent any, I don't believe we can continue listing him as British.Musskel (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a British citizen, and I'm pretty sure there are only certain countries around the world where British citizens can legally have dual citizenship - specifically (most) countries in the Commonwealth, and the United States. As DR Congo is not a member of the Commonwealth, and as it has been confirmed in several sources that Zakuani is a British citizen, it stands to reason that he is no longer a Congolese citizen. I can't believe this is such a huge issue for people, when it's clearly very simple. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that if Zakuani was editing this page, he would create a Congolese flag for himself. We have documentation indicating exactly that: "I am an African," he has said. The only reason we have him listed as British is because, during the 13 years he lived in London, he became a British citizen. Perhaps also because, and even in the absence of documentation, you seem to believe he's renounced the citizenship of the county of his birth -- a surprising move, if true, considering the British Nationality Act of 1948. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law) Musskel (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fed up with arguing about this. Do what you want. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like one of the local reporters asked him about international play and his preference is Congo.[2] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that, were he ever to be asked, he would jump at the chance of playing for DR Congo, he has not yet been asked, and has not played for them, and assuming that he WILL be asked is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, until that happens, the nationality we should use on the flag is the one which is recognized by MLS, his college [3], his club [4] - which, you will note, all say London, England. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You work for a soccer team, right? I've been a sports reporter. We both know that employees in sports information departments are very overworked, and not prone to nuance. After all, it is inaccurate for anybody to list an individual's citizenship as "London, England." One cannot be a citizen of a city. Furthermore, because England would not have required Zakuani to renounce his Congolese citizenship, and he has repeatedly said he considers himself African, I believe he is probably a citizen of both England and the DR Congo. Given Zakuani's own insistence in this issue -- "I am African" -- I think listing him as English requires a burden of proof showing that he is British and ONLY British. Or English and ONLY English. Lacking that proof, however, and understanding the standards/burdens at many SID's, I think Congo is the appropriate flag. Congo, that is, or nothing. Musskel (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Full name

