Jump to content

Talk:United States men's national soccer team

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

Supporters

[edit]

There should be a mention of BARRA 76 SUPPORTERS GROUP under Team Image/ Supporters.

https://www.barra76.com/ 97.102.169.190 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fake nicknames

[edit]

The sources for "The Stars and Stripes" and "The Yanks" are just using generic slang terms for Americans. These are not true nicknames. Also, a commercial is not a reliable source. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report, World Soccer Talk, and Soccer America good enough for you? How about Goal.com, NBC, and the Sports Business Journal? Maybe the USMNT players association or USA Today? A quick search would have returned these with ease, so what justification exactly do you have for deleting these? Also, the Guardian is a reliable source. Jay eyem (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your examples are, as I've said before, slang, not clearcut nicknames, but the players' association is semi-acceptable (is it really independent?) and USA Today is okay. I never said The Guardian wasn't a reliable source; it's just not entirely clear whether it was using slang or a nickname. Remove the ad "source" and add these two and we're good to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

[edit]

United States' FIFA profile need to update to non-archived link in (External links) to (https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/associations/USA) 154.180.3.130 (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Pefok

[edit]

Why is Jordan Pefok not on the eligible players or former players that could be called up list. He is already being snubbed by the coach, Wikipedia doesn't need to add to it. ChadThomasBauer (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no eligible player list on this article. Former players are only players who have been called up in the last 12 months. Pefok has not been called up in the last 12 months from what I can tell. Demt1298 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

[edit]

Alan Soñora is no longer unattached and plays for Huracán in Copa de la Liga in Argentina. MysteryMingo (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://cahuracan.com/futbol/plantel-profesional MysteryMingo (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold editing

[edit]

This article is full of subjective terms, superfluous words and unsourced content. Wikipedia encourages us to "be bold" in editing, and as a professional editor with more than 40 years of experience, I have no issue with being bold. I have no interest in this article other than the fact that it linked to another article I was editing, and when I came here to verify I could not help but stop and edit this bloated article. I know little to nothing about soccer, but my life's work has been editing, so that I do know. I do enjoy collaborating, however. If you have an issue with an edit I make, please do ask me why I made the edit before changing it. For example, I made an edit to change the word "eleven" to "11" and it was inaccurately reverted. Basic elementary school English grammar teaches us that numbers nine and under are spelled with words, and numbers greater than nine are written as numerals. Had the editor asked why I changed it, I would have happily explained. That is how we collaborate. The editor who reverted my work suggested I open a discussion, so I am happy to oblige. Content that cannot be corroborated by a reputable third-party publisher will be removed if a source cannot be located. Fortunately, information will remain forever in the History section, so if sources can be found, the information is there to be returned to the article. I hope this helps explain what I am doing. I work on Wikipedia solely to bring about excellence in its articles. I will not battle, however. I know writing excellence. If someone wants to return an article to its form before I edited it, it will be Wikipedia's loss. It will remain reverted because I edit once. This takes my time and I will not waste it battling with those who have a special interest in an article and little knowledge about proper writing and editing. Still, I make mistakes. If I am in error, I will gladly acquiesce. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of WP:BOLD is key here; there will be reverts and discussions needed to bring consensus. The article is a mess, like many high-traffic and high-edit entries are, but it is important that copyedits do not outright delete massive sections of the article without some prior agreement. The edits in question included the deletion of the entire 2002 World Cup run, which is pretty fundamental to the history of the U.S. team, and a misunderstanding of how American English uses collective nouns for teams. I am going through and tightening up things as needed, but communicating through overly verbose edit summaries that denigrate the prior work on this article is not helpful and not civil. We're all here in good faith after all. SounderBruce 02:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely we are all in good faith. I have no misunderstanding as to the American English use of collective nouns. I stand by my edits because I have not yet been compelled by any argument that I have erred. I deleted the entire 2002 World Cup run because it was unsourced. I am uninterested in what is fundamental to this subject's history. I am interested in facts written using the fewest but most powerful and direct words, and facts that are properly sourced by reputable third-party publishers. I am not going to go back to this article because I have no interest in redoing what I did properly the first time. Calling my edit summaries "overly verbose" is not civil. My "verbose" edit summaries are written to fully explain what I am doing and what the rules are that I am following. If my "verbose" summaries offend you, then do not read them. You say the 2002 World Cup run is important, so source it and put it back. Please do not misunderstand. I appreciate your passion about this article. I believe you will make it a better article now that your attention has been triggered. However, I caution you not to revert my edits simply because I have annoyed you. I edited in good faith, also, and I edited well. Respect my work. I respect yours. Go forth and do good work. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One should not make accusations; my reverts were simply part of the BRD process, not "because I have annoyed you". The removal of entire paragraphs because the easily-found sources weren't there (because of a prior trim to convert the History section into a summary style) is disruptive. Per WP:SUMMARYNO, long edit summaries are to be avoided, as are "snide comments", which definitely apply here. SounderBruce 03:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_men%27s_national_soccer_team&oldid=1234978456"