Talk:List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons

Expansion?

I like that we've split this out into it's own article/list. I'm curious how we can/should expand the information in this list though. There is another list for an MLS team here: Kansas City Wizards seasons. Are there any good lists or featured lists of team season articles that we could emulate with this article (to get us started on the right foot)? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some featured lists of seasons, such as the List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons, List of Manchester United F.C. seasons, and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons. I don't think any of the MLS team season lists have made it to featured list status yet though. ← George ^talk 20:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to start?

I think its time to start the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season. Or should we wait until the Expansion draft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinefcb (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FL prep

At the suggestion of Skotywa, we aregoing to attempt an FL. It might be a little short but that might be a precedent problem but not a quality scale problem. Worse comes to worse we get some good practice and get the list off on a god foot (it actually already is off on a great foot but you know what I mean).

My thoughts so far:

• Lead:
  • I think the lead needs to be shortended paragraph wise. Not sure if the actual content does but the layout is too many paragraphs and/or the short paragraph at the end throws it off.
    • What's in the lead now, I pieced together from the team article, the season articles, and the cup final articles. I wordsmithed it a little, but it should probably be tightened up more (and probably arranged in paragraphs differently). --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Should a mention of the previous Sounders team in the lead with a link clear up any possible confusion?
    • Maybe a see-also thing at the top? --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I was going to poke around other FLs discussing overall team seasons for some thoughts on a layout and information that has the most precedent. If anyone else wants to do the same that would be sweet. Just check out the FOOTY project and click on the Showcase section.
    • Here are the ones I tried to emulate when I put together the lead: List of York City F.C. seasons and List of FC Barcelona seasons. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A couple lines on the actual MLS seasons (literally a couple total and not a couple for each season) might be a good filler and increase its value. Obviously something multiple lines or even a line for each individual season will not be possible in 100 years (assuming the best) but for now it seems appropriate. Any brainstorming or is this a bad idea?
    • I tried to mix that into the lead. For example, I discuss both attendance records for both seasons and I discuss each of the USOC victories. Are you thinking a separate section of prose that explicitly discusses the seasons or something else? --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sources
  • I am fine with using primary sources. However, this might run into some resistance. I am plannning on digging up some google archived versions of th Seattle Times to replace the primary sources (assuming they provide the information as well) just to not overly rely on them.
    • I think what you mean by primary sources are things like referencing news releases from the club or league. Secondary sources would include newspapers, etc. I think the Seattle Times is a secondary source. Secondary sources tend to be more neutral correct? Those are preferred I think. Right now about half of the sources are primary. If you think that's too many, I can harvest some better secondary sources for many of them. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be confusion across the topic area and the whole project on wether or not to italicize online publishers that are not on actual paper. I made the change to what I believe has more acceptance and is inline with multiple MoSs but please revert it if that was a step to far. If it is reverted, it needs to be standardized here sine some were italicized and others were't.
    • Other formating of the sources looks good.
      • I have been and continue to be totally confused on what should be italicized or not. I've had FA reviews where reviewers demanded that all publishers be italicized (newspaper, internet, or otherwise) and others where it was different. My default lately has been to always italicize the publisher, but I'm totally flexible here. I just don't want it to be a problem during the review. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Standards tools and miscellany:
  • Alt viewer is good (I think this was removed from the criteria but is still good)
  • No dead links or even questionable ones [1]
  • Dab is good
  • Image cleared by OTRS. I never saw the email but double check your inbox if you have a copy of it to make sure it is clear for all articles and everything just to ensure there are no snags, Skoty.
    • The email makes it clear which article I intended to add it to originally, but also explains that by posting it under the CC license, it can and will be used in other articles. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I would feel bad conomming this with only Skotywa without giving WFCForlife a heads up since we are both in the Wikicup, his work is awesome, and he is a fellow fan. So if he has any thoughts it would be killer. We could always trinom it or let SKotywa take the glory all for his awesome self and it won't bug me at all. : ) Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already contacted him, and I see that he finally replied. I still think that we should try for an FL. It's clear that this list is not complete and will continue to grow year after year. At what point is it long enough? Knowing that its a living list that will continue to grow should be a point in favor of overlooking its currently short length. We'll see. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of who nominates it, I'd prefer the trinom over me nominating it alone. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Short