The title of the team website actually says "Seattle Sounders Football Club." It would appear that the team considers that its full name, but just almost never prints the whole thing out (like Chicago Fire Soccer Club). Eightball (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be bolded and included in the article, but it does not necessarily need to be the title per common usage. Does anyone else want to discuss or should I just go ahead and do this? Thanks --DerRichter (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just think it should be included as the full name, but it is by no means common so that is about as far as it should go. Eightball (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea that's what I meant. It is hardly ever used, but is still the full name so it should be included. --DerRichter (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks silly now. Also, if anything it is the complete name not the alternative name. Do we need to remind the reader what FC stands for? We could put "Seattle Sounders Football Club (typically shortened to FC)" or something like that but the extra sentence just looks long winded.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another editor agreed and reverted. His words were a little harsher but same thing. Is there another way we can work the extended name into the lead?Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for the header on the web page, all other references to the team's name by team is Seattle Sounders FC, this includes the official announcement of the team name.[5] That seems to imply that the teams official name is Seattle Sounders FC, not Seattle Sounders Football Club. I have no idea what's up with the header on the team website, but unless y'all can find a better source, the official team announcement of the name seems to trump a header. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Multiple press releases from the team's founding >> Page header on Internet Explorer. My guess is that "Seattle Sounders F.C." isn't even where they're going. I wouldn't be suprised, based on the relative sizes of "Seattle" and "Sounders FC" and by the way all over the place the team seem to shorten the name to just "Sounders FC," if eventually they try to pull a Vancouver Whitecaps and drop the "Seattle" from their name entirely, and just go with "Sounders FC/Football Club/F.C." as the full club name. The Vancouver Whitecaps went from the "Vancouver Whitecaps" to "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" to "Whitecaps FC" and back again, so who knows? Either way, until we see things like we did with Chicago Fire, where they consistently release press releases about the running of the club, etc. with "Seattle Sounders Football Club/F.C." (note: with full stops/periods afterwords indicating an abbreviation) at the bottom, "FC" remains an initialism, rather than an abbreviation, and just like Toronto FC and FC Dallas, will remain the title of the article and the only way the club is referred to in the article, other than the club's nickname of The Sounders. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. The web page is titled so but all other official information is FC. I would be curious to see what is used at the corporate office and what the ownership group has on financial documents. Also would be curious to see what they have trademarked.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the sentence that I added to the lead was awkward. This does not change my opinion that the full, bolded name of Seattle Sounders Football Club should be included somewhere in the article, whether in the lead or in the naming section. I do not speculate as to where the team is going with this other than the fact that it is the full, complete name. Of course Seattle Sounders FC will be used when written most everywhere due to length considerations. I am also glad that other users are paying attention to this issue now, except that no one objected when I brought it up on this talk page, and I requested in my edit summary that it be discussed instead of automatically removed. This Grant Aplaugh guy, however, thought it too "ridiculous" to discuss. Since when does Grant have the authority to make that judgment call and skip discussion? In his edit summary, he wrote: This is quite simply ridiculous - the club's name is "Seattle Sounders FC" until they consistently release releases where the club's name is Seattle Sounders F.C., at which point the article will move. Notice that I do not want to move the page. Grant seems to be confused with a move of some kind, possibly brought up on another time or at another page by a different editor. And how consistently must "they" release releases for Grant to be satisfied? I have no idea from this vague edit summary. Please do not assume that substituting discussion with an edit summary is sufficient. This goes for all users, because I don't want anyone to make the same assumption. Now I have been left out of Grant's discussion with himself over the simple ridiculousness of the situation. Please discuss this appropriately. And remember, I never even suggested a move- just including the full name in bold, as is often Wikipedia policy. --DerRichter (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't think it was too ridiculous to discuss, as my comments moments later indicate. I just think your argument is ridiculous. If I didn't think that, why would I ridicule it? If "FC" was short for something, then it would be written as "F.C." Look at the Toronto FC and FC Dallas articles, where you'll see that the FC was left ambiguous (some argue it stands for "fútbol club," which, though grammatically incorrect, might make more sense if you're trying to recruit Latino fans). Because they didn't want to officially declare what it stands for, they left it ambiguous and just used "FC" (again, without the full stops/periods). Another interesting case is AFC Wimbledon, where club officials have repeatedly said that since the club's name is AFC and not A.F.C. the AFC doesn't stand for anything. They just used it because it sounded good. One could make the argument with all three MLS teams that they wanted to sound more traditional so they used FC. Also, if the club used "Football Club" or "F.C." then the club would just be referred to as "Seattle Sounders," which is certainly not the case in the vast majority of references. However, the most important factor of them all remains that many, many press releases by the club and league announcing the club's founding >> the header of the webpage on your browser. Completely aside from the arguments, your participation in this discussion proves that you haven't been "left out of anything," so calm down and don't take things so personally. Nothing is set in stone, someone made an edit I disagreed with, I reverted the edit, and I justified it in the edit summary and on this page. I did nothing wrong, and simply acting like a smarmy douchebag, feigning outrage at being left out of a conversation you're clearly participating in will get you nowhere. Also, please remember that there are multiple people involved in this discussion, so I'm responding to their arguments as well, as well as trying to assume any reasonable future arguments. If the club's full name really was "Seattle Sounders Football Club" then the article will need to be moved to "Seattle Sounders F.C." so you really are suggesting a page move in the end. The merits of your arguments will set you free, and so far, IMHO they haven't yet. Since at least one more person agrees with me, this discussion must continue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the title in the website it seems to indicate that FC stands for Football Club, which hardly is controversial... For example Chelsea will face Seattle Sounders Football Club. Changing the first sentence to "Seattle Sounders Football Club is a professional soccer..." seems like a no brainer to me... I take the title on the website as pretty convincing proof of what it stands for... If it only was "FC" like "AFC" in AFC Wimbledon for example, they'd probably have said it and not have "Football Club" at the top of their website. ch¹⁰ · 10:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Of all the things to get pissy about it is this, huh? I think if we can find out what the business name is we should be fine. I wouldn't be surprised if they chose FC to be cute like the other MLS teams did when they chose United, FC use before Dallas), and Real. Football Club actually may not be correct just because their web guy coded it incorrectly. I don't so my feelings won't be hurt if I am wrong.Cptnono (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Grant, according to Wikipedia:Civility, calling names such as "smarmy douchebag" is "uncivil". I am going to assume that this an isolated incident and forgive you. I am sorry for offending you by calling you out on this page, but it seemed inconsiderate to revert an edit when I asked specifically for it to be discussed before reverted, and I wanted other users to learn from this as well. I apologize for being equally inconsiderate. The next step you could take towards civility would be to remove the comments, through various methods available such as striking them out. Now that that is over with, let us be clear that no one here is discussing the move of this page, just the inclusion of the full name. I too agree that Seattle Sounders FC is the majority usage. As for the merits of periods after the F and C, the club website for Portsmouth FC uses Portsmouth Football Club in the website title and repeatedly uses Portsmouth FC, at least three different times on the main page. The usage of periods seems to be a style that users of Wikipedia prefer for the title of the page, even though Portsmouth FC without periods is used throughout the article. We are not talking about the title and I still agree with every other user here that the title should remain. But the fact that Wikipedia has yet to use periods after the F and C in the title does not mean that the full name should not be mentioned. --DerRichter (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone is even questioning that FC stands for Football Club. The problem we are having is that the providing a full spelled out name as an official name is a bit of undue weight. Aside from the title bar of the website, there is no supporting evidence from the team that its official name is Seattle Sounders Football Club. When the team name was announced it was done so as Seattle Sounders FC, not Seattle Sounders Football Club, all the team's press releases are from Seattle Sounders FC, not Seattle Sounders Football Club, etc. The use of the spelled out name is such a minority it's an anomoly and is more indicative of an error rather than an actual name preference. I'm more inclined to believe that the addition of FC to the end of the name is inline with Cptnono's analysis than for it to actually intend to be a spelled out Football Club. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to provide evidence here. A google search of soundersfc.com for "Seattle Sounders Football Club" in the actual text of the website only gets 2 hits. While the same search for "Seattle Sounders FC" gets 629 hits. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Football Club is usually not spelled out fully because this would confuse many Americans, but do you really believe that it is an error on behalf of some web guy if it is used by so many other sources? Other than the main official website as already mentioned, the "Team" section of the website calls it a Football Club, and it is referred to as Seattle Sounders Football Club by the Seattle Times, the the Oregonian, the Telegraph (English paper), as well as Chelsea FC link that Chandler provided above. I think an appropriate addition to the overall article would be in the Team name, badge, and colors section: Seattle Sounders FC (also known as the Seattle Sounders Football Club) was announced as the team name on April 7, 2008, along with the team logo, colors and badge design in a presentation held at the Space Needle. --DerRichter (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I really don't know. We can bitch at each other all we want but I have an email in so hopefully I'll get an answer. It will be OR but I don't think we care at this point.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the club definitively says that its name is "Seattle Sounders Football Club" then the article will be moved to "Seattle Sounders F.C." and that will settle the issue. We will refer to the club as "Seattle Sounders" just like we do with "Chicago Fire." -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any reason in moving them to F.C. if they're called SS Football Club, the commonname is obviously SS FC ch¹⁰ · 06:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If it the true title of the team includes "Football Club" we should use either "FC" or "Football Club" and cut down on cluttering up the lead with the use of a simple redirect. I don't see the problem. F.C. I think is hardly used so I think the decision should be between common name and true name (if Football Club is actually the true name)Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the true name is Seattle Sounders Football Club, then we have to use F.C. to show there is an abbreviation. This is what was done for Chicago Fire S.C. Not having the full stops/periods is incorrect. My point has always been that the club's name is actually Seattle Sounders FC, no more, no less, and so such a move would be incorrect. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be incorrect? As it's been discussed at wp:footy, in the England .'s have stopped being used for many things (I think the examples were MPs, DVD and stuff like that) UEFA for one... Though ofc in the US it might still be the common to use .'s (like District of Columbia is usually D.C. right?) But I still think the common name of "Seattle Sounders FC" I think would trump F.C. for article name even if the club is actually called "S... S... Football Club" ch¹⁰ · 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If/when it is determined that the full name of the team is SS Football Club, then I don't see a problem with keeping the article at SS FC per WP:NC(CN). The team is almost universally known as SS FC, so the common names convention seems to dictate that we go with FC rather than F.C. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is OR but here is the response I received (seriously, not even a thanks for writing?):

