Talk:Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC

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

Stats[edit]

Does anyone have Riverhounds stats or know where they can be found? The USL site has league standings & Top-10 statistical leaders archived on their site here. Unfortunately, it only goes back to 2003, and if a Hound didn't finish in the Top 10 in scoring then they're not listed. I was hoping to get more Riverhound-specific information to complete a table I created; I actually just copied the format for the table from the Everton F.C. seasons page, and then I modified it to be more fitting for an American team. I could post it to the main page, but I figured that I'd put it out here first. If someone wanted me to post it then I could. It has fields for GP, W, D, L, +/-, Pts, and leading scorer in both league play and overall (including non-league games/tournaments). JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the American Soccer History Archives at http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/ are pretty useful for stats from way back when. Good luck! --JonBroxton (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That site came in quite handy, but it doesn't quite have all of the information I'd like to use. I put in an email request to the Riverhounds for a few bits of info regarding leading scorers and attendance.JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

The structure of this article seems out of order. Most of all other sports club pages have information such as history, both the organization and on-field performance, in the leading section at the top of the article. Information such as rosters, attendance, notable persons, and/or any other lists or charts generally appear at the bottom. See: D.C. United, Pittsburgh Steelers, Boston Red Sox, Manchester United F.C.. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't notice this before! This is what I posted on your talk pages: "Hola! Hey, I noticed you moved the categories around on the Pittsburgh Riverhounds again, to match some other soccer team websites. Now, I absolutely know that you've put a LOT of hard work in to lots of articles about PA sports, including the Riverhounds article, and I know you're doing this in good faith... but I'm just wondering if we can't come to some kind of compromise here.
The thing is that I've been working on trying to get a set standard template and ordering system for all USL teams - USL1, USL2, PDL and W-League - for the past, oh, 2 years or so, and I thought I'd cracked it. My reason for doing it was because, quite frankly, until fairly recently, no-one bothered even trying to ensure that each time had up-to-date, accurate and detailed information on any of these teams, so I took up the mantle and spent months and months updating, writing club histories, researching player backgrounds, and so on. If you click on the update histories of all the USL2, PDL and W-League teams specifically, you'll see my name all over them.
What I'm wondering is whether you think it's more important for the Riverhounds article to match the category ordering for other sports teams in other countries, or whether it's better for it to match all the other American teams in its league system. I'm not trying to come across as pedantic; I really want your opinion. From my POV (biased, obviously, because I designed the ordering system), I would think it would be better to match all the other USL articles, because then the casual reader would be able to tell, at a glance, that the Riverhounds were part of the same hierarchical soccer structure, that the information included would be consistent with other teams in the league, and that there was an identifiable order to things - the reader would know that the roster came second, the year-by-year stats, third and so on... what do you think?
I want to make sure we're both happy with whatever we decide here, because we clearly both care a lot about the articles and want to make them as good and informative and accurate as possible, and it's a waste of both our times to keep reverting the other's category ordering system. I'm looking forward to reading what you think!" --JonBroxton (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to undo your efforts. Nor do I doubt the effort that you've put into updating info. I made the changes I did for several reasons. Some of the sections were lacking information, such as primary heading ==Attendance==, which had no information inside of it at all. Generally speaking, professional sports team pages on WP follow a general format:
1st - history
2nd - uniforms, players, management/coaching
3rd - stadiums, fan info, honors/championships, sponsorships, seasons, attendance, records.
This is generally the importance of the information from greatest to least. It also seems best for this or any article to not begin with a chart or list such as a team roster. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but what I'm wondering is, in the case of the Riverhounds, you're willing to make an exception. Ideally, I should have noted the category ordering convention of other soccer teams when I first started trying to improve the articles - hindsight is a wonderful thing! I think part of the problem at the time was that I think I copied a USL1 article and added the other categories without checking what the standard elsewhere was. I really want the soccer pages to have an overarching structure, so if we decide to have the Riverhounds article match the "standard soccer structure" than the "USL structure", then it will mean going through the 150-or-so other USL articles and re-ordering them!
Also, just to address a couple of your specific points... the Attendance section was intended to be a placeholder, because I'm waiting for an e-mail from USL HQ with those stats in them, so I can add the details later. And as for your comment about it being best for an "article to not begin with a chart or list such as a team roster" - well, they don't do they? There usually at least 3-4 introductory paragraphs of text before the roster list appears. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to redo every USL page then I understand. We could even bring it up on the WP Football page so we can get more opinions or help. I did find this page here which gives the project's standard page format for a football club, which neither of us was exactly following. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pittsburgh Riverhounds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant, I have my own GAN (CMLL World Tag Team Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.

