Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 5

Page title

Our title does not conform to the standards of the rest of the international soccer teams' wiki pages. Every other page is "[Name of Country] national football team". We could obviously have "united states national soccer team" redirect, but the title should be the same as all of the other pages since they are all about the same type of subject.

At the very least, we should remove the word "men's" since none of the other pages specify that.

This is probably like this because in the US, the women's soccer team is the more popular and succesful one. So one could think it as the women's team if it is not specified. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

National Stadium

Forgive me if this is posted in the wrong section. It list Bruce Arena the former coach as the national stadium for the team. You can't play your games inside of a person so this should be removed.

USA Notable Wins

Date	Match	Result	Type Of Match
06/29/1950	United States 1 – 0 England	WIN	1950 FIFA World Cup
06/22/1994	United States 2 – 1 Colombia	WIN	1994 FIFA World Cup
07/14/1995	United States 3 – 0 Argentina	WIN	1995 Copa America
02/10/1998	United States 1 – 0 Brazil	WIN	1998 CONCACAF Gold Cup
07/30/1999	United States 2 – 0 Germany	WIN	1999 FIFA Confederations Cup
06/05/2002	United States 3 – 2 Portugal	WIN	2002 FIFA World Cup
06/17/2002	United States 2 – 0 Mexico	WIN	2002 FIFA World Cup
06/24/2009	United States 2 – 0 Spain	WIN	2009 FIFA Confederations Cup

Was digging in the history and remembered this in the main article a while ago and was deleted because it was POV. But I think I'll just put it here just in case for future references and developments. OneiroPhobia (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably agree with removing a table like this, especially since all of those wins are dealt with in the main history section (or will be when the Confed Cup gets moved there in a few months). I think there is a lack of verifiability to the criteria, just like the notable players sections that that one editor went on a jihad against awhile back. Anyway, that's just my opinion. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 17:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are wins against Colombia and Mexico included? They aren't good teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many sub-headings in the history section

The history section is broken up into far to many sub-headings, some for only a handful of sentences. This totally breaks up the flow, and looks pretty poor. I removed a lot of these, but the work was almost immediately undone, so I thought I'd start a discussion about this. The section could possibly be trimmed down too, as there is already a separate article, History of the United States men's national soccer team. Dancarney (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the direction in which you want this article to go. We should work to improve it, not to maintain the status quo. It's also very inconsistent in its coverage. I'm pretty sure this has come up before. There are whole eras covered by only a sentence while other individual tournaments get extensive coverage. We should have short summaries here on this article's history section, and the history article, which needs a lot of work, should become more balanced throughout its coverage of various eras. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, and the only person actively objecting is a self confessed sockpuppet of Football.Fútbol.Soccer, who is banned as a sockpuppet of Grant.Alpaugh. So reverting now to Dan's last.

However, I must again object to the disproportionate detail of recent events, previously justified by an expression of intent to summarise it at some unspecified future event. This seems to be the epitome of WP:Recentism]] Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And despite the presence of this discussion, he undid my restoration of Dan's version, saying it was done without discussion. I wonder what his next identity will be. Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously given Grant's MO it will be quite easy to find and ban his latest sockpuppet, but I find it pretty scary that he can show up at any time under any identity and we won't immediately know. Eightball (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Schedule and recent results

