Talk:Portland Timbers–Seattle Sounders rivalry

AfD
Disagree with the reasoning for the AfD slightly but think it is appropriate. There is a notable rivalry but as it is I don't think it warrants more than a subsection on each team's article. The creator of the page put in an info box and a single outsourced sentence. It could possibly be OK if an editor really went to work on it. Also, title could be for the hockey teams per: http://www.seattlepi.com/othersports/112547_port14.shtml Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure on the notability standards for a sports rivalry, but at minimum I think an article on this topic should have sources. I think it could be "speedy" deleted based on its ambiguous, mis-capitalized title. Seems like a good candidate for a user to work up on a user sub-page, build the case for notability, and then move to main space after the first round of hard work has been done and the case has been made. (A technical note about Wikipedia procedures -- this article is not under WP:AFD, but WP:PROD. An AfD would be a full discussion; it's easier for everyone if the less contentious cases get decided by a more streamlined process.) -Pete (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It did not seem a speedy candidate, and since I'm not a sports follower, I wasn't sure of the possibility of full on documentation. My impression was that it was simple fan material, and a prod would result in little article improvement.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was kind of hoping the original editor would fix it but it looks like that isn't happening. Maybe this will be a good article in 2011 when the rivalry starts up again.Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The admin who didn't think this was eligible for deletion essentially told me I didn't try hard enough to find sources. So far, the word rivalry was used in a couple Tribune blogs (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/soccer/2008/04/26/sounders_timbers_rivalry_today_two_hours) (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/soccer/2008/08/07/end_of_an_era_for_sounders_timbers_tonig). Gogole also popped up a peice some guy wrote for goal Seattle that goes into some detail on people's feeling when Seattle got an MLS team with some commentary. (http://goalseattle.com/2008/sounders%20whitecaps%20timbers.htm). Komo 4 has at least verified it will be the Timbers: http://www.komonews.com/sports/41582562.html . Besides maybe a table of meetings I don't see what content can be added that improves this from the teams' Rivalry subsections. Does anyone have any thoughts on what content is needed to improve this article?Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone working on the ECS article found this: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030808&slug=sounders08 Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

All time stats
Here's the data I was able to compile, it is from the Sounders perspective as being home team: Date	Location	Result	Score	Attendance	League 5/2/1975	Away	W	1-0	8131	NASL 7/26/1975	Away	L	1-2	27310	NASL 8/2/1975	Home	W	3-2	17925	NASL 8/12/1975	Away	L	1-2	31523	NASL 4/25/1976	Home	W	1-0	24983	NASL 8/7/1976	Away	W	3-0	17049	NASL 4/30/1977	Home	W	3-2	25237	NASL 6/11/1977	Away	L	0-3	15746	NASL 6/10/1978	Away	L(tb)	0-1	15526	NASL 7/31/1978	Home	W	3-2	22042	NASL 6/9/1979	Away	L	1-2	12175	NASL 6/30/1979	Home	W	5-1	34012	NASL 4/30/1980	Home	W	1-0	12278	NASL 6/14/1980	Away	W(tb)	1-0	10131	NASL 4/4/1981	Home	W(tb)	2-1	24065	NASL 6/13/1981	Away	L	1-2	15316	NASL 8/15/1981	Home	L	1-2	16747	NASL 4/9/1982	Home	L	0-1	14286	NASL 7/24/1982	Away	W	4-1	8488	NASL 7/31/1982	Home	W	3-0	13380	NASL 8/22/1982	Away	W	1-0	9517	NASL 5/11/2001	Away	L	0-2	12295	A-League 5/12/2001	Home	W	2-1	2112	A-League 7/13/2001	Home	T	0-0	3253	A-League 7/21/2001	Away	W	1-0	11055	A-League 5/4/2002	Away	W	2-0	8775	A-League 5/5/2002	Home	W	4-1	2756	A-League 6/23/2002	Away	L	0-1	3890	A-League 7/19/2002	Home	W	2-1	2595	A-League 5/1/2003	Away	W	1-0	5993	A-League 5/2/2003	Home	W	2-0	5017	A-League 5/18/2003	Home	W	1-0	3945	A-League 8/9/2003	Away	W	1-0	6831	A-League 8/10/2003	Home	L	1-3	2990	A-League 8/18/2003	Away	L	0-1	6239	A-League 5/1/2004	Away	L	1-2	6891	A-League 5/15/2004	Home	L	0-1	3907	A-League 7/17/2004	Home	L	3-4	3457	A-League 7/24/2004	Away	W	2-0	4267	A-League 9/1/2004	Away	L	1-2	4863	A-League 9/5/2004	Home	W	2-0	3490	A-League 4/30/2005	Home	L	1-2	6351	USL-1 7/8/2005	Home	W	4-2	3204	USL-1 7/12/2005	Away	L	0-2		USOC 8/7/2005	Away	L	0-1	4227	USL-1 8/20/2005	Away	T	1-1	8242	USL-1 9/16/2005	Away	W	1-0	5667	USL-1 9/18/2005	Home	W	2-0	3490	USL-1 6/2/2006	Home	T	0-0	2251	USL-1 6/3/2006	Away	L	1-3	6149	USL-1 7/21/2006	Away	W	2-1	6215	USL-1 7/22/2006	Home	W	3-1	2993	USL-1 5/5/2007	Home	W	1-0	8247	USL-1 5/11/2007	Away	T	2-2	5722	USL-1 6/26/2007	Home	W	2-1	711	USOC 8/1/2007	Home	W	2-0	3287	USL-1 4/26/2008	Away	L	0-2	9894	USL-1 5/10/2008	Home	T	0-0	10184	USL-1 8/7/2008	Away	W	1-0	12332	USL-1 This gives stats of Sounders 33, Timbers 21, and 5 ties. Sources were http://goalseattle.com/SoccerMuseum.htm, http://www.portlandtimbers.com/history/recaps/, http://www.usopencup.com/, and http://prostamerika.com/Sounders2008.html. Do we want to put this whole list up? Yukata Ninja (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added this table, it still needs more work: proper date format, change host to actual stadium name, highlight rows for sounder/timber/tie corresponding color, find attendance for 7/12/05 game, linkification, etc. Yukata Ninja (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, disregard the penalty comment in my edit summary. If anyone can find a better match than seen here that would be fantastic but the blue was too far off. Anyone know the correct color for the Timbers green? (uh-oh... they are both green)Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current colors of


