Talk:Portland Timbers

Rivalries

Should it be noted that the Timbers have an intense rivalry with both the Seattle Sounders and the Vancouver Whitecaps in the USL, and will likely cross over into the MLS; or is this just speculation at this point? Tsurettejr (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The rivalry will carry over. The fans will make sure it does. Shittle and Wankouver should make a note on their pages, too. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwhunt (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should fix that rivalries section. It's clearly biased and wrong. It's an embarrassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.167.12 (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the WP:NPOV edits to the Rivalries section. Next time feel free to fix that yourself. It's just as easy as commenting on this talk page. DemonJuice (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Team Name

Should the name be changed to the Timber's on the MLS's announcement of the team the say that the franchise "will retain the storied Timbers name." http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20090320&content_id=228140&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp Tsurettejr (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read this talk page first before moving the article. But I think the move is still valid; the ownership is pretty clear that the name will be the Timbers.

--Esprqii (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I Agree, I think it's pretty clear that they're going to go by the Timbers at this point and there are enough sources that indicate that as well.Tsurettejr (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Okay.. Grant. When the owner of the team says the name of the team will be Portland Timbers, there isn't any doubt about it. This isn't like Vancouver where the ownership group left some wiggle room in whether or not the team will be called "Vancouver Whitecaps". Unless you can find a source that says there is some doubt about the teams name, then you are the one that is speculating. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article title "Portland Timbers (MLS)" is a suitable, appropriate, and accurate name for the time being. Obviously it'd change if the official name took on a subtle difference a la Seattle--Blackbox77 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree that "Timbers" will be part of the new team's name, but that doesn't mean that the team will be called the "Portland Timbers." The Seattle Sounders are now Seattle Sounders FC, and Vancouver's franchise has gone through several variations of "Whitecaps"-based names. It is possible to say that both franchises kept their NASL roots with all of those names. The new Portland team has stated their intention to do the same, but that does not mean that we know what the new club's name will be. Since that is the case, we should stick with the formula that we have used for the Seattle, Philadelphia, and Vancouver articles until we've known the team's official name. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant. Find a source. It's that simple. Every freaking source out there says the team will retain the Timbers name. It does not say "some form of the name". Unless you have a source that counters the prevailing evidence, then you are the one that is speculating. It's as simple as that. Find a source. Anything that is verifiable to justify this name. If you want to be a tool about it, I'll send it through WP:RM. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove a negative. How about you find a source where Merritt Paulson referred to his new team as the "Portland Timbers." Calling the team "the Timbers" isn't good enough, as Seattle Sounders FC changed names and is still called "the Sounders." I'd also kindly thank you not to revert to personal attacks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well so far the Timbers logo (with the words "Portland Timbers") is in the logo on this article's page. Additionally and more importantly, the Timbers' MLS website[1] has the giant title "2011 Portland Timbers MLS Season Ticket Program" across the top. Also when the organization refers to itself in the future tense for the 2011 season, it says Timbers or Portland Timbers. Branding with the Portland Timbers' logo is everywhere. I don't believe there is too much to dispute beyond that. If in 2 years it gets tagged with an "FC" at the end, then it's no big deal and we change the name. Right now we can not only say that "Timbers" will be in the name, but the two words "Portland Timbers" in that order will be there too. Vancouver's case is different and leaves much to be interpreted. In Portland's case, this just makes sense.--Blackbox77 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is that-a-way, Grant. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The best way to end personal attacks is to hold oneself accountable. Simply don't respond to each others subtle insults (or this message) and it's all over. End.--Blackbox77 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

