Template talk:Portland Timbers

"Major Honors" dispute

Just wanted to put a section here regarding the criteria for "Major Honors" as determined over at List of American and Canadian Soccer champions. User DemonJuice argues "[t]he fact is that there was no award for the regular season champion of NASL in 1975. Sure, the Timbers amassed the most points that year but they didn't even play all of the teams. I've seen the trophy, it is for the Western Division regular season championship. There are no sources to back up that the Timbers were regular season league champions in 1975 because that award did not exist," while my argument is that "[t]he Supporters' Shield did not exist in 1996 or 1997, but that does not mean we don't note the team with the highest regular season point total from those years either. This isn't about physical trophies, it's about achievements, and in particular not ones made in the minor leagues. Portland has never won a D1 championship, it's never won an Open Cup, but it has finished with the best regular season record in D1 once."

Figured we should put it here for discussion. I get what you're saying DemonJuice and it's an entirely valid point, but I'm coming at this from a different context entirely. I support my edit, and would like the chance to persuade you in favor of it. -- Fifty7 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm always open to persuasion. My biggest problems are that 1) calling the Timbers regular season NASL champs is misleading and 2) ignoring major honors from D-2 does not reflect the history of the club. The Timbers, Whitecaps, Impact and Sounders are special cases of clubs that only existed in D-2 for most of their history and that should be reflected in the navbox, in my opinion. I'm fine with only listing major honors (I've no problem with dropping the Cascadia Cup and the Division/Conference titles but I'm steadfast that regular season championships be shown, regardless of level). Maybe I'm being pedantic (wouldn't be the first time) but the Timbers were not regular season champions in 1975. That concept didn't exist at the time. I was very careful not to call them that in the navbox and in the 1975 Portland Timbers season article. DemonJuice (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, by including U.S. Open Cup titles as a major honor you are already acknowledging lower division team achievements. For example, if Rochester Rhinos were granted a MLS franchise would you list their cup titles but not their league titles? That doesn't make sense to me. DemonJuice (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to address your point about 1996 and 1997 when the Supporters' Shield didn't exist. The Commissioner's Cup (D-2's Supporters' Shield analog at the time) didn't exist in 2004 either, the first year the Timbers are credited with winning it. It hadn't been awarded since the 1996 APSL season and was revived in 2005 when the A-League changed its name to USL-1. However, if you look at official league sources, they show that the Timbers won the Commissioner's Cup in 2004. The same is true for MLS. Citing other articles is poor form but the Supporters' Shield article lists the 96 and 97 champs and so does league literature. There's no inconsistency there. It is a well-sourced, league-sanctioned honor. Retroactively awarded, yes, and you'll note that I spell that out explicitly in the footnotes of the 2004 Portland Timbers season and List of Portland Timbers seasons articles. There was no such thing in 1975 nor, in my opinion, should there have been. The league simply wasn't set up that way and there are no sources to back the claim. This is the reason I put the trophy name in parens, because the honor exists and can be sourced. Only actual honors bestowed should be shown and league championships at any level certainly qualify as a major honor. On those two points we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion. DemonJuice (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you on this. My argument stems from the attempt to put together a cohesive history of champions in the "List of American and Canadian soccer champions," article. That led to a determination of what the "majors" in US soccer were, and going on the musings of the US Open Cup's website and MLSsoccer.com's own trophy case feature, those were the Division 1 League Championship, the Best regular season record in Division 1, the National Championship, the Continental Championship, and the World Championship. So, the context here isn't what trophies were won, but rather what criteria was met, and for 'Best regular season record,' the criteria is merely having the best record at the end of the regular season, whether it was formally recognized or not. It's a catalog of achievements, not trophy presentations. Moving on to your point about Timbers' achievements in the minor leagues, I do agree that they should be reflected in the navbox, as not doing so would be ignoring history, which is antithetical to the whole purpose of this. I propose a compromise: The "major honors" section I began in the MLS navboxes be put in place, but a link at the top of the navbox to ALL Timbers honors be put in place as well. This is actually what the Seattle Sounders navbox looks like now, and frankly, I think it's something that should be done for the Vancouver and Montreal navboxes too (and for any future MLS franchises that are 'promoted' from a lower division). What say you? -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry as well. I can see why it took you so long. I don't want to argue over a navbox, either. I propose a compromise. We include 1975 as regular season champions but we also include the two second division regular season championships and that would be it. What say you? DemonJuice (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually the issue here; I don't mean to be difficult, but the inclusion of minor league accomplishments under the headline of major honors just doesn't fit with what I and a couple of others have been putting together with the US Soccer/MLS articles. It's why I proposed the compromise of "major honors" with a separate link to "all honors." This same compromise was just agreed to on the DC United navbox. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to use some other form of conflict resolution because, as I've pointed out in detail, I'm steadfast that all regular season championships be shown, regardless of level. I've compromised by stepping back from my opposition to listing 1975 even though there was no actual honor awarded. I've also compromised by removing divisional, conference and fan cup titles. I'm not willing to compromise further without some outside consensus going against me here. DemonJuice (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I get what you're saying about a link to other honors. It's a good idea. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on what constitutes a major honor. Not to sound like a broken record (too late for both of us, there), but regular season championships in D-2 are major. They were certainly major to the club and this is the club's navbox. DemonJuice (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, when 'major' is used it is used to mean one of the established major trophies See here]. Though the regular season championships in the minor league are clearly important to the club and its fans, it'd be like Tiger Woods saying he won a major just because he won the Buick Open and he considers it important, even though it's not one of the US Open, British Open, Masters, or PGA Championship. Do you see what I mean here? It's about an established precedent -- these are the trophies that get you Champions League berths -- not just a matter of opinion. Fifty7 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Then where is the trophy for 1975? Where are the verifiable sources that say the Timbers were Regular Season Champions in 1975? See what *I* mean? This is your definition of a Major Honor which apparently includes honors that were never actually bestowed. I have my definition, which limits it to actual major trophies. What happens elsewhere on Wikipedia has never been the end-all argument for what should appear in a particular article or template. The Timbers (and the Whitecaps, Sounders and Impact for that matter) are organizations that existed in D-2 for most of their history, so comparisons to D.C. United or other MLS-only teams are not applicable. D-2 titles are absolutely a major honor. Like I said, I've compromised plenty. You've compromised none. I'm sticking with it until overruled by outside consensus. DemonJuice (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Add women's team?

Just wondering if people thought it would be appropriate to add the new women's team to the template. I know the templates for most men's teams in Europe that have associated women's teams include the women's side in the template, but since in this case they're the Thorns and not the Timbers Women, I wasn't sure if the Timbers fans here would approve. I was thinking change the title of Group3 from "Development System" to "Other Teams" and include the Thorns there. CyMoahk (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)