This section has been present in the USMNT article for as long as I can remember. I can think of no legitimate reason to remove it, especially without discussion. So, discuss why here. Che84 (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it should be included but I think a more pressing discussion is how outdated our table is. Most other national teams have much more informative results tables, with color-coding and what not. But I've always been opposed when I try to make those changes to this article. I wish we could agree on something here but I think we almost need a wikiproject standard. Eightball (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK now that I look at some more articles I'm seeing that there is literally no consensus whatsoever as to the design of the results table, or even if we even need one in the article (e.g. some articles only show the most recent and the next scheduled games). I think I've made my position pretty clear so if anyone else wants to contribute that'd be great, it seems like we have a ton of leeway here. Eightball (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service, so I don't see why an encyclopaedic article on any national team would have recent or upcoming games. The only national football team article to achieve featured article status is Germany women's national football team, and this has no such thing. Note that football club articles do not have this kind of section either. Dancarney (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what really needs to happen is to create a series of "[Insert year] in American soccer" articles. The results currently on this article should be moved to 2009 in American soccer. They are erroneously included at United States men's national soccer team 2009 results, an article that has been discussed at WT:FOOTY and archived here. I'd help get some work done if we can get a few people that want to work on it. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that you should move the page to the correct name. I think having a full line-up for very single game is overkill and makes the page quite overwhelming. Though it is for a club side, I think something like Gillingham F.C. season 2008–09 would be a good article to try and emulate. Dancarney (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on this article for literally years has been to include all future games and games played within the last 6 months. This parallels the recent call-ups sections for players. This way when a result is removed from the table, the players who last played in those games are removed from the article as well. This year, we added more info about the tournaments the team played in, and after they were removed from the recent results table, the information about those tournaments would be added to the history section of the article. That seems like a good system to me. 65.204.116.67 (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For an editor who had just one contribution to your name prior to the last 48 hours, you seem to have a very developed knowledge of wikipedia, and of the history of this page in particular. Please identify yourself if you have previously edited under other names. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So now you have to have edited the article to know what it looked like for the last year before these changes were made? I can read, is that so bad? 65.204.116.67 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe other users would benfit from looking at the sections of the talk page with titles like "Recent Results," "Current squad," etc. These are the basis for the consensus that governed the format of the page for literally years until a month ago. 65.204.116.67 (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from above:

I think there is a distinction between non-playing players who dressed with the matchday squad and guys who were in camp but didn't make the roster. First, I think it's more relevant to see if a player is being called up because there are some situations in which a player is consistently a backup but doesn't see much action (say, Brad Guzan when WC qualifying starts and Tim Howard plays every game). But still, I think it's good to list who else is in the picture. Secondly, since Bob Bradley's non-roster camp players are in different categories, I think they should be excluded. In this case, the non-gameday roster camp players were simply outplayed by the competition. But in the pre-Switzerland camp, BB also called in some guys simply for consideration for the U-23 team (such as Preston Zimmerman, Tally Hall, and Steve Purdy) and it would be misleading to list them as recent callups because while they are prospects for the US youth teams, all three of them are pretty far from getting time with the senior team. So in the interests of consistency, I think we should list all players who make a gameday roster and nobody else. --Balerion (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with that. Che84 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a broad base for this consensus on the squad, none of which is Grant.Alpaugh, the user you all seem to have a witch hunt out for. There is more than one user who thinks things should have stayed the same way. 65.204.116.67 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You really have no idea how to keep a low profile, do you? Eightball (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Davies

I have taken the liberty of creating a distinctive mark on the page regarding the injuries suffered by Charlie Davies this day at 3:15 a.m. While I presume he will miss significant time because of this, I'm not sure. Also, as I said in the edit summary, I read this on ESPN.com (and also US Soccers website) but I dont know how to cite these sources74.101.124.213 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)74.101.124.213 (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.124.213 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