Major League Soccer Portland 2011 → Portland Timbers (MLS) — The ownership group for the new MLS team has already announced that the name of the team is going to be Portland Timbers.[2][3] etc. Every reliable source says that the team will retain the same name of the USL team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was PAGE WAS MOVED as a result of discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Obviously as the person that submitted the move request, I support the move. All reliable sources have the ownership group saying the name will retain the name of the USL team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose For consistency with other future franchises, avoidence of parentheticals, and the complete lack of justification that isn't based on speculation, the conflation of keeping the "Timbers" name with the new team being officially named the "Portland Timbers," or the misconstruence of multiple articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Clear Support Branding of the future MLS team uses the "Portland Timbers" moniker and logo, and the official website refers to itself concerning the 2011 season by the same full name.[4] If the name includes additions in the future (such as "FC"), those changes can still be made. For now the organization refers to itself as the "Portland Timbers" when discussing their presence within MLS. Quote from press release: "Paulson also announced that the new MLS team will keep the storied Portland Timbers name."[5]--Blackbox77 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, if the team has announced a name, the article should be there chandler · 00:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, the official website calls it the 2011 Portland Timbers MLS Season Ticket Program and uses the Timbers name quite freely, it seems, the choice has alredy been made. EA210269 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a no-brainer. The team itself has announced this name. TJ Spyke 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, team and league are using the Portland Timbers name in much of their literature as are most reports about then. This seems the appropriate move to make. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support How is this even debatable? Just look at the video of the announcement [6] from 1:07 to 1:15. Btaholla (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is quite clear to me that the Portland Timbers will be the team that plays in MLS. Other expansion team articles are renamed as soon as the name is announced - consider the name "announced". WeatherManNX01 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

It needs to be made clear that nowhere in either of those two articles, and I would venture any others, do the words "Portland Timbers" refer to anything but the existing USL-1 franchise. Many times the new team is referred to as "the Timbers," but in the same way the new "Seattle Sounders FC" franchise is referred to as "the Sounders" despite having added the "FC" to its name upon transitioning to an MLS franchise. Much hay was made of the fact that Seattle Sounders FC kept the beloved "Sounders" name, but that article is still located at Seattle Sounders FC and not Seattle Sounders (MLS). This distinction is small to be sure, but this proposal to move is based on nothing but speculation, and as such should be discarded until the new team's name is officially unveiled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant.Alpaugh (talk • contribs)

Sweet mother of pearl, Grant. These are completely different cases. The Seattle ownership group specifically announced that they were holding a team name contest and actually said that Sounders would not be one of the options for the new team's name.. As far as nowhere does say the team's name will be Timbers:

“ Paulson said the MLS club will retain the Timbers moniker, bringing with it the legacy of ‘70s era North American Soccer League club that sparked Portland’s reputation as Soccer City U.S.A.[7] ”

“ The name of the MLS team? The Timbers. Paulson made it clear he wasn't going to mess with what's worked.[8] ”

