Talk:Seattle Sounders FC/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

March-to-the-match edits

I wasn't the remover of the referenced data, but I assume it was removed because "Sound Wave" no longer leads the march. As of 2011, the March has been led by the ECS, although I have no references to cite. bgix (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I might have solved the problem on my third try. As a pointer to you: Don't removed sourced content. Don't delete lines without attempting to modify them first. Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. But the real question is, have you looked into when Wikipedia is going to stop blocking the Show preview button for editors in the Seattle area? ;) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with all that, but again, I disclaim the original edit. It was not me who removed the sourced content. I was merely adding my speculation as to it's intent. bgix (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Its intent was that that was the way it was for a good amount of time and no one else bothered to update it.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Need to add 2011 season section

It's time to add a section to the article for the 2011 season. I'd like to work out the content of this new section on the talk page before it's added to ensure that the article remains at a high quality level through the whole process. Here are some of the things I think it should cover:

• First Kick at Qwest for the 3rd year in a row
• USOC treepeat, first time this happend since 1969
• Advancing out of group stage in CCL
  • Second ever win in Mexico by a US based team
• Another new attendance record
• Playoff qualification for third year in a row and first playoff win (though they lost the series on aggregate)

Anything I've missed? In a few days I'll write some prose, dig up some references, and post a proposal for the addition here to be reviewed by anybody who's watching. If anyone want's to take a stab at it before I get to it, by all means, please go ahead. I'll happily review. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't mention the impact of Mauro Rosales would be a shame. The second Sounder in three years to get Newcomer of the Year.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here goes... --SkotyWA^T_C 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Sounders FC began the 2011 season by hosting the opening game of the MLS season for the third year in a row. This time they hosted the LA Galaxy and lost 1–0. On April 22, 2011, three minutes into their 7th match of the season against the Colorado Rapids, Seattle's star midfielder Steve Zakuani suffered a broken leg in a challenge by Brian Mullan, fracturing his tibia and fibula, and ending his season. Despite a slow start to the season–winning just 3 of their first 10 games– Sounders FC went on to earn the second best record in the league with 18 wins, 9 ties, and 7 losses and qualified for the playoffs for the third consecutive year. On October 4, 2011, Seattle won their third consecutive U.S. Open Cup–the first team in 42 years to accomplish this–as they defeated the Chicago Fire 2–0 in front of another tournament record crowd of 35,615 at CenturyLink Field. In the 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League, they finished second in their group and advanced to the knockout round. In the MLS playoffs, Seattle earned their first ever playoff victory, but lost the series with a 3–2 aggregate score to Real Salt Lake in the conference semifinals. Sounders FC midfielder Mauro Rosales was recognized by the league as the 2011 Newcomer of the Year. In 2011, Seattle again broke their own league record for average attendance at 38,496 and also had the third-largest crowd for a single MLS match in league history when 64,140 attended the final regular season home game on October 15, 2011.