"Seattle Sounders FC

Seattle Sounders FC
Customer Service
(877) MLS-GOAL
www.SoundersFC.com<http://www.soundersfc.com/>
________________________________
From: SoundersFC.com [no-reply@wufoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:41 AM
To: Service, CustomerSOU
Subject: SoundersFC.com Fan Feedback

Name * REMOVED
Email Address *        REMOVED
Choose a category *
Team Management / Ownership

Question or Feedback *
I know this might seem trivial but I was curious about the team's official name. Is it Seattle Sounders FC, F.C., or Football Club?'"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 March 2009(UTC)

Hopefully they can remove the "Football club" in the website title to end confusion in the future ;) ch¹⁰ · 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about shooting off an email to the webmaster to see what's up with that.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just added a "heads up" in the article itself. I keep on meaning to remember my program from the match to see if it says "football club" anywhere on it but kind of accidently drop it while having poor motorfunctions. So as it stands, yes the web says Football Club in the title (no where else I don't think) and it is a fact that FC typically stands for Football Club. With the email from the organization and the realization that it was possibly just cute marketing (see Real SLC, FC Dallas, 1000x other things that are hooray international stuff is fun) FC looks to be just that. Seriously though, if someone finds accounting doccumentation from the owners that say Football Club I say screw their branding guidelines and lets change it. For now, FC looks to be good and accurate.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New 2009 season page

I've created a Sounders FC season 2009 page and populated it with all of the announced matches with thier locations and kickoff times. I've also started some prose at the top of the article about the season. More should be added.

It seems that some of the content in this article, Seattle Sounders FC, is information that's specific to the 2009 season (most of the player/draft information for example) and perhaps should be moved off of the general team page. Given that this is the inaugural season of the team, there's going to be a lot of excitement and "random details" about the Sounders that may not fit on the main page. This new season page should give us another bucket where we can put more specific information concerning the 2009 season.--Skotywa^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So as I suggested a month ago (above), all of the season specific player info is now on the 2009 season page. If anyone disagrees with this move, please let's discuss. --Skotywa^Talk 03:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Okay. Really, stop with the edit warring. If there is a reliable source that lists their jersey numbers, then it can be included. At this time, the only reliable source that I can find is the official team page and it only includes a small number of their jersey numbers. The article did have a reference for Seattle Pitch, but as a self-published source Seattle Pitch does not meet this criteria so can not be used to reference the jersey numbers or the people that are in camp but not signed by the team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?

I just added some info I found on the FIFA website where Qwest Field was missing from lists of FIFA 1-star and FIFA 2-star certified fields in CONCACAF. Here are the references: FIFA 1-star FieldTurf CONCACAF installations and FIFA 2-star FieldTurf CONCACAF installations. FIFA is clear here about the fact that without one of these certifications a field cannot be used for perliminary or final round FIFA competitions. In a matter of minutes, Bobblehead has already removed these facts claiming that this is original research in his edit notes. After reviewing (again) the guidlines on Original Research I'm having trouble understanding your justification for calling this original research. The references seemed credible and relevant enough to me (FIFA.com). Please help me understand your reasoning Bobblehead. --Skotywa^Talk 07:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the sources at all, seriously, it's FIFA, you don't get much more reliable than that on AF related articles. I'm not even doubting that Qwest field does not have the 1-star or 2-star certs and that it doesn't qualify for FIFA competitions, the problem is that none of those sources actually mention Qwest Field. That's where you ran afoul of WP:OR, you took two sources (the star rated sources) that do not mention the topic of this article and then used another source (the FIFA rules) to make a point about the subject. If you want to include in this article that Qwest Field can not host FIFA competitions, then you need to find an source that actually says that Qwest Field can't host them. You can't say that because Qwest Field is not mentioned on these two sources, therefore according to this it can't host FIFA competitions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If more info is needed, this source is used the Qwest field article. Does not state star levels but does mention: "During the referendum campaign, stadium advocates assured soccer fans the new facility would have a grass playing surface to meet the requirements of the Federated International Football Association. FIFA, the world governing body for professional soccer, has not approved FieldTurf for World Cup matches." I could have sworn I saw a story that mentioned it was OK in some preliminary matches and this might just be for mens national team but not sure.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh... same source: FIFA has approved FieldTurf for matches up to World Cup semifinal play.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/07/22/focus1.html