It literally does not get any clearer that the name of the team will be Portland Timbers. I know you have this higher standard that it has to be officially announced by MLS, but, fortunately, Wikipedia only requires us to meet WP:V and WP:NC(CN) and there is no corresponding requirement in WP:FOOTY. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where are the words "Portland Timbers" in there? -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The best way to end personal attacks is to hold oneself accountable. Simply don't respond to each others subtle insults (or this message) and it's all over. Keep it on the discussion, not the person.--Blackbox77 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that use of Timbers as a nickname does not equal the team name is "Portland Timbers". -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote from press release: "Paulson also announced that the new MLS team will keep the storied Portland Timbers name."[9] That is a clear statement the name "Portland Timbers" will appear in the final name. It is safe to use the full term in the article title.--Blackbox77 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As for the parenthetical, can we at least go on record that they should be dropped when the USL-1 team has played its last season? It seems to me at that point we should either merge the NASL, USL-1, and MLS articles, or keep the MLS article free of parentheticals in the title. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are good thoughts but we have to be careful which incarnations we actually merge together (if any at all). I agree that the parenthetical works for now because it is conceivable a subtle naming addition might occur like Seattle. However if we start merging all the other Timbers' articles into one, we aren't recognizing they were distinct and separate organizations with their own (even if brief) histories. Even if the parenthetical is kept into the 2011 season, it wouldn't bother me. But if we did want to be rid of it, the current page call Portland Timbers might need to be turned into a disambiguation page. Thanks for compromising. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Portland Timbers already is a disambiguation page and has been since November 2007 (when it used to be about the USL team). TJ Spyke 03:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that if we get rid of the (MLS) the current page needs to be moved to Portland Timbers (disambiguation) chandler · 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with maintaining the parenthetical disambiguation even if the team maintains just the Portland Timbers name without adding FC/SC/etc. Just because Portland Timbers is used by the MLS doesn't mean the 37 years of history referring to other teams ends. I also see an advantage in keeping a clear distinction between the USL and MLS teams, if only to keep the history of the USL team separate from the history of the MLS club. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, and I have no problem with keeping seperate articles, but the MLS article will be, for lack of a better word, the "main" article, as it will be most frequently updated, (probably) viewed, and linked to, I think we should avoid the parenthetical if at all possible. Anyway, just a thought. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what about creating Portland Timbers (disambiguation) and moving the current article to then available Portland Timbers name? EA210269 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For right now, that would be problematic. The USL-1 team still have two full seasons to play, and until that time, they are effectively the "main" Portland Timbers. Until the end of the last USL-1 team's season, I would suggest keeping the current arrangement. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care either way but I'd personally wait to create the disambiguation page until the just before the 2011 season. If the official name ended up being something slightly more than just "Portland Timbers," the creation of yet another Wikipedia page would have been for nothing. For now the parenthetical is actually very accurate: these are the Portland Timbers of MLS. They may be called something a little more one day but for now it is confirmed they are an MLS Portland Timbers team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbox77 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're going to have problems establishing primary usage for the MLS team, if only because of the strong attachment of the team to the NASL/USL versions. You also have to be concerned about incoming links. As the interest in the MLS team increases, there is going to be more interest in particularly the NASL Timbers and an increase in article creation of the players and coaches for that team. One alternative to a dab page would be the use of a set index article where you basically give a summary for each team with a {{main}} to the article for each incarnation of the team. This would have the advantage of providing more information than your typical dab and an emphasis on the historic links between the teams while not giving any of the teams supremacy. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're dramatically overestimating the effect a new MLS team will have on an NASL team from 40 years ago, but I might be wrong. I agree that if the new MLS team has a name slightly different from just "Portland Timbers," the new page would be a waste, but I must insist that when they begin play, the article should be moved to simply "Portland Timbers" if, in fact, they keep that exact name. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Clarification

Just as a note for when the time comes from a die-hard, the USL-1/USSF team is already called "Portland Timbers Football Club", though "Football Club" is stupid and rarely used (though PTFC would be correct). "Portland Timbers" should be the correct name going forward, so disambiguate as you please. Finally note this is as close as we're ever going to see as a true "promotion" of an expansion side - true, the Timbers are an expansion team as much as the Philly Union, but unlike what happened up north with shittle (where the owners basically laid down the law that the new MLS team and the old USL team were not the same), the Timbers brand is strong enough in Portland that the owner is really not trying to distance the USL team from the MLS team (and there has been a lot of continuity so far, such as Gavin Wilkinson being signed). Also, I will put money down on Scot Thompson's number being retired by the club even if he never plays a MLS game, and I think you're going to see a lot of club records hold even if they're not recognized by MLS, at least in local media (such as "the Timbers' 20-game unbeaten streak is their longest such streak since joining MLS and the club's longest since the 2008 USL season"). So something to think about, non-Timbers maintainers. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something to work into the article

June 2007 article on possible MLS expansion to Portland, but mentions someone other than Paulson as owning the rights to expand in the PNW. Anyone know what happened? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That article might be applicable to the MLS expansion article, but not this one specifically. As for what happened to Keston's "exclusive" rights to the Pacific Northwest, see this. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the club

Is this not the continuation of the USL team? Kingjeff (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The USL team ends and the MLS team begins in 2011. They're distinct entities. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I beg to differ, the Timbers are claiming this is a continuation of the very team that formed in 1975. So, yes it may be the first year the Timbers play in MLS, but it's not the first year of the club's existence. This should reflect on it, and will reduce congestion of different articles. [1] 72.219.227.230 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If the Timbers are a continuation of the NASL club, then what was going on between 1983 and 2000? KitHutch (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