 * are good. They are easy on the eyes and easily identifiable to each club.  We do not need to match current club colors exactly, because club colors have changed over time.  Some things to be done still: deep link for each game to source, add stadiums, and find attendance for 7/12/05 game.  Also, I do not know if the current template has any support for old NASL tie breakers better than just saying (tb) next to the score. Yukata Ninja (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "penaltyscore=" . Google news search Sounders Timbers than narrow down by date.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have improved the references, can we remove the tag? Yukata Ninja (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the refs were almost good enough before but another editor added the "no" ref tag which I modified to "add". If you think the recent additions are good I say go for it. We probably need to format them and all that but it looks all covered.Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cup/Trophy
I think the Cascadia cup should not be mentioned as the trophy for this rivalry as Vancouver also competes for that cup. The cup should be mentioned, but it should be stated in a way that it is not given as a sole result of this rivalry. I'll make changes once the dispute over the 2009 cup is resolved, see Talk:Cascadia Cup. Yukata Ninja (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove it from the info box or add a note to it amybe?Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the info box and reworded the cup section. Also, the 2009 Cascadia Cup win by the Timbers should not be mentioned, as this contest did not include the Sounders, so it is not related to the Sounders - Timbers rivalry.  The Cascadia Cup article covers that.  Yukata Ninja (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Players
I propose removing the "notable" criteria for the players who have played for both teams. This is interesting information and having a few extra names will not negatively alter the article.Cptnono (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this. Yukata Ninja (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another editor took it out and in the edit summary said the list would be too long. If anyone can make a list this might be easier. Assuming that we do not want dozens of players listed (I guess we could but might be a little much), what criteria make them notable enough for inclusion. Forrest is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia but what information is needed to make him notable?Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole list is out now per wikipedia guidelines. Put the information in prose if it is needed and don't call other editors nazi's.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, dozens of players would be an eye sore. Please find sources that assert a higher level of noteworthiness and preferably how the individual relates to the rivalry.01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Logos
An editor thought the fair use rationale was not sufficient for the use of the logos on this article. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He's probably right. They are not necessary to this article, but some in game shot or other pictures would be nice.  I do not see any on wikimedia. Yukata Ninja (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am on the fence and hoping s/he will provide reasoning before opening up discussion somewhere else. It was also cleared by a skeptical uninvolved editor before so I don't know. The one concern I have is the Sounders MLS logo is much different now than before. Maybe start checking related commons pages and flickr for an in game image between the two?Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: So checking out available images that could properly summarize the rivalry. There are a couple images of players battling for balls, a few of the empty stadium at the Qwest (I remember that game and it made me think of how utterly boring the Pod was at times), images from TV, random fans. I can't find anything that is of high enough quality, balanced enough to show show the rivalry, or OK CR wise.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the logos because their use in this article did not constitute Fair Use. The logos were not necessary for the positive identification of the two teams, and so their use here was obviously purely for decoration, which is not covered by the Fair Use criteria. Thanks. – PeeJay 05:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks for getting back PeeJay. I still disagree but staying above board copyright wise is of the highest importance. If you have any thoughts on what to use instead it would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is no official logo for matches between these two sides, an image of players from both teams battling for the ball might suffice. Or maybe free images of the two teams' stadia. Obviously your suggestion that an image from TV be used cannot be carried out as, whether you took the photo yourself or not, a photo of a TV broadcast is still covered by the same copyright as the original broadcast itself. – PeeJay 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, TV was not what I wanted at all but they come up on searches. It is OK for certain articles (title cards and such) but would not be allowed here and would look like crap anyways.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I must have misread your earlier comment. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide on an image. Cheers. – PeeJay 07:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see now. Edited above. I was focusing on how bad images with the licenses (regardless of if they were not supposed to be) were.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the uninvolved editor mentioned above, but for whatever it's worth -- I think PeeJay is probably right. When this came up before, I felt the logos probably were not permitted in this article, but it's really not my main area of expertise. When the Non-free use rationale was written, I figured that was about as far as I could go -- I don't know for sure whether or not that's enough to comply with Wikipedia's non-free use standards. So I let the matter drop, but if I left any impression that I had approved a decision, that is incorrect. I simply don't know the correct answer. -Pete (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, Pete. There is a noticeboard regarding image concerns somewhere isn't there? We can mention it there and see what people think? I don't mind erroring on the side of caution and keeping them out for now.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry page has logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_State-Michigan) What makes it different than us? I still say the page looks better with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.195.34 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While not necessarily a 'fair use' rationale, the Sounders and Timbers have both changed logos many times throughout their rivalry, while Ohio Stat and Michigan have not. We don't want to fill this page with a bunch of logos showing each throughout the years.  134.134.137.75 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. They have been out for sometime so I don't think there is a question on not including them anymore.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Preseason games - March 11, 2010
I do not think preseason games should be included. No other preseason games have been included before. I'm bringing this up because I had removed it and now it has been added back and wanted to get consensus before removing again. Yukata Ninja (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see removing it from the table just because the other ones are not listed. It makes for a interesting blurb in the "memorable moments" section but that might be questionable as a section (another discussion though).Cptnono (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the game from the table, I agree on leaving it in the memorable moments section for now. But the structure and usefulness of that section should also be discussed. Yukata Ninja (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the infobox? I assume we should only note competitive games. Of course, we could also consider the last game competitive with the plate. I am pretty on the fence about it so whatever works.Cptnono (talk)