Allowing it up to World Cup semi finals seems very odd... I was under the impression anything else than grass was not allowed to be used at the World Cup. (Which can be referred to as "the FIFA World Cup Finals" and the mistake can be taken from there where they thought it meant the final not the final tournament) ch¹⁰ · 03:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you impression isn't a reliable source. Sounds like a possible mistake though. "Does not meet all FIFA standards" was the term I preferred but I bet we find another source to see where the cut off is.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Typically it is referred to as qualifying before the final knockout tournament so it might be correct since that might be a hard mistake to make.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tickets Sold

An IP has thrown in some info on ticket sales that was reverted by another editor. I could not find the higher number mentioned either. I originally thought it might be someone from the organization throwing in OR but the IP is out of England it looks like (maybe a local with a mobile device from there?). I'm sure we will have a source one way or the other so it should stay @ 20k for now per the recent edit.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for that number reaching 22,000 before Thursday, but we've got to have a source to proove it. At some point in the past we had a comment around that number reminding editors for the need for a source, but it looks like that was lost as some point.--Skotywa^Talk 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We could do the whole "citation needed" thingamabob with the higher number if it is preferred. A couple thousand isn't that contentious and neither is most of the stuff in this article so we don't need to worry too much. I've been surprised at some of the back and forth edits over the actual name and the actual players out of camp.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ACES09

Since the IP editor who keeps clammoring for this item's inclusion seems unwilling to do so, I thought I'd bring this to talk. Does anyone else besides this IP think the ACES09 "rivalry" merits inclusion in the article? I just don't think we need to include a blog-based fued between fans of teams who have never even played each other merits inclusion. I understand that it was in some Seattle papers, but lots of things are in lots of papers. I dunno, hopefully we can get some discussion going in lieu of the edit war. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Examiner is not good enough and blogs are not RS. The ACES09 website is a Portland fan who wanted to rant about things he was mad at Seattle PR doing. The forums are essential void of any traffic. Simply not notable and even if it was it deserves no more than 1/4 of the space the Cascadia Cup teams get.Cptnono (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that even WP:VERIFY is up for debate, but that has nothing to do with WP:NOTABLE. Lots of legitimate sources write about lots of things. That doesn't mean we are obligated to put it all into articles. The fact remains that these two teams have never played, and this seems nothing more than a bickering session between two sets of fans, though, again, I agree that even that much is up for debate. Given all of these legitimate concern, there needs to be a lot more discussion before this goes in. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the new editor to review the following guidelines: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Consensus . The editor continues to adjust page without consensus. Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the edit war is taken care of: The ACE09 website is not notable enough and the sources (mlsrumor.com) are really nothing special. I could see a line mentioning criticism from Columbus fans in the '09 article but this isn't a good fit in the Rivalry section.Cptnono (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume the admin picked your side. It could just as easily been the Wrong Version, so to speak. As an admin, the desire is to encourage discussion on the talk page. Period. If User:USSoccerCulture doesn't discuss anything and just waits until the protection is over, then it's a serious issue. No opinion on either side, just want warring to stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a side. I asked USSoccerCulture to take it to the talk page several times to see if we could find consensus. I didn't realize the protection prevented him from editing. The only thing I assumed was that he decided to stop reverting edits instead of being blocked.Cptnono (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There would need to be some reliable source that mentions the rivalry and the Examiner is certainly not a reliable source. The sources included are either blogs or forum posts, so those are definitely not reliable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fredy Montero

I put a question on the Freddy Montero article's talk but thought this one might get more traffic. Many players have an "Honors" subsection and I noticed his Spanish version has a mention. Looks like top goal scorer of a couple competitions. Is this notable enough for his page, accurate, and translatable? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredy_Montero Thanks for any assistance.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his awards should be included in this article. I would probably mention his performance in Thursday's game in the 2009 season article though. As far as mentioning his honors in his article goes. It depends on the league? Some leagues have a "Golden Boot" so if his league in Columbia has an award for it, I'd add it. If there isn't an award for it, I'd lean more towards just including it into the section covering his 2007 and 2008 seasons. How about adding a mention of him being MLS Player of the Week? Not exactly an MVP award, but still an honor. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I only put it on here since I wasn't sure if anyone would be at the Montero talk page anytime soon. Hopefully someone can translate the link mentioned above to verify it is notable enough.Cptnono (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing you might consider doing in the future is to do something like:

I put a question on Talk:Fredy Montero about whether to create a "Honors" section and what to include in that section. To join the discussion, please do so here.

That way you don't have to worry about the discussion carrying on in two different locations and you can still get involvement from a larger community of editors. As far as a translation:

Distinction	Year
Goal leader of Copa Mustang (13 goals)	2007
Goal leader of Copa Mustang (16 goals)	2008

--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bobblehead!Cptnono (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Evan Brown

Second round pick and 16th overall selection in the 2009 MLS SuperDraft and now is signed by an MLS team. A red link shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings but if it is not OK for now, keep in mind that it will probably pop up again sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just checked him out. Decent while in school. I don't know if I expect much from him personally, but he could easily have a page considering he has had some coverage and is in the MLS. Does anyone know if there are wikipedia notability guidelines for professional athletes? Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:FOOTYN has a different standard than WP:N, which has, at times, created some issues for AF articles where players that would normally meet the notability guidelines are nominated for AFD and, in some cases, actually deleted because they have not played a single professional game. I understand where JonBroxton is coming from in deleting the red link, because Brown has not played in a game as a professional yet. Problem is, some AF editors seem to misunderstand that FOOTYN is not a replacement for notability guideline, but is actually additive. It is not intended to prevent the creation of articles for players that otherwise meet the notability guidelines, it is to allow the creation of articles for players that do not otherwise meet the notability guidelines. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, the next concern will be if he is only on the bench for a game : ) . Have a feeling he will get a game in this season so it can be handled then.Cptnono (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Dragavon

I think user Mattyc04 is misunderstanding how MLS reserve keeper system works. There are three or four keepeers in a pool who can be called up at any time by any team in an emergency, Ben Dragavon is one of them; after signing his contract with the LEAGUE (not with Seattle) he was called up by Seattle for the opening game to provide cover for Keller and Eylander. He is not on the official roster listed at MLS.com - http://web.mlsnet.com/players/index.jsp?club=t260 - nor does he appear on the official Sounders roster at http://www.soundersfc.com/Team/Team-Landing.aspx.