There's no problem with adding this immediately, on the grounds that decently written, well-sourced prose is better than nothing. As for changes, I would suggest mentioning that the knockout stages of the Champions League take place in the 2012 season. Also, I'd change the playoff sentence to something along the lines of "In the MLS playoffs, Seattle won 2–0 in the home leg of their conference semifinal against Real Salt Lake, for their first ever playoff victory. However, Sounders FC lost the series on a 3–2 aggregate scoreline." I'm not sure how that works gramatically, but the current version is a little confusing. —WFC— 01:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've gone ahead and added the section with the changes you suggested. It can still be improved though, so if there are comments/adds/feedback from any other editors, I'm happy to follow up. Thanks WFC for the quick reply. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still leaning towards a restructure as discussed previously. I do not think it will be possible to keep it up year by year and even if it is, I do no think it is appropriate. The problem is that there are a couple options. 1.1-1.3 could be combined. Alternatively, we could throw some of the stuff into a "Culture" section. We can keep on going year by year for now and it won;t hurt my feelings. But we all hope Wikipedia will be here in ten years. If it is, the current structure won't work. But I am completely on board with whatever you guys want. I am just being a little chicken little over it. Maybe all we need it to keep on going but set a general understanding that we will need to adjust some stuff at the next good milestone (a decade, management change, or something similar) and start consolidating. Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the point you're making Cptnono. I say we should look at the structure when we make next season's update. Possibly even at the end of the Champions League campaign; if Sounders FC make significant progress in a cross year competition, that in itself would force us to look again at a year by year structure. —WFC— 05:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IF??? :D Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. It's the fifth major cup competition the team has entered, having won three of the previous four. —WFC— 05:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of the playoff wording, it strikes me as burying the lead a bit by mentioning the aggregate loss after the first game win. It is also a bit confusing as it makes it doesn't make it clear that the victory was only one game. How about something along the lines of "In the MLS playoffs, Seattle lost their Western Conference semifinal series 3–2 on aggregate to Real Salt Lake, despite winning their first playoff game." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks good. Go for it. —WFC— 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change mostly like Bobblehead suggested. Here's the new wording: In the MLS playoffs, Seattle lost their Western Conference semifinal series 3–2 on aggregate to Real Salt Lake, despite winning their first playoff game 2–0 on the second leg of the two-game series. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of this season, rather than creating yet another season sub-section, I'd say we should take the entire history section and break it off into a new article "History of Seattle Sounders FC" and keep it pretty much entirely intact. We could summarize the club history in 1-2 paragraphs in this article and create a new section for "Name, Badge, Colors" detailing the meaning, but skipping the history. This would put the article back in line with the WP:FOOTY's MOS for club articles. It also gives us a big head start on a new featured article covering the club. What do you guys think of that plan? --SkotyWA^T_C 00:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

refs for proposal

Draftees on current roster

Just a question here. Should the draftees be listed as being on the current roster? None of them are under contract with the Sounders and the odds of them actually making the roster is very slim. I can see them being included in the 2012 season article as being in camp, but having them on the roster is premature, IMHO. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. Perhaps a redirect along the lines of 2011–12 Watford F.C. squad might be useful. I.e. For details on every player contracted to the team, see 2012 Seattle Sounders FC squad.

While we're here, I was wondering whether we could consider reinstating the colours on the squad roster? The feature is in action on other MLS squads, and feedback on formatting in MLS articles could go a long way towards deciding whether the feature is added to the main template down the line. —WFC— 06:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not include but good luck to the guys.

I don't have a preference on the colors. I think you should feel free to try it out again. Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with using the colors, but I agree with Bobblehead's revert back to using the full template set. I think the color feature should be added to the templates and we could then make use of the feature in this article. Make sense? --SkotyWA^T_C 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing some more thrashing in the article history because of this, I went ahead and updated the template adding the color parameters, and updated this article to use the new params. Done and done. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

some of Nickj116's changes

This article is not about the entire Sounders Football Club but primarily about the senior men's team. When Nickj116 changed team for club he erred. Also, not sure we should have "match" over "game" but I'll leave that for sounders. On the main MLS article, both are acceptable, but going through and changing all instances would be considered as unconstructive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article Nomination

Just a heads up to anyone left who watches this page (anyone?)... I've nominated CenturyLink Field to appear on the main page of Wikipedia (the 6th most popular page on the internet). There are 2 Sounders FC related Featured Articles that have not yet appeared on the main page (the other is Sigi Schmid), and I figured one of them needed to appear on the main page on the day that Sounders FC goes for their 4th consecutive USOC. I chose to nominate CenturyLink Field for a couple of reasons: (1)a WP:BLP of a Russian football player was appearing just days earlier which would have knocked down the Schmid article's chances of making it and (2)it's a bit of a dig against USSoccer for electing to not host the final at this superior facility and in front of another likely record setting crowd.

