Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Seattle Sounders FC task force/TFAR archive
This is an archive of
August 8, 2012
Occasion: Date of the 2012 U.S. Open Cup final
Diffs: nom removed followup request
Four points I think, maybe five. Two points because it's been over two years since the article was promoted. Two points because there are 20 versions of the article in various languages. There's a weak chance it could get one last point for date relevance because I'm nominating it to appear on the same day that one of it's tenants (Sounders FC) competes for a
Comment: Ref #3 is a bare URL; it's the only thing keeping me from supporting the nomination.--Chimino (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Not a Seahawks nor Sounders fan, but this is quite a detailed and well-sourced page. Mati 15:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)]
October 4, 2011
Occasion: Date of the 2011 U.S. Open Cup final
Diffs: nom scheduled/removed
At least one point, maybe two. One point because it's been over three months since the last soccer (association football) related article (
- One point Date relevance. We consider running it on the actual date in the present year acceptable for date relevance. I don't agree on the soccer point. Raul could run sports articles for a month on that basis, each asking for main page representation points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support per SkotyWa's statement Quidster4040 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support I should note that I am extremely biased. The article is great. There is some fun date relevance. I don't have the info in front of me but it feels like it has been a long enough period (probably only barely) since a sports related article was up. Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support, although I should note that Sounders FC are my MLS team. I agree with Wehwalt's tally, based on the fact that non-biographical sports articles are grouped together at WP:FA. —WFC— 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)]
March 19, 2011
Occasion: 2 year anniversary of inaugural game in 2009 and the date of the second match of the 2011 season
Diffs: nom, scheduled/removed
Nominating on the 2 year anniversary of the club's inaugural game. I think the score for this nom is 4 points. 1 point for 1+ years at FA level, 1 point for date relevance, and 2 points for a widely covered article. --SkotyWATC 06:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Points look good. I would say "bear" rather than "share", after all the first team didn't share it until there was a second team. Just being picky.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. anything that promotes football (the round-balled one) is good :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support anything that promotes football (especially the Sounders) is good :) The article has turned out great.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support—although I'm just a tad biased in this regard.—RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support well written article and an interesting subject. Take em all! Udeezy (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, per Casliber (talk · contribs), sound reasoning. :P -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. A worthy article for a great club. Well written and comprehensive. talk 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)]
- Support, per talk · contribs). – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)]
September 26, 2010 (nonspecific date)
Occasion: Appeared the week before the 2010 U.S. Open Cup final which was played on October 5, 2010
Diffs: 1st nom, replaced, discussion, 2nd nom, scheduled/removed
The
Nominating this again. The 2010 edition of this tournament will happen on October 5th, so it would be good if this can appear on the main page any time before or on that date. The exact date of October 5th is not directly relevant to the article, only indirectly as explained. Therefore, I think this only gets one point because I've never had an FA on the main page. For reference, the collapsed box below contains the !votes and discussion from the eariler nomination of this article from 3 days ago. --SkotyWATC 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
October 5th is the 2010 date of the 97th edition of this annual sporting event. We haven't had a soccer related article featured on the main page since July 11 (the last day of the World Cup), so there should be no point deduction for a similar recently featured article. However, I think this only gets 2 points, 1 for the significant date, and 1 because this is my first nomination. --SkotyWATC 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I know this isn't the right place for it, but I thought we didn't put sponsoring names into article titles. Shouldn't it be 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final? The article itself is worthy, but I'm not a big fan of throwing a promotional name onto the main page. Resolute 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)]
- Well, to be fair, Lamar Hunt is a person the event is named in memory of, and not a company paying for the name, which I would be opposed to putting up. Courcelles 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Support as a one-point nomination. I don't think this should get the date significance point, given the talk page discussion on whether that point is being awarded too loosely. While this is a good date to run the article, it's not a significant date within the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't the most recent soccer-related article as today's featured article by Roy of the Rovers on September 11? I don't know if a comic strip would be considered similar to an actual soccer tournament though. Calathan (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I agree with the talk page discussion in principal, however it overlooks annual events like this or events that happen every 4 years (the Olympics or the World Cup) but not necessarily on the exact same month and day. All other factors being equal, this article seems more appropriate for October 5 than another random FA with no connection to the date. It is a weaker connection though. Also, it seems like "soccer" is pretty much the only thing Roy of the Rovers and this article have in common (and literally nothing else). I'm not a regular contributor here, so I don't know if that's too similar for the scoring system or not. --SkotyWATC 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the rules that prevents one from nominating an article for a date even if the connection is a little more tenuous. The rules only govern whether the nomination gets the date relevance point or not. I wouldn't consider Roy of the Rovers to be similar enough to deduct points. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- And no doubt the manga people would say that R of the R is not similar to them ... we have to deal broadly otherwise every article becomes sui generis and a category onto itself. Otherwise we get the US cup final one day, the comic the next, that awful soccer movie with Pele in it the third, all solemnly stating they are none of them similar to the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it's possible to be too broad as well as too narrow. A comic about a sport vs a sports tournament in a country in which the comic was never published have such a tenuous similarity that there's no real crossover; to me, it's like saying we shouldn't run iridescent 20:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)]
- I think you'll find I-15 is made of asphalt ... and the dam's only half in Arizona! So there! :)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it's possible to be too broad as well as too narrow. A comic about a sport vs a sports tournament in a country in which the comic was never published have such a tenuous similarity that there's no real crossover; to me, it's like saying we shouldn't run
- And no doubt the manga people would say that R of the R is not similar to them ... we have to deal broadly otherwise every article becomes sui generis and a category onto itself. Otherwise we get the US cup final one day, the comic the next, that awful soccer movie with Pele in it the third, all solemnly stating they are none of them similar to the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the rules that prevents one from nominating an article for a date even if the connection is a little more tenuous. The rules only govern whether the nomination gets the date relevance point or not. I wouldn't consider Roy of the Rovers to be similar enough to deduct points. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I agree with the talk page discussion in principal, however it overlooks annual events like this or events that happen every 4 years (the Olympics or the World Cup) but not necessarily on the exact same month and day. All other factors being equal, this article seems more appropriate for October 5 than another random FA with no connection to the date. It is a weaker connection though. Also, it seems like "soccer" is pretty much the only thing Roy of the Rovers and this article have in common (and literally nothing else). I'm not a regular contributor here, so I don't know if that's too similar for the scoring system or not. --SkotyWATC 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)