 * I think it is hard to call this game anything but a preseason game, both teams treated it as so by allowing mass substitutions. I could see this being added in the future if the newly invented Northwest Community Shield becomes a truly yearly, seriously contested thing, but for now it is just something that was made up for this preseason game.  Therefore, I don't think it should be included in any of the statistics as it differs from league and Open Cup play. I do see it as being memorable because the Timbers beat the Sounders of a higher league at the Sounders home, but if it had been the reverse would it still be memorable? Yukata Ninja (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The preseason no cap on subs was actually the main reason I wasn't considering it overly competitive myself. The size of the crowd (some sort of record apparently) is interesting but the line isn't sourced. We will have to watch out for WP:RECENTISM as they play each other more. Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WSA results?
What are others opinions on adding the WSA years of F.C. Portland / Portland Timbers vs. Seattle Storm? Often when stories about the rivalry get published they include those results. Lots of them this week, of course. DemonJuice (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears there are no objections. I will be bold and add them, then. DemonJuice (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

After a conversation with Frank MacDonald, I've added the 6/30/85 match to the table. It was not "pre-season", although since the recreation of the Challenge Series due to the founding of the WSL, the results of those matches were not counted as part of the Series. In all scoring tables, those results are listed under "Other results" rather than pre-season, or other. The story behind this has been added to the WSA section. EmeraldCitySupporters (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