So if you have a moment, please head over to the nomination page and voice your support for the nomination. Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 21:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do still watch Seattle Sounders FC pages, for what it's worth. Haven't done much article work lately though. —WFC— 21:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to restructure this article and start work on History of Seattle Sounders FC

So, rather than adding a 2012 section, I think it's time to take the entirety of the history section in this article and move it over to History of Seattle Sounders FC (it's a redirect right now, but there's another potential featured article in that I expect). Then, this article should be restructured. WP:FOOTY has a decent MOS for club articles which should probably be followed. Much of the content in the "Team name, badge and colors unveiled" should be transformed into a more direct "Colors and badge" section. A more condensed history section is also the result. However, I'm not sure what the best approach is for this. One idea is to have 4 paragraphs, one covering high level expansion dates and details, and then one for the club's history in each of the 3 competitions they've competed in (league, USOC, CCL). Another idea is to have 5 paragraphs, one covering expansion again, and then one for each year of the club's history. Outcomes of each competition, attendance milestones, and player recognition (all-stars, league first XI, etc.) would be included. I'm leaning towards the latter choice, but speak up if you have another idea. I'll probably start working on this during the week and next weekend. I invite any editors still watching this page to chime in with opinions or support for this plan. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Roster updates without references

This edit reverted my application of the stated reference: the roster. It also reverted the change to the roster header. That's a bit frustrating.

1. All changes require a reference.
2. It is appropriate to add comments when making edits.
3. Please supply references to support the addition of jersey numbers and don't revert the heading changes.

I recognize that preseason matches assigned numbers to players, but they don't necessarily stay. There have been cases with Real Madrid and the Vancouver Whitecaps (not the same class of teams, but two club pages I watch) where players were given preseason numbers that changed before the first match of the season. This is why a reference should be provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag

There is an ongoing discussion at the footy project but I wanted to respond to this edit summary. I feel that Cuba is correct. However, he is now an American citizen. He has expressed interest in playing for the US but, if I recall correctly, Cuba has to allow it before FIFA says OK. Or I could be mistaken and it is only possible if he lost his Cuban citizenship against his will. Either way, he played for Cuba and I don't know if he is eligible at this time to play for the US. Defections are yet another variable in the never ending flag debate.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Alonso cannot play for the national team unless FIFA intervenes and grants him special rights, if I understand. I found an article from June 2012 from MLSsoccer.com that explains the rules regarding his situation. I'd keep him as Cuban (for now) since he has represented them at a senior level. SounderBruce 04:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

I've just listed 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final for peer review in preparation for it to go through WP:FA review shortly after the peer review closes. I believe the article covers the subject in a complete manner and is well referenced. My biggest concern is the quality of the prose. So please, if you have a moment, please read the article and provide suggestions/feedback on the review page. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Seattle Sounders FC → Seattle Sounders – As per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA--the proposed title is more concise and far more common while being no less precise. Red Slash 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• OpposeThe name of this team is the Seattle Sounders FC. Seattle Sounders was the name of two others clubs. One from the NASL and one from the A-League. KitHutch (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose purely due to the ambiguity of not having FC in this specific instance, given that this team and this team were known exclusively as "Seattle Sounders". I support removing unnecessary FC's from club articles (and unnecessary dots where FC's are needed), but there are good reasons for keeping this one. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Those two teams can be dealt with using a hatnote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and if an expanded one were in place, I would be neutral on this move (the NASL Sounders were pretty big, which stops me from fully supporting this move per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). It would be a messy hatnote though. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

But this club has been the primary topic for "Seattle Sounders" since January 2012. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And they were officially the Seattle Sounders FC since before that date: when their bid to join MLS was approved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - more concise? Yes. Less precise? Yes. GiantSnowman 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The official name of the team is Seattle Sounders FC. – Michael (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support The names of older teams are irrelevant, given that this is the established primary topic for Seattle Sounders anyway. And appeals to Wikipedia:official names are unconvincing in the face of the nominator's evidence. Compare to the recent Chivas USA RM. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "It's the official name" is not a trump card in move requests, but is a relevant argument when (and only when) a more common name could cause confusion. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think "Seattle Sounders" is vague enough to cause confusion, perhaps you should take it to WP:RFD. As such, the current club is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC inasmuch as that already redirects here. It's not inaccurate, so it's a perfectly good title. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Chivas USA move only serves as precedent for case-by-case analysis. In this situation, "Seattle Sounders" is the name used by different organizations (or franchises), and removing the "FC" causes confusion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – MarshalN20 sums it up nicely. --MicroX (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the proposed move would provide a more concise title, and one that is the common name of this organization, but I fear it may cause confusion due to the other franchises that share this or similar names. Jogurney (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Standard naming format is to include FC etc where it is part of the club name. Number 57 13:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This club is not called "Seattle Sounders", it is "Seattle Sounders FC". There was a previous club called "Seattle Sounders" that has a better claim to the Seattle Sounders article. – PeeJay 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Listing runner's up in the honors section

We used to list runner's up for major cups/competitions in this article, but they've since been removed, and in fact a recent edit reverted such a change. I figured maybe we could have an explicit discussion and come to an agreement on this, rather than just have a few people decide on behalf of the community.