It's the exact same situation as Miguel Benitez at Galaxy. He is a league-wide pool keeper who was called up by Galaxy to provide backup for Josh Saunders due to Donovan Ricketts's injury. He was in the 18-man roster for the Galaxy-DC game (http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090322&content_id=229360&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp), but it NOT on the Galaxy roster.

IMHO, Neither Benitez nor Dragavon should be listed on their club's pages, since neither player is actually contracted with the club. Dragavon could be called up by RSL next week. Benitez could be called up by San Jose the week after. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, if a player is listed on the 18 man game day roster, and currently with the team, they should be listed on the wiki page. It is probably a little confusing for people searching for players that were listed on the roster http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/report?id=260857&league=USA.1&cc=5901, but not listed with the team. Since it is apparently so easy for people to remove players, why don't we leave players up that are being listed on gameday rosters, until the player moves on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.114.105 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The MLS pool keepers over the last few years have all spent the entire season with the same team. Although they can be used as needed by multiple teams, it has not worked out that way. If a player can't be listed on the wiki page on the team the MLS has currently assigned them to, then where are they supposed to be listed? Should I create a players section on the MLS wiki page just to list the 4 pool keepers? This is ridiculous. Dragavon is assigned to the team, as a MLS employee and an available player, and will remain that way most likely for the entire season. Since people are hyper editing this page, and removing a player only takes 5 seconds, why don't we list Ben, as he is one player, and a unique case, and if in fact he moves to another team, at that point, one of the many people checking this page to edit every 5 minutes can remove him from the Sounders page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.131.68 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragavon isn't on the team's roster is the problem, so including him on this article is original research. He is eligible for single game call-ups and should be treated as such, so maybe include him in the 2009 season article, but not here on the main page. As soon as Eylander is healthy, Dragavon is gone. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, he shouldn't be appearing on the MLS roster. Why isn't Benitez on LA Galaxy's Wiki roster? Why wasn't Graczyk, Gonsalves, etc... listed on other sides. Dragavon trains with Seattle, but he is owned by the league. Seabear84 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that Dragavon has a MLS contract and is a player in the league. Everyone agrees that he is currently with Seattle Sounders FC. But we do not agree as to whether or not he should be on this wiki page. If he is not listed on the Seattle Sounders page, WHERE should he be listed? And when Eylander is back, Dragavon is not gone. He will remain with Seattle as a third keeper unless the MLS decides to place him with another team. Are people fine with listing Dragavon on the Sounders wiki page and putting (MLS pool keeper) after his name? Sort of like the Montero (on loan from Deportivo Cali) disclaimer? And for the record, I could care less about why other pool keepers aren't listed on other wiki sites, I am concerned with making sure people can turn to the Sounders wiki site for up to date information on Sounders players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyc04 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No... In regards to being on the Sounders' roster, Dragavon will be gone when Eylander returns. He may continue to practice with the Sounders, but he will be doing so solely in a non-roster capacity. Heck, Dragavon is already back to his non-roster status. His contract with the Sounders was only for the RBNY game and after the game he reverted back to his MLS contract. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What Bobblehead said. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But Matty, he isn't a Sounders FC player. In any way. He's an MLS pool keeper. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of an MLS Pool Keeper article. Seabear84 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabear84 (talk • contribs)

I still disagree, but I am outnumbered for now. The guy was on the 18 man roster for the New York game, and will be for the REAL game, and most likely for Kansas City. He is a MLS contracted player, his rights are just owned by the league. The league has decided to place him on Seattle's team, by Seattle's request. As far as Dragavon being gone when Eylander returns, that is not true. He will be available the same way Eylander or any other non starter will be. Meaning that Sounders could have an 18 man game day roster featuring all 3 keepers, granted, highly unlikely, but technically possible. Or Eylander or Kasey could miss a game for non injury reasons, and Dragavon would be listed on the 18 man roster, without the team having to make any adjustments to their 24 man team roster. I think that with all of the variables in mind, and knowing that he will be available to play for Seattle against Salt Lake, and most likely through the end of the season, that he should be listed. Not that is helps my argument a ton Bobblehead, but on mlsnet.com, there is nothing listed outlining the official rules and team status of pool players, meaning ALL of us are speculating on Dragavons official status. I think I have a better argument, but since I am in the minority, I will let it rest until anything changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyc04 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragavon was added to the roster http://www.soundersfc.com/Team/Roster.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyc04 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like they are considering him part of the team since he's gotten some game time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He has been on the roster and trained with team. Sounders show him on the main roster page. He also meets notability guidelines now since he played. He was picked out of the pool by the Sounders in January so it is similar toe a loan situation. A simple notation in the third column should be fine.Cptnono (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

recent edit says he is assigned to Columbus this weekend. Can't find a source but he didn't practice with Sounders today.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragavon isn't signed with the Sounders, but is rather under contract with the MLS and can be used by any MLS team that has less than two goalkeepers able to play on any given weekend. The reason why he practices with the Sounders is because Dragavon lives in Monroe and has selected Washington as his "home territory". Since the Sounders are the only MLS team in Dragavon's home territory, he practices with them so that his skills don't get rusty. I would imagine the reason why Dragavon is listed on the Sounders roster page is because he did play in the half+ after Keller got ejected and they didn't want to lose the stats that Dragavon accrued while protecting the net. If he has been assigned to the Crew this weekend, I'd imagine the reason why he wasn't practicing with the Sounders yesterday is because he's currently flying to Columbus. As far as how Mattyc04 knows that Dragavon is going to be assigned to the Crew this weekend, I've always assumed that the editor knew Dragavon because no one else would have fought so hard to get Dragavon listed on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but aren't all MLS players technically signed to the league and assigned to the various teams. Wasn't that what the whole "single entity concept" about? KitHutch (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