What do people think about moving this article to Portland Timbers and moving the disambiguation page to Portland Timbers (disambiguation)? It sure would save people editing MLS pages a lot of typing in the future. DemonJuice (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - Much like San Jose Earthquakes is the primary topic, the MLS team should be the main focus here as well. Cmjc80 (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else have an opinion? DemonJuice (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot made a mention at Sounders FC. I suppose I don't care what happens with this particular article unless a precedent is being set. It smacks of WP:RECENTISM and I am under the impression that the proposal has been rejected before (I will have to check the archived talk pages to verify). I would not support a move over at Sounders and the same reasoning would apply here.Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A D-1 major league team clearly passes Wikipedia:Primary topic since the two other options for a main article are both defunct, one from the 1980's and the other a minor league team.

Does this even apply for the Sounders? The MLS club has the FC popped on the end there and so there is no parenthetical to move. The USL club has one and it should stay, just as the parenthetical for the Timbers USL should stay. This is a question about moving this page to remove the cumbersome parenthetical. There is already a precedent, San Jose Earthquakes. But, like I said, I don't see how this applies to the Sounders at all. DemonJuice (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It may not apply. I hope you guys consider the recentism reasoning though. Making the most recent team kind of spits in the face of decades of heritage (and notability as it applies to Wikipedia). Surprising with teams (San Jose also) that have a fan base so proud of that history.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to consider it and I've read the whole WP:RECENTISM article but can't see how it applies here. It doesn't discuss primary articles or naming at all. If I'm missing it, please direct me. However, after reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it sounds like a very open policy that defers to consensus. Which is why I started this section to discuss the merits. I just don't see how WP:RECENTISM applies. I do understand your point of course. For me, this has nothing to do with recentism and everything to do with the topic which is most likely to be sought by readers. A disambig note at the top of the article with links to previous teams, like on the Seattle Sounders FC and San Jose Earthquakes articles seems perfectly reasonable to me and doesn't "spit in the face" of the Timbers heritage any more or less than the disambig note at the top of the FC article. DemonJuice (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic should be the topic that has more coverage shouldn't it? Look at google news archive [10] and the massive amount of coverage in the '70s. Now imagine all of the other sources that were not digitized. See the spike in 2010? That is recentism in away. Like I said though, I don't care that much what you guys do but it seems silly.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. What matters most per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is what people are most likely looking for when they enter "Portland Timbers" in the Search box. Clearly that's the current MLS team. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - It will make linking articles easier, and it has the same ownership as did the USL club. Twwalter (talk) 02:45, 10 November 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.

Darlington Nagbe

Hi Jon. I reverted that edit because Nagbe was signed before the draft and is officially on the Timbers roster, unlike Chris Taylor. I didn't put Taylor on the roster because of that. The nationality thing, well, I guess I'm going on non-reliable sources for that, but everything I've heard says he won't count as an international but as a US player. DemonJuice (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey sorry, I missed this before. I was just going by what we did in previous years, adding in drafted players and indicating them as such, and then deleting asterisks when they formally sign (or not, whichever). As for Nagbe - I gave him as Liberian because his Akron bio shows him having been born there (I checked when I was doing the rosters for the PDL last year), but if you have more up-to-date info about him now having USA youth caps, I'm fine with that. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't doing MLS edits last year so I'll defer to you on that, and I like it anyway. Just wanted to clear up that Nagbe is signed. Also, the official Timbers roster lists him as USA. DemonJuice (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One of those annoying soccer things, Jon. Nagbe was born in Liberia and emigrated to the US, but he is currently working on becoming a US citizen and has said he'd like to play for the USMNT. Nagbe's trying to become a US citizen is the reason that has been floated around as to why he didn't want Vancouver to draft him.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? Show Nagbe as Liberian until he gets his citizenship, or just show him as American since he essentially is "American except for the paperwork", and so we don't have to worry about it when it happens? --JonBroxton (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. His bio on portlandtimbers.com lists his citizenship as USA and I'm not clear on whether he actually needs his real citizenship to be considered USA as far as FIFA is concerned. DemonJuice (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm being WP:BOLD and changing it to Liberian. We know 100% that he was born in Liberia, we know 100% that his father was the Liberian national team captain, so we're not saying anything controversial there. As soon as he gets his US citizenship I'm sure a big deal will be made of it, and we can change the nationality then, with references/sources. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was confirmed in a radio interview with John Spencer last night that he will take up an international slot so, good job! ;-) DemonJuice (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Purdy and El Salvador