Looking at the teams that have won the Supporter's Shield (as they're most likely to have won & been runner's up), the following DO list runner's up in their honors sections:

• LA Galaxy
• Houston Dynamo
• San Jose Earthquakes
• Colorado Rapids
• RSL
• Columbus Crew

The following do not:

• DC United
• SKC
• Chicago Fire

I include this information merely for background, we should make our own decision. As far as I can tell, Seattle has been runner's up 2 times: once for the Open Cup when they lost to SKC in the final; and once for the SS when they came in 2nd to LA.

Do people feel strongly one way or the other? I personally would prefer to see runner's up listed. Thoughts? 87Fan (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed them from those that had them. Please discuss at WP:FOOTY if you have any questions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol, awesome. Definitive answer. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is already addressed at FOOTY and that all of Walter's edits need to be reverted:

"Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places" @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.

I don't really care either way.Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't care either way then don't say they need to be reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

To follow the MOS laid out by FOOTY. I think it got to FA without it and it isn't a big deal as far as I see it. But if we are fallowing FOOTY...Cptnono (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy Rose

Andy Rose was born in Australia and while he moved to England at a young age, he never played for England, so therefore according to wikipedia guidelines his nationality should be listed as Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.171.20 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy Rose was born to English parents and so was a citizen of England at birth. He would usually be listed as Australian, but he is an exception to the rule which is why four editors have reverted your changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case this statement right above the list of players:"Where a player has not declared an international allegiance, nation is determined by place of birth" should be altered, or at least have an asterisk next to it explaining that there are "exceptions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.171.20 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Record year-by-year heading

I am having an issue where there is someone that removes the Seattle Sounders' record that I has constructed last month. This was the second time and It is very frustrating especially since I put time and effort to make sure it is correct. The person claims that it is repetitive however it is a ridiculous claim since all other MLS team's have their own record over the years shown on their wiki page. Who says Seattle can't have one? This page must be on par with the rest of the MLS team articles and it will be ridiculous if this page does not have their own record page. And isn't that considered vandalism if it gets removed again? Bluhaze777 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. It's "teams", not "team's". It's not all teams either, only some. Also, it's not vandalism, as it was explained, it may be an edit war though. Perhaps the editor will discuss. Glad that you are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw all active teams with a record year by year. Bluhaze777 (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Granted most do, D.C. United and Real Salt Lake do not. Houston Dynamo have a seasons heading while this is Orlando City SC's first year and so it makes sense that they do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC

See this RFC in regards to the use of FC/SC in MLS-related articles (including this one) Bmf 051 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Active Teams

Deleting Active Teams box, following the seemingly end of discussion on Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1#Infobox. If you have objections, please take it up there, so as to keep everything in one place. Elisfkc (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

colouring the all-time top 10 goalscorers table heading

The colours in the other tables works because there are no references and the text colour can be controlled. Link colours can't be and it could be that a reader of the article will encounter a link colour that would violate MOS:ACCESS depending on their skin and Javascript options. It is a problem with mine where an unvisited link is green and there isn't enough contrast to make the link visible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the solution to convert the standard table heading color to white? Lanejb24 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can remove the link and place a footnote (as demonstrated in the current edit), simplifying the problem. Lanejb24 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the second option as it keeps the colour scheme. You could use {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} or similar templates instead of asterisks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I like it. It's done. Lanejb24 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox kit copyright violations