According to section 8.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement "A Player’s services may be assigned to the central MLS player pool or to any Team (or Reserve Team or Development Squad) in the League".[6] So while players are signed by MLS at large, they are assigned to a specific team in most cases. Dragavon and other players like him are assigned to the central MLS player pool that may be tapped by all the teams. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the Seattle Times and Romero is calling Dragavon the Sounders third keeper[7] and said Dragavon was practicing with the team today.[8] I don't see an announcement that Dragavon was assigned to the Sounders full time and he's disappeared from the Sounders roster page, but color me confused about Dragavon. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragavon is officially on the bench for Columbus today: http://web.mlsnet.com/scoreboard/game.jsp?match=04252009_CHICLB. I've edited his bio accordingly. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ECS

I'm not a member of their group but could see it getting a few more lines. I actually deleted some awhile back that looked like self promotion but think it could be worked back in. he team has a section on the site for them: http://www.soundersfc.com/Alliance/Supporters-Clubs/Emerald-City-Supporters.aspx and there was a decent piece in the Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannyoneil/2008952027_oneil31.html I don't know if there is enough for a complete article but is there anything notable/of interest enough for the subsection?Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much in the Times article that is usable for this article. Maybe the current number of ECS members and the section they sit in. It's also not difficult to get on the FC Alliance site. Just have to send a request to them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking a simple mention of where and their numbers might be enough.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A picture!

Finally someone has added a picture to the article. I've been wanting to do this for a while, but keep forgetting to take my "good camera" to the game. Thanks Nanonic! It's a great picture with a high perspective showing the whole stadium. The only thing I'd change is to move it to the left side of the page. Is everyone okay with that? It would make the Infobox+picture situation a little less cluttered. Anyway, this is a great addition to the article. If a long term goal for this article is to achieve WP:GA status, this is a step in the right direction. I think we should probably try to get one more picture. Perhaps a good, closeup shot including one or two "team leaders" like the Freddies or Kasey. Anybody got one of those pictures available to put on Wikipedia?--Skotywa^Talk 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On the right side there is actually recommended per the image style guidelines. I am going to add the clear tag which will unclutter it a tad. I don't think we are running into the stacking concern yet.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh... didn't make it look better. The info box is large(as it should be) but we don't have enough text yet to make it look good. We can add the picture to the Supporters section. Good picture, by the way.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Double argh... threw it on the left (stacking is actually annoying me since it was mentioned) but now then there was "sandwiching" text between images which is against standards. Also tried throwing it in the supporters section but it wasn't perfect. If we decided to remove the subsection headers (do we need these for the indy groups and band or are paragraph breaks sufficient?) it would be perfect. Stupid sandbox. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#ImagesCptnono (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely better. It looks good like this (unless you hide the table of contents, but who does that?). If another detail picture is added at some point, there's room for it (on the left or right) down in the "Ownership and team management" section. Again, good picture. Thanks for the addition. --Skotywa^Talk 06:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is good and makes the article better so overall I am happy with it in as is.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

Wow, in a matter of two days the article went from being starved for any pictures to being saturated with 5 pictures. I love the enthusiasm! I don't the the article is big enough to support 5 pictures like this. I don't know exactly how this should be handled though. Here are some ideas:

• Limit it to 2-3 pictures and drive consensus here on which ones should stay
• Create a picture section at the bottom (doesn't Wikipedia have some sort of photo album type thing?) and move most of the pictures there.
• Add lots more content so that the article is long enough to support this many pictures (probably not possible at this point).

Thoughts? --Skotywa^Talk 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer not to limit it. We should work with the image manual of style to include as many as possible (don't know if we can fit in 1 or 100 without going through it more and sandboxing the formatting)
• I think there is a "not a photo gallery" guideline but know it is done and have seen them.
• Agreed, MORE CONTENT! (as long as it is verifiable and important and yada yada yada)Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the picture of the season ticket scarf as it did not match any content. I have moved some images around and done some formatting. It is still not good yet but better.

I do not think we need a gallery, we have a link to the wikimedia gallery.