There is a contradiction in the wording of WP:MOSFLAG. "Officially represented" is emphasized in the section titled "Biographical use". However, the section titled "Use of flags for sportspeople" says "...or has declared for a nation...". His sporting nationality will not be of any question on June 5. It really shouldn't be now according to what looks like pretty clear intent of the MoS so reverting is just wasting time.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm following the lead of others but if that's what MOSFLAG says then I'm happy to defer. My only question is, he's not actually cap-tied until he plays and he could technically change his mind (even though that very likely won't happen) so do we put things in the encyclopedia that are almost sure to happen or do we wait until they happen? I always thought it was the latter. DemonJuice (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New squad format for Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Someone started a discussion on my talk page that I moved to Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#New squad format for Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Updating Timbers logo

I wanted to see if it was possible to have an updated logo of the Portland Timbers. As it is known that when a team are MLS champions, there will be a star above the franchise's logo to recognize the achievement.

The wiki page of Real Salt lake has their logo with the star recognizing their achievement of winning MLS Cup 2009 and I wanted to verify if that can happen for the Portland Timbers' wiki page once the organization has their official updated logo. Thank you.

Bluhaze777 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If the club releases a new logo, then we should add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The club released a new logo on January 2nd, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.67.38.10 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What's that one star indicate? Not an MLS Cup and they finished fourth in the West. Regardless, the "star" is a decoration and not part of the logo itself. See Real Madrid CF, FC Barcelona, FC Bayern Munich, Chelsea F.C. and Inter Milan, the last five UEFA Champions League winners, all of whom are permitted to display gold stars for each of those wins, not to mention all of their league wins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Portland Timbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110322041341/http://www.mlssoccer.com:80/matchcenter-recap/rapids-too-strong-spoil-expansion-debut-timbers to http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter-recap/rapids-too-strong-spoil-expansion-debut-timbers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Recognition of Soccer History in Portland, Oregon

There are a few teams competing in MLS that are based in cities that has soccer history long before the team. It is mention in LA Galaxy, San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, and in Vancouver Whitecaps pages. I wanted to implement that with Portland especially when the organization had recognized the Timbers' legacy that is traced back in 1975 and the organization had claim themselves to be a part of it. see 5/40.

I don't like how Walter Goritz decides to revert my edits for no good reason. No excuse what so ever only "bad grammar" and "not needed here" after I made sure to improve the content. I doubt he is a Timber fan to know the history and he has not placed any priority on this page untill after i had placed work on this page to include the history of the team under Caleb Porter by "improving" existing content. This is relevant to the team and should be reflected on this very page. Soccer in Portland existed longer than this team that began play in MLS in 2011 and readers should know that.

I don't vandalise here I do edits with belief that it is to improve or add on to existing material, I don't thing MR. Gorlilla knows this and keeps undoing my hard work. Bluhaze777 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You add content with WP:PRIMARY sources (see edit here ). The Whitecaps also believe that they started in 1974 (the Timbers were 75). However when the MLS articles were set-up it was made clear that the teams were not successors of the original NASL teams. There is a discussion on this above (see #History of the club and there are multiple other discussions on other articles) but you may continue to discuss with @Kingjeff:, @Gateman1997: and @KitHutch:. I'm sure they have other editors who would like to discuss.

With that said, stop with the childish name calling. And I have not claimed that you vandalize, you simply make disruptive edits across multiple articles, but that not germane to this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

misplaced comma

"The Timbers have played their home games at Providence Park since 2011, when the team began play as an expansion team in the league."