I very rarely hear the US national team being referred to as either the Stars and Stripes or the Red White and Blue. "The Nats" and "Team USA" and far, far more common. Can we change this? Eightball (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the 1st two are basically your generic, cliche nicknames for basically any USA representive team. Whether we remove them I don't know. I'm inclined to keep them just for the sake of it. Transaction Go (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to say "never," because that seems too strong, but I've definitely never heard anyone says "The Stars and Stripes" in reference to the team. At the very least that should be removed. Eightball (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We're having another one of those fun little edit wars over the remaining nickname, "the Yanks". So far as I can see, this is not an official or even generally used nickname for the team to anywhere near the extent of what we consider to be a reliably-sourced nickname ("the Black Stars", "the Azzuri" et cetera). It's a mildly pejorative term for Americans which happens to get attached to the team because, well, they're American. If there isn't better referencing (and no, the existence of a blog called "The Yanks Are Coming" isn't enough) then this should be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if a single nickname is most common, this is incidental information that can be given a passing mention in the text. In the vast majority of cases where there are several nicknames without wide adoption, it has sunk to the level of trivia. It doesn't need to be in the infobox at all. Knepflerle (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just my two cents, but I'd rather there not be a nickname in the infobox at all than to see "the Nats" and/or "Team USA" included. For what its worth, as an American, I don't consider the term "Yank" to be pejorative at all, and certainly not to the level that "Pom" or "Limey" are. Specifically within the soccer community, I think this is especially true. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were frequently used, it wouldn't particularly matter if it were slightly pejorative or not (WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED etc.). But as it isn't actually much used, we don't need to go through that hypothetical exercise: I agree that the field should be removed entirely. Knepflerle (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether yanks is perjorative, but whether it is any more than an informal demonym: it is used to refer to Americans, not the United States men's national soccer team in particular. In a match report about Charlton, Millwall or Crystal Palace, a journalist might refer to the South Londoners: it is an informal reference which, in context, identifies the team that it is talking about, but it is not a nickname. Kevin McE (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that because its an informal name for a group of people that it can't be a team nickname? That the equivalent of the Ole Miss Rebels or New York Yankees. 'The Yanks' may not be official, but I think most soccer fans have come to know the US team as the Yanks. Numerous times tv announcers have called us the Yanks, which does refer to the team as Americans, but is that not how nicknames begin? Also, the USSF has had commercials and advertisements saying "The Yanks are coming". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.58 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is established, then do as has been requested several times, and source it. That is how disputed material becomes verified, and disputes are resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How many sources do y'all need for Yanks? Newsweek France '98 Slate.com Supporters Boston Ireland--- Karataev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karataev (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

One or two would have been enough, but thank you. It's a shame that it took so long, and that so many editors thought it OK to add it even after a source had been requested. Kevin McE (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it, citing two of the sources Karataev kindly provided. Hopefully this will the last of this inane bickering. Folks, TONS of media sources call the national team "The Yanks," as well as a lot of fans. 24.170.196.157 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This was removed again. I reverted and added a reference to FIFA using the nickname. PantsB (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The name "Yanks" was removed once again, I have reverted it. It is absolutely the most commonly used nickname used to refer to the team by international commentators and supporters alike. American supporters typically sing Over There by Leonard Cohen because of the line "The Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming," and often sing "When the Yanks Go Marching In," a modified version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" as they are filing into a stadium before a USMNT game. [1] Personally, I have never heard the team itself referred to as the "Stars and Stripes," but I have left that alone as it is well sourced. RPIRED (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Old he may be but I don't think Leonard Cohen would have been song-writing in 1917! - maybe try George M. Cohan ?? Gwladys24 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the nickname Yanks is that it is used for others to describe the US team and not for the US to describe itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.78.250 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

US Mutant Ninja Turtles needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.171.206 (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Away Kit

I've watched football and US doesn't have a black away kit, it's blue. Could someone upload the picture?--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New kits?

According to fedefutbol: The Kits are different: Fedefutbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanzler31 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait for an official announcement of some kind before making any changes. Though it wouldn't shock me if Nike changed them right before the World Cup. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I watched the USA vs El Salvador game. The kits are not new. They have the same white stripped-shirt.--Kanzler31 (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DaMarcus Beasley

On the current squad section, I already had a couple people reverting my edit with DaMarcus Beasley. I edited that one spot on the roster saying that he's a free agent, and a couple people reverted my edit, saying he's still a Rangers player. You look here, his time with Rangers is over, so therefore, he's without a club. – Michael (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Contracts don't expire until June 30. People often talk as is a player is gone because he's "as good as gone", much like DMB, though it's not technically official until the technical end of the season, which is at the end of June. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Birthplaces