Yukata Ninja (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to eb a stick in the mud, gents. According to the manual of style: Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading & Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.Cptnono (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as the images don't violate the MOS, then it's fine. Problem is, right now there are two instances where the images pinch the text between them. Problem is, I'm not sure there is a way to avoid this with the current placement of the images. The supporters section isn't large enough to support two images right now and the infobox is long enough to prevent any images from being included in the two sections of the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tables

A couple of you are big fans of tables and I noticed that Los Angeles Galaxy had a few that were not bad. By the end of the season these might be good here.Cptnono (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think they make sense though until the end of the season. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Golden Scarf Awards

Before every home game, Sounders FC awards a golden scarf "to a group or individual who has made an impact in their community". I'm wondering if keeping a list of the recipients would be interesting on this page or (more likely) on the season specific page. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Brief mention here, detailed list on the season specific articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I finally got back to this and took a stab at it here and on the season page. Does this work for everyone? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fanboys

What is this "worst defeat" infobox garbage? At least we know editors can put in info even when it sucks for the team :) Cptnono (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

EVery other MLS team has the same info. KitHutch (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think Cptnono is alluding to this discussion where some of us were accused of fanboyism by an editor who's now blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. As is evident from my worst loss edit, if I were a true fanboy, I'd be trying to hide such info rather than being the first to update it. Unless of course it's just a cover for my underlying fanboy motives. Deep down of course I believe the Sounders FC is headed for world domination. Just kidding of course. Good joke Cptnono. Glad you're here keeping things light. It's much appreciated. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad..not talk (whatever the wiki guideline is) and drunken sarcasm is hard to convey with a keyboard. Forgot all about this talk page edit a few nights ago!Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Official colors?

Does anyone know where the current colors for the uniforms in the article came from? The best source I can find for the correct colors is here, but the blue doesn't match the one used in the article. ← George ^[talk] 06:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The colors are basically the reverse of the Seahawks colors, which is fairly close to the correct colors. Unfortunately you aren't going to find an exact match because the names the Sounders use are made up names (Rave Green, Sounder Blue, and Cascade Shale). There also isn't a one to one conversion from Pantone to HTML colors. When the Sounders first announced their colors I did some searches for a conversion but apparently Pantone is "proprietary" color coding system and whomever owns it is fairly diligent in sending out the take down notices. Also, here's a link[9].--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job finding the original source! Yes, I discovered the same thing when looking into converting the Pantone colors to RGB. What do you (and other editors) think we should use for the RGB values to represent these Pantone colors though? I don't think the current colors match the Pantone, and I suspect someone just did the coloring by eye. The following table shows the current color, and the correct RGB values to use for the Sounders' Pantone colors based on a few different sources:

Color	Current	Source 1	Source 2
Rave Green	#5D9731	#5D9731	#5B8F22
Sounders Blue	#1047AB	#005594	#165788
Cascade Shale	???	#12242F	#1B242A

Ok, so "Source 1" in this case comes from two sites: [10] and [11]. For these sources, I took screenshots of the colors, loaded them into a painting program, and extracted the RGB color values. "Source 2" comes from [12] and [13]. In this case, both sites explicitly state that they are mathematical estimates of the RGB representations of the Pantone colors, and may or may not match exactly. My personal feeling is that we should adopt the values used in "Source 1" as the most accurate RGB values, and use those where we want to display these colors (note the the current colors – well, at least the current value for Sounders Blue – don't match these values). Thoughts? ← George ^[talk] 23:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Any of the options is fine with me. I don't think the color differences are that big so would be happy with any of 'em. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Current supporter groups subsection

Oops... meant to remove both dubious tags earlier. Thought this might be a good time to bring up that a two line subsection section seems off to me. Any thoughts on expanding or moving the lines? ECS has a page now (which is better than I would have thought it would be) and don't mind giving Gorilla (hippies!) or NES more info as long as it isn't overly promoting the groups. If it is OK as is that is cool, too.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The team and supporter groups, except ECS, have a relatively short history, so the section is going to reflect that short history in its lack of length. An alternative to this would be to do away with both of the subsection headers in the Supporters section instead of splitting it up. That way you don't have the single paragraph sections. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am leaning towards moving the lines into the main supporters sectionCptnono (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting a little sick of the founder attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertisement for his Gorilla FC group. Regardless, I do believe there could be a phrase or sentence regarding the political leaning since it does share a significant focus of the group. Instead of the original "anti this and anti that" from awhile ago it could simply say "...with a politically progressive something or the other...". Still on the fence about the cute "(Fado)" inclusion but it realistically doesn't hurt my feelings (I reserve the right to change my mind and bitch about it later). If someone cares, they can click the inline citation to learn about your group. See you at the bar :) !Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gorilla FC's political leaning is important to the group, but it isn't important to the team, so could be left off in that regard. If anything is mentioned at all about their political leanings, perhaps something along the lines of "Gorilla FC, a progressive-pro-party supporter group, was formed in...." I'm not particularly in favor of the (Fado) inclusion. The name of the pub isn't important at all and is more trivia than anything.. But including it or not including it isn't very high on my list of things to worry about. :) The FC St. Pali support definitely shouldn't be included here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The good looking but politically biased Monica Guzman (P-I's first online reporter and the main contributor to The Big Blog) wrote "Inspired by the liberal German soccer club St. Pauli". Mathew Halverson (senior editor of the Seattle Metropolitan) wrote "Gorilla FC is the reincarnation of a local anti-globalization activist group, Gorilla FC." Both sources are kind of bloggish but it does go into an important detail (they are just as focused on politics as soccer) and is better than anti everything but pro party rants or the advertisement we have now.. I say take out the promotion (Fado, they met at another joint last week anyways) and try "Inspired by the liberal German soccer club St. Pauli, Gorilla FC was formed in 2009 to support the new MLS team" or "Gorilla FC is the reincarnation of a local politically liberal group who now supports the Sounders" any thoughts on cleanup or if it is not an acceptable change? http://blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp?entryID=164426 http://www.seattlemet.com/blogs/left-field/sounders-supports-pt-2/ Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back to your second suggestion. Somehow I doubt that this will be the last time advertisements for this supporter group will have to be removed from Wikipedia. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were officially done trying but it was probably beer! I thought the St Pauli addition I kept in this last round would be OK to the line but am perfectly fine if consensus is otherwise. As much as I love talking sit about them, Ninja has done a pretty decent job with the ECS page (nice idea on the table in the rivalry page, too) and kept the grandstanding out. It is good to see it is only one group screwing around with the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The full history

