Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 6

2014 Qualifying?

In the last round of qualifying, the U.S. page had an entire section devoted to it including a table. Now we don't even have an updated mention of the results except for the recent results section. This somewhat worries me. Has interest died down, or did the debate on "recentism" kill off any sort of listing of results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.245 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Kits

I don't know how to do kits on wikipedia, but if someone does, they could fill in several decades. From 1914 up to the late 1920s, the U.S. had only one kit, a long-sleave, v-neck white shirt with the U.S. shield centered on the chest. The socks were red and white hoops. By the 1930 World Cup, the shirt included blue trim around the neck and red trim around the wrists.^[1] By 1934, the U.S. had a home and away kit. The home kit was the white top and the away had a blue top with white trim around the neck and wrists.^[2] In 1975 the away jersey was an all-red, long sleave shirt.^[3] In the late 1970s, the U.S. kit was a solid blue, short-sleave jersey with USA diagonal across the left breast.^[4] Mohrflies (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Coach profiles

What's with the factoid profiles in the table listing the coaching staff? I've never seen that on any other team's page, and it's pretty arbitrary and appears to be written from a non-neutral perspective, trying to trump up their credentials. If we want to know about these guys, we can click through to their page (some of them are so obscure that they don't even have one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillstep89 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I agree with all of this guy's information so yeah... yeah, I um agree

Kit Update

The 2013 Centennial Kit is incomplete. It contains the original US Soccer crest on the upper left side (not centered like the original).

Also, the footer pertaining to the 2012-2013 kit is no longer relevant as this is the official version, and not a leaked version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddylee415 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy precludes logos from appearing on soccer kits. That includes federation crests, sponsor logos and manufacturer logos. Also, the kit section in the main box is incorrect, as the US is still using the hooped jersey. --Kevin W. - Talk 03:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

FIFA World Ranking history section

I just wanted to know if we could remove the section on FIFA World Ranking history? The infobox at the top of the article shows the most recent ranking as well as the highest and lowest and I think that is sufficient information, the ranking table is a bit overkill and unnecessary.--2nyte (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of it then... to me I agree that it is an overkill. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nickname: The Von Trapps

Special:Contributions/72.94.116.215 has repeatedly added "The Von Trapps" to the infobox under nicknames with this [5] source. I assume it is vandalism; I can't find any reputable source for "The Von Trapps" as a nickname of the USMNT and the source provided mockingly uses wikipedia as conformation for the nickname. The IP user keeps adding the information so I thought I should bring up the topic here.--2nyte (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just some guy on a podcast - there's no reference to the nickname in reliable sources. It's apparently a reference to a number of German-raised players being capped for the national team. Hack (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a candidate for deletion. The very fact that the source being cited is Wiki-based should be reason enough to delete it, as that does not make for a reliable source. Furthermore, if that source uses Wikipedia as a source, we're getting into a cyclical situation where Wikipedia is being used as a source for itself. Definite delete. – PeeJay 10:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Would this link be deemed a proper source for the nickname? Link: http://meninblazers.com/post/12640399411/klinsmann-village-people - Mike Moresi 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source either. So no. – Michael (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Men in Blazers is a reliable source. Besides the fact that it's currently the third most popular sports podcast in the iTunes store (second only to the Guardian and to ESPN's Pardon the Interruption) and ahead of any podcast from any other major news network, MiB is affiliated with ESPN, Ian Darke and has routinely hosted past and present USMNT members on its show including Kyle Beckerman and Alexi Lalas and has done collaborations with ESPN as well as the USMNT's largest supporter group the American Outlaws. If credibility with one of the world's largest sports media organizations and with the USMNT's most influential supporter group isn't credibility, I'm not sure what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.224.105 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, Roger Bennett of Men in Blazers is director of the ESPN series "Inside US Soccer's March to Brazil" and producer of a number of soccer themed episodes of ESPN's "30 For 30" series. Michael Davies, the other half of the duo, is a successful television producer in his own right. Beyond the already mentioned success of the podcast, they also have a twice weekly show on Sirius XM by the same name. Their credibility extends far beyond just "some guy on a podcast". 74.218.185.242 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Year 2013 on main article under "Results and Fixtures"