NASL Indoor?
Should we add the NASL Indoor results to this page as well? Beevo (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought. Are there reliable sources? DemonJuice (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Below I culled the complete indoor results below from newspaper stories on newspapers.com. While I don't wish to get into the argument about inclusion/exclusion of indoor soccer because of it being a football variant, I would say that the games themselves are certainly part of the rivalry's history. If someone wishes to add them to the results section of article, please feel free to. Much of the heavy lifting has already been done here. Just don't forget to add these totals to the History section as well. As a side note, I only listed goals scorers in matches that had a complete listing of the goal scorers in the newspaper story. Cheers to all. –Creativewill (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation links in the article
Let's get a consensus before we get to far into Revertville. The reason I made the links go to the disambiguation page for each is that this article covers a rivalry that spans clubs with several articles. To say that the rivalry was between just Seattle Sounders FC and Portland Timbers ignores the bulk of the rivalry and is misleading, in my opinion. I was trying to save some space rather than putting the following in the prose and the infobox: Seattle Sounders (1974–1983), Seattle Storm, Seattle Sounders (1994–2008) and Seattle Sounders FC vs. Portland Timbers (1975–1982), Portland Timbers (1985–1990) and Portland Timbers. Kinda clunky, ugly and wordy when all that is need is Seattle Sounders vs. Portland Timbers. Seems clean and shows the reader a list of all the various club articles involved with this rivalry. WP:INTDABLINK seems to indicate that this is exactly the type of situation that a link to a disambiguation page is OK. Namely, when you are trying to reference every article in the disambig page at once, so you don't have to make a wikilink to every single thing in the list. Anyway, whatever the consensus is I'm OK with, but just linking to the article for the most recent edition of the clubs involved is wrong. That only accounts for 2 of the games in the entire article. DemonJuice (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, if this can be done elegantly in the prose without the need for dag links, I'm all for that. The infobox doesn't have much room for that, though. DemonJuice (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) The exception at WP:INTDABLINK for pages that contain lists of words or names is about linking from pages with lists, not to them. (2) The text of the article (especially in the opening summary) doesn't need to list and link every incarnation of the Sounders and Timbers clubs, just explain (which it already does) that the rivalry pre-dates the currently active franchises. Then, in the following sections about each era, link to the appropriate historical clubs that used the names. Same with the infobox, we don't need a long list of club names/links; just put the current clubs along with a note to see others listed below. LarryJeff (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of how you'd do that in the infobox? I'm amenable. DemonJuice (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Something like this?

LarryJeff (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's better than I though it was going to look, actually. Though, I'd put (Current teams) after Seattle Sounders FC vs. Portland Timbers. DemonJuice (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes to the opening and infobox, and added links to the NASL and USL sections. See what you think. LarryJeff (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While I still think it's a bit clunky in the infobox, I'm OK with the changes if others are, too. DemonJuice (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Other rivalries
I have reverted an IP adding in the line in the lead discussing other rivalries. There are two issues with this:

1) The sources don't even discuss this rivalry. It is OR. Even if they did, I would question its usefulness in the lead.

2) It is not a big rivalry along with the other rivalries. It is the prominent rivalry. This seems a little silly to argue about but if a source is provided that discusses all three rivalries then it would make a great addition to an article about all soccer rivalries in Canada and the United States.

Links to other rivalries are a good thing. They are at the bottom of the article. Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not OR, the MLS Super Clasico mentions the Cascaida Cup and I assume the editor is the same one from there that was removing the mention of that. I suspect that it's the editor's idea of justice. And for the record, the Cascadia Cup is rivalry, not this one. This is a side-event to the major cup. Also, those other links are dead which is why they're not discussed there. A bit disingenuous. The whole section should be removed and left for the Cascadia Cup only. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did ctr+f and didn't see it so have no idea what you are even looking at. I suppose I could look more in depth. Regardless, it isn't appropriate for the lead as was worded. Everyone want their team to be highlighted but this isn't the place. Stick it in the body if it is relevant. Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is considered to be one of the most intense rivalries in the United States." was a line specifically worded to not start such an edit war several years ago. The scope of the rivalry could be quantified and judged against other rivalries further. If a source is found doing that it would be great in the body. That being said, there is an overall issue of the lead not being a proper summary of the article while the prose could use some more meat. That might have been the cause of the editors concern (or some weird version of wiki-genre warring that doesn't even have a term) and that is another subject we should happily address.Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New USL
I think the new USL games should be added here between Portland Timbers 2 and Seattle Sounders FC 2. Thoughts? Stevetauber (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Logos II
There's a fair amount of hand-wringing about the use of team logos in the article, and the 10 year old consensus is that using the team logos is not okay because they are copyrighted.

But if that's the case, how is it that the team-colored versions of the MLS logo, which is also copyrighted, somehow okay?

Sense, it does not make. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 03:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The shields cannot be copyrighted as they are simple geographic designs. They are trademarked, but not copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Seattle's continuing inability to beat Portland in Seattle
Not sure which section this would be appropriate in, but a notable statistic in this rivalry is that Seattle has failed to beat Portland in any regular season match at home in Seattle since May 27, 2017.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/sounders/inability-to-beat-timbers-at-home-leaves-big-hole-in-sounders-resume/ 97.120.182.106 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)