Can someone explain to me why this edit was reverted? Walter Görlitz explained in his edit diff that "the logos represent copyright violations". I fail to see how. I added those kits from Wikimedia Commons. The uniform designs were already there. I do not want to engage in an edit-war over this, but I would like an explanation from another editor (preferably Walter Görlitz) about why he reverted my edits. I wish to reach consensus with all editors regarding accurate uniform files in the infobox of the main article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: What's the logo on the uniform? Team logo or the Adidas logo? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I believe the logo on each uniform file is the Adidas logo. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought it was. The uniforms are fine to use then since the Adidas logo is in the Public Domain. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we need Walter Görlitz to weigh in and explain why he made these reverts. He also reverted my similar edits at Montreal Impact, Real Salt Lake, D.C. United and LA Galaxy. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You're clearly illiterate. It's a copyright violation. I explained that on every revert. Commons allows the logos but the English project does not. Feel free to ask at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Ok, but why is it a copyright violation? I looked through your reverts. You explained that it was a copyright violation, but not why. Please explain. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the logos are copyrighted. Is that what the other editors at FOOTY said or did they agree with you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The Adidas logo cannot be copyrighted because it fails Commons:TOO, making it in the Public Domain. If it's copyrighted, the the logo shouldn't be on Commons. There is a difference. Simply stating 'it's a copyright violation' without an explanation proving it's copyrighted is not a valid reason. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 05:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Take it to FOOTY. It's their consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

can you provide a link to the consensus? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple in the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Captions

MOS:CAPTION's point 2 is "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period." These sentence fragments for the images do not need closing punctuation. And alt tags really don't need periods. I hope that explains it a bit better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

+@Floquenbeam: Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter: As I explained on your talk page (twice) and in an edit summary, my explicit intent is to implement the very guidance that you've quoted above. When I arrived at the article to retrieve an image description for use on the main page, I noticed that some of the captions were formatted incorrectly. I appended periods to complete sentences and removed periods from captions containing only sentence fragments, as specified at MOS:CAPTION.

I applied the same formatting corrections to alt text, which contained closing punctuation before I edited the article. It's reasonable to discuss removing it entirely, but that isn't what your reversions accomplished. Across the captions and alt text alike, you repeatedly removed periods from complete sentences and added periods to sentence fragments unaccompanied by complete sentences. You're citing a guideline as your rationale for doing exactly the opposite of the advice contained therein. —David Levy 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But 1) you did not change the captions, only the alt text, and 2) alt text doesn't need to be sentences. It's used by screen readers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But 1) you did not change the captions, only the alt text},

That simply isn't so. Have you re-examined my edits since your first reversion?

If you thought that none of the captions were affected, why have you repeatedly cited MOS:CAPTION as your rationale? And why would you intervene in such a manner at all, believing that your actions would serve solely to eliminate periods from alt text containing complete sentences and restore them to alt text consisting purely of sentence fragments? How would that be an improvement under any circumstance?

and 2) alt text doesn't need to be sentences. It's used by screen readers.

That's one function of alt text. Another is its on-screen display or paper printout when images are unavailable or their rendering has been disabled.

But again, the relevant question isn't whether closing punctuation is useful in that context. It's why you felt that said context was one in which it was beneficial to remove closing punctuation from complete sentences and add it to sentence fragments. —David Levy 05:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There were three initially: The first is alt text. The other two were captions. They don't need to be sentences, but they are. Fine. Leave it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Roster nation

The roster nation represents the national team that has been most recently represented, or nation of birth if that has not occurred. It does not represent naturalized nation and there is no requirement for it to be a FIFA-recognized national team. Feel free to discuss at WP:FOOTY if you need further clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If a player's highest national achievement were a separatist national team, such as Catalonia national football team, I see no reason not to include it. The reference to the provincial team for Quebec (Québec official soccer team) is not the same. That's like saying that a player represented Washington State or Delaware. granted, Quebec is recognized as a nation in Canada, but they're not recognized as such by any soccer body. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders Women

The USL Sounders spun off their women's team into a completely separate club as the MLS Sounders began to organize. Does anyone know why the Seattle Sounders Women are still allowed to use the Sounders name and if any meaningful connection to the men's team still exists today? --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about them other than that they play at Starfire, which is where Sounders FC practices and they host USOC matches. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They've had a branding agreement with Sounders FC, which was just terminated. See here. Mightytotems (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)