Jump to content

Talk:National Women's Soccer League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mackenzieperry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shield

[edit]

I added a section to track the winners of the shield, but the infobox shows the name as Supporters' Shield, which is the name of the MLS shield. I do not know how to make it display other text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwyatt (talk • contribs) 09:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Player records

[edit]

Wouldn't switching the play-off goals table to an appearance table be more interesting. Two players just made their 100th game. Heresome chasers. Both tables would need a good source those. The general nwsl.com/Stats/ is not enough. -Koppapa (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, we should change it now Lauren Barnes and Christine Nairn reach 100 and will be more soon.--Mojackjutaily (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also i think adding table for assist is a must,anyway on different note i dont think Sam Kerr goals is correct .Here it say 36 and after today goals she made it 40. @Koppapa: what do you think ? --Mojackjutaily (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from soccerway.com, then added and sorted with pivot table in excel. Kerr had 37 at end of june and added 4 yesterday. -Koppapa (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NWSL All-Time Regular Season Leading Goalscorers
Last updated 20 August 2017 (soccerway.com)
Player 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
S. Kerr 6 9 6 5 15 41
C. Press 6 10 8 9 33
J. McDonald 3 11 7 10 2 33
K. Little 17 10 6 33
A. Long 2 9 10 6 2 29
C. Sinclair 8 7 2 6 5 28
C. Lloyd 8 8 4 5 2 27
M. Rapinoe 5 4 5 1 12 27
N. Nadim 7 6 9 4 26
A. Morgan 9 6 1 4 5 25

And with fox sports database (only since 2014): 

top assists:
DiBernardo,  : 17
Little, Kim  : 16
Nairn, Chris : 14
Fishlock, Je : 14
O'Hara, Kell : 14
Kawasumi, Na : 14
Williams, Ly : 12
Ohai, Kealia : 12
McDonald, Je : 11
Dunn, Crysta : 11
Heath, Tobin : 11
Long, Allie  : 10
O'Reilly, He : 10
Hoy, Jen CHI : 9
top games:
Williams, Ly : 88
DiBernardo,  : 81
Nairn, Chris : 81
Barnes, Laur : 81
Zerboni, McC : 80
Taylor, Brit : 80
Spencer, Jas : 79
Menges, Emil : 79
McDonald, Je : 78
Averbuch, Ya : 78
Barnhart, Ni : 77
Salem, Angel : 76
Long, Allie  : 73
Mathias, Mer : 73

Really wonder why there is no good stats website for the league. -Koppapa (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i am little sceptical about (soccerway.com) , for some time all soccer websites claiming Kim Little has 16 goals in 2014 season (here) and 32 over all (here) and (here). but the rest are correct. yes you are right its troublesome its seem we cant find good database . I heard the commentator today say C. Nairn has 18 assist and 100 appearance but we need to find reliable source .--Mojackjutaily (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway appears to combine regular-season and playoffs stats; therefore the table above is inaccurate. Mightytotems (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Women's Soccer League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline colors

[edit]

I think using the same color for WNY and for Seattle is highly misleading, since the original Seattle Reign FC didn't sell or fold - shouldn't we just use the "active club" color with the "Reign FC" text in the appropriate position to signify the rebrand? It's not a new club by any means, and didn't even leave the Seattle metropolitan area so it's hard to call it a "relocation" in the normal franchise sense (i.e. plenty of teams find more stadiums in the same area through their history without people calling them "relocations"). CyMoahk2 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. Seany91 (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NWSL in LA

[edit]

User:BumakinBeauty added one sentence on Angel City being a majority-woman owned club, and I subsequently rephrased it based on media coverage. User:Walter Görlitz objects to this and seems to suggest that it would only be notable if the team were owned solely by women (which is a weird line to draw). In any case, he's reverted the latest revision again so here is it for discussion.

For reference, below is the latest version of the passage Walter Görlitz objects to and deleted:

The Los Angeles NWSL team is notable for being the first American professional sports team to be founded by a majority-woman ownership group, and co-founders Portman, Nortman, and Uhrman have publicly discussed their ownership stakes extensively as one way to address gender inequity in sports and to encourage additional investment by women into women's sports.[1][2][3][4][5]

