Adjustments 01-2009
[edit]- I wouldn't add the rivalry. I do think a link to Schmetzer should be added. --SkotyWAT|C03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty much fine with any of these going either way.If the rivarly is added, it should be named like "Timbers rivalry" or "Portland rivalry" (seeTemplate:Manchester United F.C.). Might want to also consider how we handleCascadia Cup in the main Sounders FC article (it's still mentioned in the lead). ← George talk04:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the rivalry will be a must in the future ('11) but don't need it now if we aren't all onboard.Template:Newcastle United F.C. is an example of how other teams do it for consideration later.
- Throw Schmetzer in as "Assistant Coach" next to Sigi in the box?Cptnono (talk)06:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the upcoming friendly with PDX is being marketed as the "Inaugural Community Shield". I'm leaning towards adding the rivalry now. Not a huge priority but jumps out as OK.Cptnono (talk)23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's clear whether or not the Community Sheild will always be against the same opponent. --SkotyWATC01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True.Cptnono (talk)04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to have an entire "Training Ground" section dedicated solely to Starfire when it is listed in the stadiums section as well? Why not do what baseball teams do andlist a training ground subheading under "Stadiums" for Starfire. The distinction of Starfire being used for minor matches is not so overwhelmingly important that this could not be done, no? --Blackbox77 (talk)06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit summary says why I reverted. It is more than a training ground. It is where US Open Cup games have been played, where offices are (note that this is similar to other US teams in various sports but different than other soccer teams internationally),and whee they train. The investment the team made into the ground was pretty substantial and important to the clubs gowth. Build the web and tell the whole story.Cptnono (talk)05:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Important Figures" section
[edit]That is clearlyWP:OR, unless someone can direct me to some sort of WP:Soccer guideline that states who is included as an "important figure". If I don't get some sort of reasonable explanation for it, I'm going to remove it on the basis of WP:OR.Jrcla2 (talk)05:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It should go. This is like the "notable former players" sections that many club articles have. --SkotyWATC06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed it.Jrcla2 (talk)23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.Cptnono (talk)01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