I did some digging and found this example of a sports related FL candidate that was not promoted because it was too short. 10 was suggested as the minimum number of items needed in a list for it to be featured. Here's a shorter example that succeeded. I think there would be significant pushback if this was nominated. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That precedent is a little offputting. But if all of the pieces are in place and the only difference between 10 years and 2 years is the number of cells with the exact same format then who cares? I think it might be fun to try but it does mean that everything has to be perfect which is what we should be trying anyways. I don't want to waste anyone's time at FL but if it the only problem is the number of cells in the table then we are not being that much of a burden by going for it. I am stuck on a project at the other guys here in Seattle this weekend, Skoty (Fremont is pretentious but has better bars than Redmond :) ), but I should be able to tackle some work in the next couple of days. Worse comes to worse we get some good practice and are a step closer to at least a good topic! Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I would have provided different rationale for opposing that other list. If we can actually source ours perfectly this is 100x better in that aspect, IMO. But that is a sweet image of their stadium.Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm definitely okay with nominating it still, but my expectations have been lowered on this one. When you find time to review/tighten the prose, go ahead and then we'll co-nom/tri-nom it at WP:FLC --SkotyWA^T_C 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to FL and brainstorming

Please see List of Sunderland A.F.C. seasons, List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons, List of FC Barcelona seasons, List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons, List of Bradford City A.F.C. seasons, List of Gillingham F.C. seasons, List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons, List of Ipswich Town F.C. seasons, List of Leeds United A.F.C. seasons, List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons, List of Liverpool F.C. seasons, List of Luton Town F.C. seasons, List of Manchester City F.C. seasons, List of Manchester United F.C. seasons, List of Nelson F.C. seasons, [[List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. seasons], List of Scarborough F.C. seasons, List of Sunderland A.F.C. seasons, List of Watford F.C. seasons, List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons, List of York City F.C. seasons.

• Table, there are variations of the table but a few notes on how they compare to ours
  • Most (but not all) have the table headers listing the league stats swapped. The top cell typically says "League" while the cells below list the stat headers (P, W, L, D, F, A). I think this format is easier on the eyes and better states that those stats are part of the league only.
    • This is a tradeoff. If we want column sorting, then this is the only way it works. If we're willing to give up column sorting, then we can flip them. Since column sorting is mentioned (though not required) in the FL criteria, I tend to lean towards sorting, but I'm not married to that choice. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Avg. Attendance" should be under that header or needs a note saying it is for MLS only.This one does a note which I think would fit better ad there is some precedent. It is not a common listing but we are proud of our attendance and the team has made news for ranking high (not only nationally but internationally). I do not think we could find a source saying the average across all competitions and the whole Starfire thing, intl friendlies, and so on skew the numbers in weird directions.
    • Agreed on clarifying that this is for league matches only. I'm not aware of a legitimate source that includes average attendance across all competitions. Not even the SSFC press releases cover that (that I know of). I've added the note. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Top scorer
    • A note is needed saying if this is league or all competitions. It looks like it is common with the FL that do list this to combine the competitions. I do not like how this would be contrary to the above but it does make sense to me.
      • Note added. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The "Top scorer" cell should be above the name and number per the reasoning provided above.
      • See reply above. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Did not qualify" would be better as "ineligible" when applicable since there "Did not qualify" has a negative connotation that does not apply.
  • "Pos. (Conf.)" and "Playoffs" are things important to the MLS but of course not seen in the FLs since none are MLS. Spell out "conference" or would that go against the common practice on MLS articles? Is "Team MVP" common across MLS tables?
    • The main reason I didn't spell out "conference" was because it would have bloated the column width and it would have been confusing in this context to wrap the column into two lines. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikilinks. Linking to the team season article and then the MLS season article makes sense to me in the table but I was not sure if this would draw criticism or not so thought I would throw it out there for thoughts.
    • I guess the way you'd do this is the year would link to the MLS season article and a "details" link would go to the team season article. I'm not a huge fan of linking to the MLS season article. The table is simpler with just one link in this column, and the team season article is the most contextually useful here. Again, with this one, I'm not married to either, so I'm willing to go either way. Just sayin' what I like. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Lead
  • It looks like there are some massive discrepancies on the length seen on FLs. Some are very short and some are long. I will probably run a check on each one if we go for FL just for comparison.
    • I noticed that too. I went for a roughly average length while covering the important points. There's obviously a lot more we could add to make it longer (more complete), or a few things we could probably cut to make it shorter. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we need to adjust the layout.
    • The first paragraph is almost perfect scope wise with an introduction to the team.
    • The second paragraph often discusses season and other competition placement. One thing I noticed is that making the playoffs is not mentioned once in the lead. A line saying "made the playoffs both years yada yada eliminated first round" or something. There also might be too much on the Open Cup. I understand that there was probably an urge to fill it out but it seems off topic. So maybe throw in info on attendance and a line about Sigi there. List of Gillingham F.C. seasons only has two paragraphs. Not sure how much of a hurdle that will be so if we can get a scope for a third paragraph it would be perfect in my opinion. Maybe paragraph 2 could be about league play, attendance, and Sigi while the third is about other competitions? Mentioning intl competition and explaining it there would be appropriate and add some meat. We do not have relegation or promotion so that limits some common info seen in other FLs. Thoughts?
      • The basic format I tried to follow was general context in the first paragraph, a breakdown of the cups they've won so far in the second paragraph, and attendance records in the third paragraph. The Sigi sentence at the end I added later and agree it needs to be worked in somewhere. The playoffs are also interesting to add somewhere. Please take a stab at these if you don't mind. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was poking around with a draft. I think I might have cut too much but I came up with the following:

• Remove excess info about attendance maybe?
• Remove excess info about the Cup history
• Ripped off some wording from the main article for the second paragraph.
• Make the fourth paragraph about Sigi and players mentioned in the list. This adds some meat.