Haven't gone through it all but at first glance: That is badass, Skotywa. Way to add some content.Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I enjoyed researching it and writing it. However, since my profession has nothing to do with writing, the new content could certainly benefit from some copy editing. I promise that everything is well sourced, just not as well written. If you need clarification from me on what I meant in a given sentence, let me know. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Home/Away Colors vs 1st/2nd Kit

The Sounders wear their green jerseys whenever possible, home or away. Can we change the infobar to reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.232.4 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Away" kit is common since standard practice is to wear the kit when the visitor's 1st kit is similar to the home team's. After seeing the Timbers wear their black during the open cup I was confused but according to Kit (association football)#Equipment#Basic equipment this is not unheard of.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the infobox actually supports 3 if we want (see the documentation example). What if we put green with blue shorts for home, green with green shorts for way and blue with green shorts for alternate since that seems to be what they're actually doing. Then again, maybe this level of detail doesn't belong on the team page and only 2 should be listed there. Maybe we should put all 3 on the season page since this may change from year to year. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All teams use their home kit as often as they can, its nothing special and does not have to be shown in any way. The third kit is there if there actually is a third kit. chandler 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Graham nationality

I'm having a hard time understanding how Graham's nationality can be Puerto Rican when it's been clarified by FIFA that he's no longer eligible to play for the Puerto Rico national team (as indicated in his Wikipedia article). Either the article is wrong or we need to change his nationality flag to US since that appears to be the team that he is eligible for (even though he probably won't be called up). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found this interview with the following quote from Taylor Graham: "It was then that I heard other teams started complaining that PR was using Americans rather than Puerto Ricans. I found out a week later that CONCACAF clarified their rules, and that I was no longer eligible to play since I was not of PR descent, or have not lived on the island for two years. But Colin did say that because of this rule clarification, I am still available to play for the US should that be an opportunity." At this point I'm confident that Taylor Graham's nationality should be listed as American. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question is that, having played in full internationals for the PUR team, is he eligible for selection by the USA, or do FIFA rules prohibit him from playing for the US because of his Puerto Rico caps? Don't forget, his "actual" nationality/citizenship (American) *can* be different from his sporting nationality - and the flag by the name is intended to reflect sporting nationality. IMHO, if what Clarke said wis right then we should show him as USA, but if Clarke is wrong and FIFA rules *do* prohibit him from being selected for the US because of his PUR caps, I'd be tempted to show his sporting nationality at Puerto Rico, and have a note on his page explaining the situation. Kupono Low is in the same situation. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I started a conversation about this on WT:FOTTY. – Michael (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:GA nomination?

Is anyone interested in working on getting this article reviewed for being listed as a good article? At this point, I feel that the content of the article is pretty complete, it's well referenced, there are pictures, and it's pretty stable at this point (except for the occasional disputes about player nationalities), so I think it shouldn't have much of a problem meeting the good article criteria when reviewed. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it under WP:GAN#SPORT. They've got quite a backlog though, so it may be a week or two before the review actually occurs. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC 'Did not qualify' for CONCACAF Champions League?

How is it possible to list them as having not qualified when it's not clear that they were eligible? YukataNinja added a source that states that the Sounders FC management would request eligibility, if the USL Sounders earned it, but the source doesn't say whether or not they ever actually did request eligibility, let alone if such a request was accepted or denied by federation officials. If it was never requested, or if the request was denied, then Not eligible would seem be more accurate... ← George ^[talk] 08:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good source by ninja. However, the majority owner planning on requesting it is not significant enough for inclusion. More importantly, the teams are separate entities and the MLS Sounders FC, which is what this article is about, did not play for qualification in '08 so it adds confusion. Not eligible also trumps did not qualify since they were assumed to not be eligible if the owner was planning on presenting a case for qualification eligibility. I would still like to keep the source but "not eligible" seems most appropriate and less confusing. I'm not going to revert it again since there is no reason to go back and forth without a few more editors input.Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The source states the owner was in contact and communicating with USSF about the possibility, which they had not outright rejected. (My assumption) is that USSF were waiting until Sounders (USL) made it to the final or actual won the thing so as not to have to set any precedent. I see the argument for each. I think a better solution would to be a different wording from 'Not eligible' and 'Did not qualify' as both are misleading. 'Did not participate' and keep the source? Yukata Ninja (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm alright with that.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

'Did not participate', while factually accurate, makes it sound like they were both eligible and qualified, but chose not to participate. What's wrong with saying they were 'Not eligible' in the table, and having a full footnote that explains that the Sounders FC management would have requested the USL Sounders eligibility, but that the USL Sounders did not qualify so the Sounders FC never requested eligibility? We can include that source (which is a good one) in the explanatory footnote... ← George ^[talk] 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, too. To expand on your idea of a footnote, it might clear this up and improve the article slightly if we explained that the qualification process takes place for the champions league and cup the previous season. Not all readers will be versed in this style of qualification so this could give them a quick catch up on what is going on without them having to go to the wikilink. We can stick a line in about the request for eligibility and it should lead to fix any confusion. Footnotes at the bottom of tables can add clutter but I am more concerned at the ease of reading and reducing confusion.Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement on using a footnote. Yukata Ninja (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing the footnote. Please have a look, and feel free to improve upon it. Oh, I also change "Not eligible" to "Ineligible"... I think it's a pretty minor difference, and I'm not 100% sure which is more correct grammatically, but it sounded better to me. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Badass, George. I shortened it up just a bit but feel free to edit if it is no good.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, looks good to me! ← George ^[talk] 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)