The year is 2014. There is no need to have the 2013 table up. In fact, we did not even have the 2012 table up last year. Now, that the first game of the 2014 season has concluded, the 2013 table is no longer needed for display there. Besides, the 2013 results can be found here: 2013 in American soccer. The alternative is to include the years relevant to the World Cup cycle, which should include 2012's results. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's remove it. Barryjjoyce (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1954 FIFA World Cup

United States failed to qualify for the first time until 1986 (United States was withdrew from the 1938 tournament), before his return in 1990. 181.110.40.36 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2014 (CET)

World Cup squad number sources?

A few of the players listed in the current squad have numbers next to them. Where are these numbers coming from? Are there any sources? Most of them make sense (Bradley 4, Dempsey 8) but I just haven't seen a reference. Eightball (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been no official announcement yet, it's just speculation. I've added a ref and removed the squad numbers for now. I think we should wait until an official announcement until we add squad numbers.--2nyte (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

Should read United States National Football Team...because it is. 67.164.36.30 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

| Nickname = The Stars and Stripes
The Yanks
Team USA
The Von Trapps

References

CoastalCo (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Brooks caps

He has only 5 caps, not 6. Could someone edit the number to be correct? FlipsLikeAPancake (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. – Michael (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent call-ups

The recent call-ups section includes so many names that it is really not all that helpful. There are 44 names on this list (in addition to the 23 names on the current squad). I see no reason to list a total of 67 players. There are a couple of ways we could trim it to a more reasonable length. One option would be to include only players that have caps. If a player has not played for the national team, there is no reason to list them. This would take out 11 of the 44 recent call-ups. A second option would be to include only players from the last 6 months instead of the last 12 months, which would cut the list in half. Other ideas? Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Intruder007: You reverted my recent change re uncapped players. If you disagree, please use the talk page to explain why. Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was that you shouldn't erase players from Recent Call-ups until the 12 month timeline has expired, which someone previously did with people like Herculez Gomez and Jack McInerney. Sorry for not being quite clear.Intruder007 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Intruder007: I moved your comment above to this section, because it looks like you were responding to my question right above. If you want Hercules Gomez to stay on there for another 6 days, no problem, I can wait until next week and then remove him again. My question, though, is why Jack McInerny or any other uncapped player should be on this list. If a person has not played for the US team, my view is they don't belong on the USMNT wiki page. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Because one thing is to be called up by the coach and another is that the coach plays him, that's why there's a bunch of uncapped players. It happens on every team.The list of call-ups not just capped players. I hope that clears the air about the subject a bit :) Intruder007 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed my questions. What is the point in listing 60+ guys in the players section? And why list players who have never played for the national team? There is a big difference between being invited to train with the team for a few days, versus actually playing for the team and earning a cap. My view is that guys who have never played for the national team don't belong on this page. Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this issue should be discussed on WT:FOOTY. – Michael (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC

I was wondering if we could shorten up the name to just "Seattle Sounders" on the players' list, I mean, we know it's a football club (making the "FC" part, well redundant) and it would match the format of the rest of the MLS clubs of only having the city name and the club's nickname. I'll clarify that this is purely for aesthetic reasons, if you don't wanna make the change, I'll be cool with it.Intruder007 (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Rankings and sub-confed

