This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
I added Starfire Sports Complex since they played open cup games there and there has been administrative offices/development. [1]
I removed Cascadia Cup since Sounders FC did not participate and will more than likely not in '10. We'll see in '11.
I was considering adding the Seattle Sounders – Portland Timbers rivalry since they did have a match last year. Available sources spiked due to both cities getting expansion teams as well. Timbers fans have even traveled to Qwest for games. I'm on the fence with that one.
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" (see Template:Manchester United F.C.). Might want to also consider how we handle Cascadia Cup in the main Sounders FC article (it's still mentioned in the lead). ← Georgetalk04:30, 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.
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]
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 and list 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
That is clearly WP: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]