Would there be any objections to adding the players' birthplaces to the article (or at least their state of birth?). ~DC _{Let's Vent} 20:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To what purpose? howcheng {chat} 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People might be interested. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why there are links to the players' articles. Of no significance to the team, and unless you are suggesting that there will be a whole new section to give this info, then I suspect you are looking at changing the Template:National_football_squad_player_(goals), which is on hundreds of articles, and therefore should not be altered without previous consensus at WT:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why include what team they play for? Surely people who care about that can be bothered to click on a player's article. Hell, why put their position on? Just click away. God forbid we put readers' interest first. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Because position and club team are relevant. If you read any sports media that reports on soccer, you will always see these two items when team rosters are listed. Location of birth is not normally included (and I don't recall ever seeing it anywhere). Besides, as Kevin McE explained, you need to look at the bigger picture: this format is consistent across all national football team articles. We can't just change it for the US. That discussion, should you choose to initiate it, needs to take place at WT:FOOTY, so that the impact can be gauged by all editors who are interested in football articles. howcheng {chat} 08:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guys, just added a few tidbits about Weezer's support for the Yanks for WC2010, I apologize if they were not formatted correctly. I feel like this information is relevant so feel free to move it around if need be. FranCam114 —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

Three stars on logo

On the USSF logo, there are three stars. I couldn't find any information in the article, nor the archives, as to why there are stars on the logo and what they mean. The German national team has three stars, but they won three World Cups. The US national team hasn't. Does anyone have any information on that, that can be added to the article?Ciderbarrel (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not official, but I would assume it would have to do with the American flag having stars on it. It's similar to how Ghana has a black star in their logo. Unlike Germany and Brazil, the stars in the US logo are not gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.58 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just a bad logo made in the 90's by people who didn't understand the meaning of stars in international football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.25.109 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply for decoration. See Manchester City's emblem as well, and that is only for decoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwoot08 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

United States men's national soccer team fact request

It's been reported in several stories I've seen and read. However, WP:V applies. I am busy and may try to find it. You could probably google it using the words, B-whatever. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

? Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Name

Why is this page called United States men's national soccer team when all the other football associations' first teams are titled as Brazilian national football team for example? Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Brazilian national football team is a redirect to the article's correct name, Brazil national football team. But I assume you're asking why this article uses "soccer" in its title rather than "football". The answer is that in Anglophonic North America, association football is known as "soccer", and "football" refers to American football or Canadian football, depending on which of the two countries you're in. Then you've got the fact that the women's national team enjoys an exposure in the United States that is at times (during the Olympics, for instance) greater than that of the men, to the point that ESPN actually uses former members of the women's team as their commentators and analysts for men's football. So it's necessary to specify that this article is about the men's team in its name. Binabik80 (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there’s no national gridiron side to speak of (I know the U.S. has been represented in various international American football competitions). On top of that, AFAICT, this is the only country that specifies men’s in the name. Great for the U.S. for being so enlightened, but either drop it, or change everyone else’s for consistency. —Wiki Wikardo 06:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There's really no need to change the title either of this article or of all the others just so we can pander to the hobgoblin of little minds. In the United States, the men's and women's national teams have roughly equal prominence (the balance between them shifts depending on whether there's a World Cup, Women's World Cup or Summer Olympics on), so it makes sense to specify that this article is about the men's team. If there are other countries where the men's and women's teams enjoy such parity, then a good argument can be made for adding "men's" to those countries' articles as well; but for the vast majority of countries, it would make no more sense to include "men's" in the article title than it would to remove it from the US team's article title. (For instance, broadcasters will frequently specify which sex team is playing in upcoming matches: "Tomorrow night, the US men's soccer team is in action in a World Cup qualifier against Costa Rica!") As to soccer vs football, in America, "football" without any further clarification refers to American football, not soccer. There's no national American football team, and //women's// American football is practically nonexistent, but say "men's national football team" and the overwhelming majority of Anglophonic Americans will assume you're talking about American football, not association football. Change "soccer" to "football" here, and all you'd do is fill this talk page with Americans objecting to the highhanded arrogance of foreigners preventing them from using their own English on an article about their own country—and they'd be one hundred per cent right. Binabik80 (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Growing up I thought only Americans called the sport soccer and the rest of the world called the sport football. I believed this because that was what the press told me. Then I actually began to travel and discovered that a surprising number of people called the sport soccer, including the Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans . . . well, just about everyone colonized by the British. Other ethnic and national groups called the sport by local names, the best known are the Italians whose national team is the Nazionale di calcio dell'Italia which loosely translates as National Kicking of Italy. Only in the last ten years have national federations begun to change their names from soccer to football. Although Australia made the change in 2005, the national team remains the Socceroos. New Zealand changed their name in 2007. Despite this, a surprising number of people at the street level continue to ignore the officals and call the sport soccer. This includes South Korea^[2], New Zealand^[3], Ireland^[4], Scotland^[5], England^[6], Wales^[7], France^[8], Japan, Canada, South Africa, Zimbabwe and perhaps even more places than I know. So be careful about being too sarcastic about Americans calling the sport "soccer". That sarcasm makes the whole criticism appear to be less a matter of correct diction and more a judgemental anti-Americanism. Mohrflies (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole hang-up about "soccer" seems to be a primarily British phenomenon of the last 3 or 4 decades when it became well-known that the term was commonly used in the USA. Unfortunately the myth has grown that the term is an Americanisation whereas it actually dates back to the 19th Century in England & was a common term for football in Britain for most of the 20th Century, but almost seems frowned upon now as a result of the aforementioned misconception. Gwladys24 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true. Soccer like 'rugger' were terms that fell out of use in some places but caught on in some of the other countries mentioned above. Also an fyi about the 'National Kicking' translation. The word calcio can be a verb, and a noun. If the translation was 'kicking' then the correct tense would be 'calciando'. The noun would be, for example, "dare un calcio"- to give a kick. But in "Nazionale di calcio" the term is actually the proper noun 'Calcio'. Which is the name of the sport played on the peninsula for centuries. Whereby the translation is the Italian National Calcio team, where Calcio may or may not be translated to football or soccer. Libro0 (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Cycles"

For the World Cup, 2002 and 2006 have "cycles" that encompass everything, yet 2010 has a "cycle", a "qualification", and a "world cup" heading. Proposing the merge of all three of these into 1 summary, just like for 2002 and 2006. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Can anyone provide a source for a player's total number of international appearances? Specifically I'm looking for Jay DeMerit, but a general one would be handy for future reference. Thanks, WFCforLife (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here Fache (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Third kit

Pictures were released of the new red third jersey, but nothing has been shown of the shorts or socks, so I've hidden the third kit section until the kits are officially unveiled. However, I have uploaded the body and sleeves of the jersey, so they'll be ready to use when the uniform is unveiled. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures here show the shorts and socks. Blue shorts, red trim. Red socks, blue trim. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150122444783941&set=a.10150122443688941.290158.32421823940&theater#!/album.php?fbid=10150122443688941&id=32421823940&aid=290158 Azyrii (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so they'll just be wearing the road shorts. That makes things easier. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

History Section -- 1930 World Cup Result

Concerning the following paragraph --

"Having reached the semifinals with the two wins, the American side lost 6–1 to Argentina. Using the overall tournament records, FIFA credited the U.S. with a third place finish ahead of fellow semi-finalist Yugoslavia.[12] The finish remains the team's best World Cup result and is tied for the highest finish of any team from outside of CONMEBOL and UEFA, the South American and European confederations, respectively."

