Talk:Portland Thorns FC

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's sport: WOSO Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Football: American & Canadian / Women's football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. Number 5 7 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Thorns → Portland Thorns FC – This is the official team name. – Michael (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per http://www.portlandthornsfc.com/ --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency. Other football club/team articles use the team's official names. Thought that was understood. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Neutral Thorns FC is the official name, but clearly many sources will just use "Thorns", including, already, the club's own website (sometimes). I'm not familiar with WP conventions for titling sports team articles, so I'll step out of this debate. Tdslk (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't care either way, but "This is the official team name" is not a criteria. For an essay as to why we don't really care, and an explanation as to proper criteria, please review Wikipedia:Official names. Then please come back with arguments based on policy, as the template above instructs. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll take that under consideration next time I move a team page, or request a move. – Michael (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Contrary to Aboutmovies's assertion, "this is the official team name" is a criteria for sports teams. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports) states:

In cases where there is no ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used. No ambiguity means that:

(1) The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website
(2) The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable
(3) The name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.

In cases where there is some ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used.

Skinsmoke (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, did you read the whole thing you posted? Again, just being the official name is not in and of itself a criteria. It would be part of it, but only if it meets points (1), (2), and (3). Which is why the FC name was redirected to bigen with.

Of course if all the fanboys would learn how to actual do things properly instead of rushing out to write what they just read on a blog, we would not be in this situation and be wasting all this time. As in create the redirects when you start the article (also, you only need sections if you have text). If you see a logo where the FC is barely visible and a good chunk of media is also leaving it off, perhaps, maybe, people might look for the article under that title? Seriously, look at the titles to sources 3-5 and even 12 (one from the team) leave off the FC in the title. If you look at the dates in the sources you will see that early on it was largely -FC. That is to say, had the original author created the logical redirect, I would have found the article and not started a parallel article.

And for those sticking around to actual edit this article, please let's create a couple hundred more categories for a team that has yet to play a game. Perhaps 2013 Thorns Players? All excitement aside, pro women's soccer does not have a good track record as to longevity. Hopefully this league will be different, but its rather premature to have categories for seasons. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Manchester United F.C., whose "official" name does not include an abbreviation (and it looks like that is the same for most of the Premier League). I'm not arguing against the move, just again demonstrating that it is not as simple as an official name thing. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No football/soccer team name includes an abbreviation, they all use official names, apart from Inter Milan - but that move was highly controversial, highly disputed, and plain wrong. Giant Snowman 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Again, Man U does in fact use an abbreviation "F.C." which according to the infobox the full name is "Manchester United Football Club". As in the full name does not have an abbreviation, at the article title is not the official title (oddly even the infobox header omits the FC). And again, this seems to be the case for the other teams in the Premier League. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing to Portland Thorns FC. The "FC" is on the logo, the fact that it's abbreviated shouldn't have anything to do with the official name. Plus, I don't like seeing Seattle Reign FC next to just Portland Thorns.B.deluca (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Gay

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Gay. Hmlarson (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance creating 2014 Portland Thorns season

Currently looking for assistance from someone(s) to help create the 2014 Portland Thorns FC season article? You could use 2013 Portland Thorns FC season as a starting point and update for the current season? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season sections

If there's a season article, season sections should be short. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Kruger

With Betos injured, Emily Kruger was listed as a reserve for the May 14th game against Seattle. According to the Thorns roster, she is not on the team. I'm guessing she's a non-rostered amateur. Does that mean she should appear on the squad list or not? TedErnst (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting

Weren't games also broadcast on ESPN, Fox Sports, etc? Would be good to add to the article as well. Hmlarson (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Season Page

Can someone create the 2018 Season page? I've never really created a new page before. I can help add in all the details, but I need help in actually creating the page. WoSoFan (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it, but will not maintain it, and I would get some notices about it for having created it.

It's not hard to create a new article. Just edit the 2017 season article, copy all of the content, create a new one at 2018 Portland Thorns FC season, and paste it in. Before you save it, modify the lede (the opening sentences) to reflect the new season. Then strip out any content that is not applicable to the new season, but you can leave the empty sections (for a while). Save. You have a new article. WP:BOLD applies here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History length

The "History" section has gotten quite long with 10 seasons. With individual articles already existing for each season, would it be preferable to copy that content to an article like List of Portland Thorns FC seasons (draft), to a standalone history article such as History of Portland Thorns FC, or into each season's page so it can be summarized more concisely here? —71.34.68.140 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]