The comma added after the year does not make sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Plural verb form for sports teams in American English

In American English, when we use the full name for a sports team, we use plural verb forms. "The Portland Timbers are going to the playoffs." When using the location, the singular form is used, "Portland is in the playoffs." Technically, even sports nicknames that are singular in "normal" English get the plural verb form as a sports team. "D.C. United are MLS Cup Champions" and "D.C. is in the playoffs." This is part of the AP style guide, which I cannot find online, but here is a quick reference. KitHutch (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No. American English uses singular for collective nouns. Every MLS team used this form. Five did not, but I have corrected those. Do a quick Google search. This is even addressed at MOS:PLURALS where it reads "In British English, such words are sometimes treated as singular, but more often treated as plural, according to context", the article on collective nouns: "In American English, collective nouns almost always take singular verb forms (formal agreement)", and other places. The lede was correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what are plural and singular nouns. In MOS:PLURALS, it states "In North American English, these words (and the United States, for historical reasons) are almost invariably treated as singular; the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames, plural verbs are commonly used to match e.g. the Heat are playing the Lakers." This is also the Associated Press Style Guide and part of the Modern Language Association Style Guide. If we were going to follow your style, you would need to change all North American sports teams (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc). The correct sentence in North American English should be "The Portland Timbers are ...." and it should be that way for all MLS teams. KitHutch (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I can't recall who proposed the change. I have attempted to enforce the consensus. Go to the footy project to suggest it. I doubt you'll get any push-back there. I'll gladly support you there. Be we cannot decide the fate of all teams on the talk page of one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

KitHutch is right. This is already part of the MOS, and has been discussed previously at Talk:Major League Soccer. As the one making the change, in conflict with the MOS, you need to self-revert Walter. oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I'm wrong that there was a consensus? I already relented to changing the consensus, but we shouldn't have a consensus on a side page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying that there was a consensus, but I see no discussion anywhere except here. Please provide a link to this supposed discussion to ignore the already settled Manual of Style. oknazevad (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There was. It as years ago, and I don't recall where it was. I'm not looking to ignore a MoS, simply support a new consensus. Something you'd rather not do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought you were referring to a recent discussion. That said, as the one bringing the articles in line with prior discussions that I have seen, and the MOS, I would argue that I'm the one supporting established consensus, which you made a good faith mistake about. oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All good. I'll change the rest of the articles and link to this discussion. I think it should suffice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

While editing the other team articles, I saw a note on Toronto FC that stated there was a consensus on the talk page, but I found none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hm. Strange.

So I looked at your edits, and I think the issue is that MLS teams are inconsistent in use of plural verbs because of the inconsistency with naming. The plural verbs used for American sports teams really arise from a quirk of the language, and the desire to have the subject and verb agree in number by sound. In other words, writing "The New York Red Bulls is a team" reads reads incorrectly, because the subject, the New York Red Bulls, has a plural form. Otherwise, American English uses singular verbs for groups as it treats the group as a singular unit, not a plural collection, as is done in British English (and Canadian English follows the American convention on that, by the way). Subsequently, Sporting Kansas City, say, should get a singular verb, as its not a plural noun. As such, writing "Sporting Kansas City are a team" is also incorrect, unless one were writing in British English, but per WP:TIES, one wouldn't write an article about an American club in British English. Of course, it's more complicated when dealing with some clubs, where it depends on whether one is writing it as "Seattle Sounders FC" or "the Seattle Sounders", for example. It really does vary sentence by sentence. Dang complicated language. oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Dang language indeed! It's easy to tell what sounds right in my head, but hard to write a concise set of rules. BLAIXX 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking for a hard and fast consistent rule is folly. Even a passage like "The team is going to the championship. They won the semifinals 4–2." is one hundred percent valid, despite the first sentence being singular, the second being plural, and both referring to the same thing. oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