If one checks the record, actually, all other third-place teams ARE from CONMEBOL or UEFA. This means that the 1930 American team is not tied for the best World Cup finish among teams not from those confederations; they have it outright. Accordingly, the article has been changed. --128.194.75.21 (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical kits deletion

Historical kits that the team used to wear are not encyclopaedic content, i.e. that is not the sort of info you'd expect to see in a print encyclopaedia. Furthermore, that info was completely unsourced. – PeeJay 21:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don´t know what are you based on to say that historical kits are not encyclopaedic content. The uniforms that a team wore are certainly part of its history. I saw that you also deleted Boca Juniors uniforms and badges, which had remained for a long time on the page. If you don´t agree with some points of view, each article has a discuss page. Reverting anything without consulting is not the way. Fma12 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant image galleries aren't encyclopaedic. In fact, they're pretty much useless without text to back them up. If a kit is worth mentioning at all, mention it in prose. I mean, check out Manchester United F.C. That's a Featured Article, and you don't see any ridiculous image galleries there. Image galleries are the last port of call for the editor desperate to fill an article with content. – PeeJay 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously such sections are enhanced by text, but it would be more appropriate to tag an images only section with a request/challenge than to delete without discussion. Indeed, there is a rather stubby section on history of the kit in the team image section. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we at least need text to explain why the chosen kits are notable enough to warrant mentioning in the article. Otherwise, their inclusion is actually more POV than anything. – PeeJay 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Year errors

The history section states that first international was in 1884, and second next year. However, the infobox has year 1885 for the first international. Which is right? 85.217.22.47 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe 84 99.169.250.133 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There were actually many international matches played in the 1880s. After the establishment of the AFA in 1884 there were organized a number of matches with the Canadian organization- Dominion FA. The 'US national team' was simply an AFA select IX playing the Dominion selection. Sometimes an AFA IX would play a canadian club team or an AFA club would play the Canadian selection. And sometimes it would simply be an international match between two club teams of the respective associations. Usually a Canadian IX and/or club would visit the US during the season around November-December while at the end of the season the American IX and/or clubs would head up to Canada for a series. Libro0 (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer to the question. Is either 1884 or 1885 right or not? 85.217.23.162 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I know the answer is in there somewhere in the sense that they were not full 'A' international matches at least not recognized as such by FIFA. So neither 84 or 85 are correct in that regard. Libro0 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

At least in UK, it seems "International" means a match between two national teams. I don't know if the US use of the word is different.

And, what does that "IX" mean? 9 or 9th would be my guess, but why just 9? 82.141.95.124 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see IX anywhere in the article: any use in the context of a team in an 11 a side sport is almost certainly a typo for XI. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The only time I know of IX referred to in American sports would simply be a section number (region) for a level of soccer or in Title IX which is the equality of women's sports law here in America. I am not sure what the IX Libro0 is talking about above, I imagine as Kevin says...it is a typo...although I have never seen the 11 players referred to in roman numerals either. Chris1834 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Schedule/Recent Results

Should the page be within 6 months or a year? It has traditionally been 6 months, but i feel that a year is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.48.154 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be discussed, but there needs to be an overwhelming support to make the change for it to be made from the status quo. Personally I feel a year is too long a time period and does not really reflect the idea of recent results. Rebajc3 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just like to see a whole year's worth of results. Who remembers the Chile game in December? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.48.154 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For starters, the Chile game was in January, and by going to a year, you would also have to include the Poland, Colombia, and South Africa results as well. For a better look at games outside the six month window, I encourage to click on the link at the top of the section that goes to 2011 in American soccer which will have all games played in the calendar year at all levels, with more details available for those matches than the main page. Rebajc3 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant results in a single year, like only 2011 results in a single table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.48.154 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That table and information is available on the page that I linked in my last comment. Rebajc3 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what do you think about using the template {{footballbox collapsible}} for the recent results? TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 12:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea actually. i would support it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.48.154 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.245 (talk)

