Talk:Seattle Sounders (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Seattle Sounders → Seattle Sounders (disambiguation) — Move the dab page and redirect Seattle Sounders to Seattle Sounders FC, as the MLS team is the primary topic and the only one playing in the highest level of professional soccer in the U.S. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose The official team of the MLS team is Seattle Sounders FC and should be listed there. Since we need to have multiple pages because of numerous Seattle Sounders, the simplest way is to keep it the way it is.KitHutch (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the MLS team officially has the "FC" suffix in its name, and the need to cover multiple subjects with the same name is the very reason why dab pages exist. This is why I said redirect Seattle Sounders to the MLS team page, not move the MLS team page anywhere. "Seattle Sounders" returned over 1,000,000 hits on a Google search and at least the first 50 are about the MLS team. By contrast "Seattle Sounders NASL" returns over 200,000 hits and "Seattle Sounders USL" returns over 93,000. I'd say that the MLS team is the primary topic for persons looking for the topic "Seattle Sounders." Compare Los Angeles Angels, which redirects to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the primary topic and official name, and the redirect article has a hatnote that points to the dab page (before today it only showed the PCL Los Angeles Angels). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose Seattle Sounders FC is different than Seattle Sounders. There is also a recentism argument to be made with decades of the name being used before. Those articles should be better but the internet was not what it is today. Not a terrible idea by any means but not necessary or accurate.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Re-requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move and redirect the undisambiguated title to Seattle Sounders FC, per apparent consensus that Seattle Sounders FC is the most likely target readers are likely to be looking for with this term. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC). Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm not usually one to reopen a discussion like this, but I'm going to make the same request as KuyaBriBri, Seattle Sounders → Seattle Sounders (disambiguation). I don't think the FC in the team name is relevant. It's part of the formal name, sure, but how often would you hear, "I'm going to a Seattle Sounders FC match"? Furthermore, I don't think the "recentism" argument holds water. Knowing nothing else, it's safe to assume a user would be interested in the current iteration of the team first. Compare to Colorado Rockies (slightly different case) and Winnipeg Jets. The latter's disambiguation page would be a great model for this case: "This article is about the current MLS franchise. For the previous NHL franchises with the same name, see Seattle Sounders (1974–1983) or Seattle Sounders (1994-2008). For other uses, see Seattle Sounders (disambiguation)." --BDD (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Seattle Sounders (disambiguation) already redirects to Seattle Sounders which is the correct disambiguation policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seattle Sounders should be a redirect to the current club, whose article should have a DAB hatnote. Number 57 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support if it's good enough for Chester F.C., it's good enough here. But to clarify, I am supporting the DAB page being moved and Seattle Sounders redirecting here: the article itself should remain at Seattle Sounders FC. —WFC— 17:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Also to clarify, this is indeed what I'm proposing.--BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I still stand behind the argument I made in support of moving on 4 April 2010, and have nothing further to add to it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. The title should be changed to reflect the full name. their website is soundersfc.Meatsgains (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lean oppose and comment I still believe it is inappropriate to give a team with 3 years of play precedent over teams with decades of history. However, I do agree that it is reasonable to assume that most readers looking for "Seattle Sounders" are looking for "Seattle Sounders FC". If members of the taskforce, like WFC, think a redirect is the best route then I can see it being a good idea. Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the figures for page view stats (Seattle Sounders FC = 510-3,400 daily hits, Seattle Sounders (1974–1983) = 18-76, Seattle Sounders (1994–2008) = 16-95 hit) I think it's pretty conclusive that the vast majority of readers are looking for the FC article. Number 57 08:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I completely agree. Unfortunately, a redirect would be giving prominence to a team that has been around for three years. Yes the readership does it in their searches since they are focused on the now. But we are supposed to be looking at historical significance. At this time, I am not comfortable disregarding decades of history in favor of the hot new item. Of course, Seattle Sounders FC will always be more prominent source wise due to the growth of the internet (RIP Google News Archive). I am not completely against the redirect as suggested by more than one editor. I won't be completely OK with it on principle alone but I would be lying if I said that the primary reason to look up "Seattle Sounders" was not to get to the future MLS champions, Seattle Sounders FC. :D Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose See what I said in April above. KitHutch (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: To be clear, this proposal if accepted will not move the Seattle Sounders FC article. That article is where it should be. This is a discussion on what, if anything, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Seattle Sounders". If you believe that most people searching for "Seattle Sounders" on Wikipedia are looking for the current MLS team, then you should support this move. If you believe that most people searching for "Seattle Sounders" on Wikipedia are looking for one of the defunct teams or aren't sure which of the teams they're looking for, then you should oppose this move. Keep in mind that if this move is done, then there will still need to be a hatnote on the Seattle Sounders FC article pointing to a dab page for those people who are looking for the articles on the defunct teams. As I said before, I think the best point of comparison is Los Angeles Angels, which currently redirects to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim even though there are articles on two separate defunct teams called "Los Angeles Angels", one of which was around longer than the current team has been. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Every big club in Europe (except clubs that have the same name as a city e.g. Liverpool) is redirected like this. Try Real Madrid, Manchester United, Manchester City, Bayern Munchen, Paris Saint-Germain and you'll find out that the case with Real and PSG is the same as Seattle Sounders. Yes this isn't a very old club, but how long have they been playing soccer in the United States? But it's this one of the biggest, and therefore it shouldn't be necessary to go through a DAB-page when searching for it. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Slight Support It makes perfect sense as that is the most likely sense of the term to be used now. This is provided that the disambiguation page remains in place and a hatnote is used to direct readers there. The examples given by Mentoz86 are not equivalent as those teams did not exist in other leagues, as Cptnono and KitHutch keep making the distinction, so there is need for disambiguation. The fact is that they are usually referred to as Seattle Sounders FC on Wikipedia, so this is only for readers. Ultimately, the articles should all be merged as this artificial distinction based on the league in which they played is artificial and only applies to MLS team articles for some reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• The arguments opposing are bogus. Our naming conventions strongly favour usefulness over accuracy or "official" titles, and with such strong evidence to suggest that incoming readers to Seattle Sounders are looking for the current team it is obviously the primary topic as far as the guidelines are concerned. Indeed I'd support a page move if it weren't for the argument that using the "FC" prefix makes for a slight gain in consistency with European teams. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support The other two teams are also soccer teams, and are arguably just part of the history of the current team rather than independent entities. The more recent of the two historical teams is very clearly related. It'd be like having France be a disambiguation to Gaul, Ancien Régime, French First Republic, First French Empire, etc... SDY (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.