And again, the verb is "are" in the lede

I successfully modified all of the opening sentences in May 2020 to "are", yet more than half reverted to "is" as of today, and one editor attempted to state that "is" was the correct verb. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "is" is the correct verb in most cases. MOS:PLURALS only applies to team nicknames (e.g. "the Heat", "the Lakers"). Since "Toronto Football Club" is not a nickname, it should be treated as a singular and the opening sentence should read: Toronto Football Club is a … BLAIXX 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: and most other professional team articles disagree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You are greatly mistaken. Other than the 25+ you changed today, most professional team articles do agree. BLAIXX 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MLS and CPL are not the only professional team articles for North American sports. NFL, NBA and NHL all (save one exception) use "are". I, however, agree that it should probably be "is" in American English, but that is not the consensus that was reached above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

NFL, NBA, and NHL team names generally end with "nicknames" (e.g. New York Jets), that's why they are pluralized. My interpretation of the discussion above is that only teams with names like Portland Timbers should definitely be pluralized. For teams with names ending in "Football Club" there was basically no discussion and certainly not a consensus. BLAIXX 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They are the common team names. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Jets is a nickname or why nicknames should be treated differently from legal names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

By "nickname" I am referring to the part of a team's official name that is not the city or a description. The MOS gives Lakers and Heat as examples despite being part of the official name. The reason why you treat nicknames differently is "a quirk of the language." Oknazvad elaborated more in their last two comments from May. BLAIXX 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather than having this discussion in two separate places, I propose copying this discussion (today's posts) to the original discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Are_or_Is which is a more appropriate place to discuss something that applied to the sport as a whole rather than the page of one team in particular. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

based on your discussion there, I accept the "nickname" guideline which would mean any team with only a place name and either "FC", "SC" or similar would use "is" while those with nicknames would use "are".

If I understand correctly, the following would use "are"

* Atlanta United FC

* Austin FC

* Chicago Fire FC

* Colorado Rapids

* Columbus Crew SC

* D.C. United

* Houston Dynamo FC

* Inter Miami CF

* LA Galaxy

* Minnesota United FC

* New England Revolution

* New York Red Bulls

* Philadelphia Union

* Portland Timbers

* Real Salt Lake

* Sacramento Republic FC

* San Jose Earthquakes

* Seattle Sounders FC

* Sporting Kansas City

* Vancouver Whitecaps FC

The following would use "is"

* CF Montréal

* Charlotte FC

* FC Cincinnati

* FC Dallas

* Los Angeles FC

* Nashville SC

* New York City FC

* Orlando City SC

* St. Louis City SC

* Toronto FC

I can make those changes as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

See my comments at WT:FOOTY. Only teams MLS where the full name includes a plural nickname should use a plural verb. American and Canadian English use singular verbs for a collective noun unless that noun is itself plural in form. This isn't limited to MLS teams, or sports teams in general. This is a general rule of those ENGVARs, meaning the current leads are gramatically incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I copied the posts in this discussion there, I hope that is okay. Feel like all discussion should be included in one area. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

MLS is Back

The tournament is only partially related to the 2020 season. The additions are excessive and should be reduced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Timbers Army tifo vs NYCFC .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

History of the club

I have not inserted edits before, so I hope this is correctly posed. This section leads with the following sentence. "Soccer in Portland, Oregon can be traced to the soccer team that competed in the NASL as an expansion team until the club's seventh season in 1982.[1]" The citation for the statement is an article in PDX Monthly which recounts soccer events in Portland Oregon going back to 1907. The statement would more accurately read "Professional soccer int Portland..." because soccer has a rich history in our city going back to those early roots and continuing up to the arrival of the Timbers and beyond. As a player, club officer, and team manager for forty years, acknowledging the distinction is factually important." Trlboss49 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Trlboss49Trlboss49 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Trlboss49: Yes, this is a great place to comment. Would you like to be WP:BOLD and make the change, or would you like another editor to do it for you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Controversies

I added a controversies section in light of recent events. Let me know what y'all think. I'd also be interested in adding to and editing this article so it becomes more comprehensive so hopefully we can bump up its rating! Harimauhobbes (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs a significant copy edit and trimming of excessive details. Reads like a straight up copy and paste of a news article on the incident, which is a totally copyright violation. In light of that, I am removing it until it is rewritten. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)