Recentism

Not for the first time, recentism is being pursued in this article as though it were a specific goal. We don't even name the manager of the team in the prose prior to 1995 (which is obviously an omission), but now we are listing the current boss's first, second ...(how many more?) results. If a friendly in 1958 (random year) is not sufficiently notable to be included in the history section, why is the one last week? And the response to the suggestion that listing recent matches when we don't describe those longer ago is recentism? "we have recently" ! Kevin McE (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares about recentism at all? We need to report specific games in an encyclopedia format in order to preserve the memory of those games. I and many others prefer looking at recent results in multiple forms. We haven't just listed Klinsman's results; all results after the world cup are included. And stop quoting me in self-righteous anger. 1958, really!? And there wasn't a manager in 1958, that's why we don't name him.

I was only quoting you if you also post from 75.182.48.154. I suggest that you read WP:RECENTISM if you are not familiar with it, and then read the history section of this article, and see if you honestly believe that the principles of the former are enshrined in the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read recentism and it is pointless. This is an encyclopedia; therefore, post all results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.245 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you need to read WP:NOT, and especially [WP:WHIM]]. Kevin McE (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It says=encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.245 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have recently noticed that 98.246.205.183 has "contributed" several erroneous messages and other vandalism to the page. Please do something about this!!!

Kit Order

The men's national team official site lists the kits in this order: white (home), blue (away), red (third). Until they officially change this, please keep the kits in this order. Bmanphilly (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivalries

I've been itching to write something about the US and England rivalry that resurged during World Cup 2010. I know it's not as popular as US's clashes with Mexico but let's face it, the reason why I mention it is because of the tension both nations had outside of soccer. The Revolutionary War, the tea taxes, our rebellion against anything associated with the British and King George II. But disregarding those topic that might not be approved by the WIki rules they DID have that "miracle on grass" moment when the US made the 1-0 upset during 1950, which funnily enough headlined most news and papers from many nation save these two. Also there's that topic about the English having a problem with the term "soccer" although this is somewhat of a biased opinion since Canada and other nations still under or free from British rule refer to the sport as "soccer" due to having other sports under or derived from sports with the Codes of Football applied to them.

But this is just a suggestion since implying that US's sole rival is Mexico is not true. 108.54.62.227 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If there had been many fixtures in the last decades of the eighteenth century, there might have been a rivalry. No perception of any meaningful sense of rivalry on the east bank of the Atlantic. I think you will have gret difficulty finding any meaningful sources. Kevin McE (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there, other than an unregistered editor who is almost certainly the banned user Walter Görlits (not to be confused with the entirely good faith user Walter Görlitz), and very probably a sockpuppet of banned users Amerxican and RealEarthquake, of the opinion that there should be a plural heading to the international rivalry/rivalries section while there is only one rivalry described? Kevin McE (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I am on board as I have tried myself to change it to a singular title. Leaving it a plural title in the event that there will be a future rivalry put in to this section is a crap shoot. The title is currently misleading and can easily be changed to a plural title, if and when a second rivalry exists...which less face it, takes a while to come about. Chris1834 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I think the plural is most appropriate. The singular is unusual usage (since it's unusual to have only a single rivalry) and strikes me as slightly confusing. If the plural grates, perhaps consider the section to be as much about the lack of rivalries as it is about the single established one? Powers ^T 21:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of the USA vs. Canada rivalry? After all, that fixture is the oldest in the world, excluding the ones between the British nations. While Canada hasn't been particularly good, the two nations have played quite a few times in recent history, including in competitive context. It's also a very fierce rivalry in the Women's game. Adnan7631 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The only thing to say about the US/Canada rivalry is that it doesn't exist. If you want to write something about the rivalry in the women's game — if one exists — go ahead and write that on the women's national team page, but it doesn't belong here. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)