I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while.  MPJ-US  12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Toolbox[edit]

So getting the obvious out of the way first, I am checking everything in the GA Toolbox

Peer Review
  • Lead is too short, WP:Lead states that an article of this size should have about 3-4 paragraphs
  • Captions - the info box image does not have a caption or an alt text
  • The Gallery of fans has no captions nor alt texts
  • The Gallery of stadiums has no captions nor alt texts
Copyright Violations
  • The tool list two possible violations at 47.6% and 46.8%
Disambig Links
  • Green tickY no problems
External Links
  • The following references are dead
  • 13
  • 5
  • 45
  • 48
  • 46
  • 55
  • 99
  • 118
  • Probably dead
  • 33
  • 124
  • 143
  • Connection issues
  • 9
  • 50
  • 103
  • usopencup.com
  • The following references changes url, consider updating the links to prevent link rot
  • 28
  • 32
  • 31
  • 35
  • 57
  • 58
  • 68
  • 79
  • 114
  • 123
  • 134
  • 133
  • 136
  • 167
  • oursportscentral.com

This article is huge, there is really too much detail in the season sections since there are sub articles for those. I am putting this on hold until the 2013 through 2016 sections are cut down to a summary since they already have separate history articles. And I would suggest a similar approach to the last two sections of the history as well. I will leave it on hold for 7 days for the work on summarizing those sections to at least begin - not necessarily end in that point in time as long as work is going on.

@Gri3720: - Status: Hold for summarizing and addressing the reference link issues. I can pick up the review again if these issues get addressed. MPJ-US  13:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gri3720: This has been on hold for 7 days with no sign of improvements being made on the article. I am going to fail the article, but at least you have a list of issues to work on if you feel like submitting it for GA again.  MPJ-US  14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#Colors and badge[edit]

While there is some discussion about the old logos in the article, I don't think it's enough to meet WP:FREER§b, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Nothing is being said that would not be understood by text alone. Neither of the old logos is discussed specifically, just the general aspect of team colors. There is already a logo to identify the team (its current logo in the infobox). The current logo should not appear in later section either per WP:NFCC#3a. I've also nominated the file File:Riverhounds vs. Wigan Ticket.jpg for deletion as an apparent copyright violation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pittsburgh Riverhounds. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable matches[edit]

@Gri3720: This section, along with quite a lot of this article (a lot of the history details, year-by-year results, team records) should be moved into a separate "History of the Pittsburgh Riverhounds" article. This page is way, way too long and cluttered. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wicka wicka: I don't disagree with you at all. Perhaps helping to migrate the information to a new article on the topic would be a more valuable contribution than just deleting it.--Gri3720 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, but I'm not the one who deleted those sections. I would be more than willing to help with creating a new article. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wicka wicka: My apologies. I would appreciate the help. I am predominantly responsible for the excess content in the article. I wanted to make sure the content wasn't lost but didn't have the time to create the separate articles. I am thinking that a History of the Pittsburgh Riverhounds and Pittsburgh Riverhounds in the U.S. Open Cup article would go a long, long way in streamlining the article. What do you think?--Gri3720 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gri3720: I think that the club is young enough that just one history article should suffice for now. Not to be overly pedantic, but given the recent rebranding I think an appropriate name would History of Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC. And to be clear, I wasn't trying to criticize your contributions to the article. With a lot of younger clubs it makes sense to include greater detail, as there otherwise wouldn't be much content at all. But now that the club is nearly 20 years old, I think we're getting to the point where we're justified in splitting those details out into their own article. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard colors[edit]

@Funny cide: Please see the club article manual of style. Colors are not standard and should be removed. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wicka wicka: It usually depends on International vs. American soccer leagues. For example, take a look at D.C. United color template or Louisville City's and the rest of examples.
@Funny cide: Please see WP:OTHER. The existence of those pages doesn't justify doing things the wrong way here. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wicka wicka: But, where is no wrong way here. There never was. We are just using the same templates that other American soccer clubs (including most that are in the same league as the Riverhounds) are using. You are making it into a problem. Don't be surprised if other users will make changes that are similar to mine.
@Funny cide: There is ONE standard template for football club pages, and the fact that many others violate it is of no relevance to me. I'm going to fix this page, and if you continue to intervene I will have no choice but to report you to the admins. It's silly we're even discussing this. We have templates and manuals of style for a reason, and it's to preemptively settle these exact disputes. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wicka wicka: Ok, do as you may wish. Just don't be surprised if someone, or a wiki user will make exact changes as I did.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pittsburgh_Riverhounds_SC&oldid=1205893441"