Seany91 (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ever stranger line to comment on a team that is "majority-owned" by women. It is not notable for this. Bill and Teresa Predmore were the owners of Reign FC. This is press fluff and WP:NOTNEWS. It's great that women are supporting a women's team and that they didn't bother to do so when the league started, but go ahead and fluff this nonsense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your unnecessary dig against women notwithstanding ("they didn't bother to do so"?!?), I have to correct your math — 50% is not a majority! It's going to ruin this statistician's day if I don't place this on record... Seany91 (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The league has been operational for years. Other women's leagues are doing better around the planet, and they step forward in the second-largest US market years late is not a dig, it's an observation. I didn't say it was a majority, and a majority is still not notable, even if it is the first time. When there's an all female-owned pro team, that will be impressive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a single user get to decide that only a team owned solely by women would be notable enough for inclusion? And why does your personal assessment on NWSL's success relative to other women's leagues have anything to do with the discussion here? Stop moving the goalpost. This particular fact has been the major angle in almost all independent news reporting on the expansion team. Seany91 (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"being the first American professional sports team to be founded by a majority-woman ownership group" seems notable to me. Well-written sentence, with citations to reliable sources. I'm unconvinced by Walter Görlitz argument. Is the fact wrong, Walter? If true, is it not notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tagishimon here, I think the statement is well sourced and notable, and Walter Görlitz is making a mountain out of a molehill. Leave the text in and move on to other matters. --Krelnik (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A single user doesn't get to decide anything. I've stated my opinion that it's trivia and publicity hype. Do you whatever you agree on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Walt's latest incursion into WP:DICK territory has been dealt with now. The guy has a real complex around female soccer articles and he's been making a nuisance of himself like this for years. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm not Walt. 2) I don't have a complex around female soccer articles, but this and many others are on my watchlist and when problem editors like you come along to cause problems with this or other article, I revert on-sight. If keeping wikipedia a safe place is making a nuisance of myself, I'll be doing it for a lot longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Forgive me for being the new kid on the block. Had I been here at the time I would have made it a point to address you, directly. Let me assure you that I am equal to the challenge of meeting your obvious biased opinion about women's sports, as indicated by your display here, and women's topics in general, as well as your need to "protect" your safe place of male dominance, with honest and thoughtful dialogue once you remove your subjective interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and start treating them literal. Otherwise you are no different than the countless other editors whose misogynistic views cloud their ability to see past the end of their own nose. This safe place, as you call it, of male dominance by way of female subjugation/submissiveness has it's days numbered. Enjoy it while you can and, by all means, protect it to your last breath.Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no bias about women's sports. You have no basis to make such a claim and the rest of your comment is an ignorant rant as a result. My bias is against media hype being passed-off as encyclopedic information. This sort of trivia should be reserved for the Guinness Book of Records and similar compendiums of such content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I don't see you pushing to have all of the articles about men's sports relegated to the Guinness Book of Records so don't patronize me. Until you clean your own house don't step in mine talking about the dust on the floor. So long as there are men's articles on sports there should be equal treatment given to women's sports articles. Your bias is reflected in your original dig, as noted. This isn't the US court system. You don't get the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty here. You made a comment and you aren't man enough to stick by it by being honest about your views. The fact is that you just can't stand being challenged by a woman and fearful because you see the success of projects like WiR, WP:GGTF and WP:WFOOTY at tearing down that ivory and holy tower of male dominance you and Wikipedia, at large, have enjoyed up until the last few years and you fight to protect even now by using archaic measures originally employed to stifle not only women's voices but people of color and those with indigenous blood as well. The only ignorance on display here is the fact you responded to me with such a weak argument. When you actually have an intelligent and unbiased comment to offer I will be happy to engage you again. Good day to you!Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska: I'm no pushing for this article to be relegated there either so don't patronize me either.
I argued that the trivia about a group of women becoming the primary owners of a single team was unnecessary. until you actually speak on-topic, you're showing blatant ignorance. So, stop making false accusations about me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Walter Görlitz For the record and with two years having passed, I wholly agree with the users here that Walt is in a minority opinion. The ownership team of Angel City FC was notable then and continues to be so. While I think Tsistunagiska came on a bit strong, I agree with nearly every point made. Walt, be sure to avoid WP:DICK in the future. Listen1st (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brassil, Gillian R. (2020-07-21). "New Women's Soccer Team, Founded by Women, Will Press Equal Pay Cause". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-07-22.
  2. ^ Burhan, Asif (21 July 2020). "New NWSL Franchise Angel City Commits To Tackling Social Inequality In Los Angeles". Forbes. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  3. ^ Settimi, Christina (21 July 2020). "Serena Williams, Natalie Portman, USWNT Legends Bringing Women's Soccer To LA In NWSL Ownership Group". Forbes. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  4. ^ Yang, Stephanie (21 July 2020). "Los Angeles investor group announces NWSL expansion team for 2022". All for XI. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  5. ^ Hahn, Jason Duaine (21 July 2020). "Natalie Portman Is Among Group Bringing Women's Soccer Team to Los Angeles: It's 'Culture-Shifting'". People. Retrieved 26 July 2020.

Tiebreaker list

[edit]

The NWSL's list of tiebreakers is

1. Head-to-head win/loss record, or points per game if more than two teams, between the teams tied in points.
2. Greatest goal difference (against all teams, not just tied teams).
3. Greatest total number of goals scored (against all teams, not just tied teams).
4. Apply #1–3 to games played on the road.
5. Apply #1–3 to games played at home.
6. Coin toss or drawing of lots.

Isn't #5 redundant? I mean, if you're tied on those first three things for all your games and you're also tied on them for your road games, aren't you necessarily tied on them for home games too? Or am I missing something? I realize we should probably keep the full list around (it's on the page for each NWSL season) because that's what the NWSL specifies in its competition rules, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. DKMell (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future Teams 2024

[edit]

Though it's speculated in the articles that the Utah and Boston teams are revivals of the Utah Royals and Boston Breakers- since neither of them have confirmed that, for now I left the the cities and stadiums blank to be filled in later. Coyote42 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until the league itself makes an official announcement, it's WP:TOOSOON to add in that section as if it's official. Seany91 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. It was announced in the ESPN article. So nice try. I wouldn't have put that in without evidence. And someone went and fixed it anyway so thanks for basically taking away my credit. Coyote42 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Breathe. It's not that serious. What's most important is if the correct information is being communicated. Egos should be checked at the door. I wish you the best! Listen1st (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR1 pm

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tessiosepovici, Jshinnn, Nsahady, Jp martin25 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Christy yaa, ChristianeMor, Anna.yacura, Ceci Secola.

— Assignment last updated by Nsahady (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Women%27s_Soccer_League&oldid=1264071944"