The first two may be a bad idea (or I went too far) since my version is too choppy. But the fourth paragraph adds some meat and could turn into a decent summary of that side of things. Most recent draft (only a draft).[2]

This is looking pretty good. I'd like to see at least some mention of one of the attendance records. Maybe just the league average attendance record? Since it's a column in the table, it's not like it's off topic. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It mentions records but it could use more probably. Thoughts on how to to it? Edit it up and copy and paste it here if you want. Maybe state the figures at the end of the second paragraph with the info I tried removed?Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Image, pictures of teams after winning is common. Other common images include pictures of squads like the one we have at the player article. I think the Open Cup image is far superior and there is a precedent for such images.
  • I'm tempted to update this image to the one with them holding both Open Cup trophies. As far as OTRS approval goes, I think we're good, and the picture is probably better in this context. What do you think? --SkotyWA^T_C 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Position

Just a thought with regard to the league position column. At present it is overall (conference) in the one. This should be separated. Seeing that Gold/Silver will be used for winning/runners up etc. it won't be accurate if for example as New York RB did this season finish top in their conference but only third overall. I tried to sort out the colspan for it but was left with the top scorer colspan floating. What is the consensus and if so, can anyone sort this? Xenomorph1984 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I disagree on this one. Getting 1st in your conference doesn't mean you won the conference. Conference champions are determined in the playoffs. Finishing 1st just gets you a better seed in the playoffs. In contrast, finishing first in the overall standings wins you the Supporters Shield. Therefore, this column would only ever be grey or gold based on the overall position and not the conference position. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. As long as colour is used only for overall position. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of SuperLiga

Rumors are that the SuperLiga won't played this season. If this turns out to be true I think it makes sense to remove it from the list seeing as the Sounders were never involved with the tournament. Plus the table is getting a little difficult to read so removing one column would improve the spacing. Chilcokr (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Here's a link to the aricle that makes clear that the tournament is discontinued. --SkotyWA^T_C 20:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm thinking about rewriting the prose for this list. Here's how I'm thinking of organizing it...

• First paragraph remains untouched. It adequately describes all of the competitions included in the list.
• A paragraph on the USOC three-peat with dates scores and attendance records mentioned.
• A paragraph on league performance (making the playoffs every year, breaking attendance record every year, Sigi has always been the coach)

Most of the needed refs are already in the current prose. I just want to wrap it up a little better rather than it being one independent fact after another. I think this will also get it ready to be promoted to featured list in a year or two. If anyone has suggestions on this, please speak up (or better yet, go ahead with the rewrite before I find time to do it). --SkotyWA^T_C 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Change

I suppose you're here to see my reasons for changing them, here are some of the keys as to why I edited everything...

• Less clutter. The attendance, team MVP, and the wording for the Sounders results (Playoffs, CCL) made the chart smaller than it should be.
• Modernize it. I looked at teams like Arsenal, Paris SG, and even MlS teams like Houston, Vancouver, and most importantly, LA. You'll see that I didn't put "Did no qualify" in the CCL years the club didn't qualify in order to lower the word count. The goalscorers are cumulative, like Arsenal's and Paris'.
• Easier. Less wording. A key describes everything very easily (SF, W, RU, QF, and so on).
• We could still add the final attendance at the end of the season.

Let me know what you think. Worked really hard on it and I feel that it is much nicer and easier than the past one. AFCle (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's ok, there are other Sounders articles I'll focus on. You won't hear any more protests from me. Chilcokr (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217050552/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2008524337_sounders16.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2008524337_sounders16.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

HTML entities

@SounderBruce: Greetings! Regarding the + HTML entity....this table seems to be transcluded fine into Seattle Sounders FC#Team records as long as I use a space after the initial pipe. Is there some place else which is having transclusion difficulties or something else I'm missing? -- Beland (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: It seems to be working now; previously, the "+147" would show up in the caption text. Thank you for fixing it. SounderBruce 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of division column

I don't believe it's necessary to have a division column in a league that does not practice relegation. It makes sense in the all time table, but not in this table. Chilcokr (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The column is required for transclusion in the main table, which has been disabled for now but will be re-implemented later. SounderBruce 17:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Chilcokr (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)