@Barryjjoyce: Maximum and minimum Elo ratings are just as important as maximum and minimum FIFA rankings. I don't know why you think the USMNT is an exception not to have this info but it's there on EVERY other national team's article. As for the sub-confederation, the info is also important because the USA is an active member of the North American Football Union, and that info is shown on the Canada and Mexico articles as well. Every African national team article also has its sub-confederation info. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about NAFU first. If NAFU is so important, then why is there not a single mention of it in this article? Or in the Canada or Mexico article? Also, are you familiar with MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose_of_an_infobox and Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain.3F? Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: I'll let the NAFU matter slide, but maximum/minimum Elo ratings aren't trivial details and it most certainly doesn't make the infobox "lengthy". They're almost as important (if not just as important) as FIFA rankings, which is why that info is there on every other national team's article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on NAFU and can put that aside. Re Elo, the same arguments I made regarding NAFU apply equally: because Elo is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, it is not important enough to include in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOX and Help:Infobox are clear on this. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: Elo rankings (and FIFA rankings) are hardly mentioned anywhere on the body of any national football team article because there's not much information to give other than the team's current ranking and its maximum and minimum rankings, which is why they're put in the infobox. I don't understand how you're failing to get this. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in this article, the current Elo ranking are mentioned in the infobox, and were mentioned in the body of the article until you removed it recently. Conversely, the historical Elo rankings are in neither the article body nor the article infobox; let's keep it that way. Barryjjoyce (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: I removed that info from the body because those rankings change regularly and it's better to keep them in the infobox. And we can't leave historical rankings out just because it's not in the body; it's still important info and that's the case with every other national team article; there's no point in mentioning it in the body when it's so much more convenient just indicating it in the infobox. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears we have a fundamental disagreement about the importance of historical Elo rankings. I don't view them as important, and it looks like we are not going to reach agreement on this subject. I'll point out that the historical Elo rankings are present in the infobox for the History article. I'll make a deal with you — if you don't try to add them to the main article, I won't try to remove them from the History article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: Fair enough. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: I dont understand why the highest and lowest elo rankings are not in the infobox, they are in the info box of EVERY other national team! so i dont see what the problem us. Why should the US page be the only one that doesnt have them? this is ridiculous! they used to be there and all of a sudden they get removed for no reason? someone should add them back! It doesnt matter if you dont think theyre important, they are on the info box of every other team! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you simply rehashing an argument already made above. Barryjjoyce (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: It seems that for some reason you think this article's infobox should be different from the others, I didn't even realize someone else had brought this very good issue up until i came to the talk page, and why does it matter if the argument was already made? nothing came from it, the NAFU thing I agree is pointless but your stance against the elo rankings in the infobox is beyond belief! Tell me why should this article be the only one that doesnt include this? Why are you being so stubborn? Just add them back in the infobox, it does't take much space and the article will look proper! I would have already added them back but I don't know them, which is a reason why they should be there in the first place! I guess I'll have to do research to add them back. Geez this is ridiculous, are you going to go to the 200+ articles of the other national teams and remove them too? If you feel that because it's not mentioned in the article it shouldn't be in the infobox then add back what the other user removed or a modified version of it

I'd like to focus on the merits of the argument and avoid any personal attacks. Also, I hope that we can address this on the talk page and avoid any unproductive edit warring. Are you familiar with MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose_of_an_infobox and Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain.3F? They make it clear that information that is not important enough to include in the article's text should not be in the infobox. Additionally, I'm not aware of any reliable sources that discuss the US historical elo rankings, which would be a further requirement for including this information. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: Ok sorry. Now you still havent explained why you feel that this is the only national team article that should not have this information. All the other ones have it. It really is strange that you feel this way, the elo rankings had been in the infobox as they should for years until apparently you removed them for no reason. Now many other national team articles dont mention the elo rankings yet they still include them in the infobox. If you feel so strongly about it then perhaps a small section discussing elo could be added to the article such as when the rank went up after the 2009 confederations cup, etc. You also have to understand that while edit warring would be unproductive, you are not the owner of this article and your opinion doesnt have to be followed by everyone just because YOU believe adding a very small detail to an infobox is unimportant. I am now the second person to believe they should be included to bring this up. I'm trying to work this out but you act as if though you have to be asked permission to add them back and that's not fair as your word is not final and wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So thus far there are 2 people that want the elo rankings back versus 1. Now if we can't work this out ourselves then perhaps there could be a way to take a vote and involve more people to prevent an edit war. Oh and one more thing, you said there aren't many sources of historical elo rankings, well it isnt that big a problem as only the highest and the lowest are needed

If you think there is something worth writing about the Elo ratings, feel free to go ahead and add that to the article body, as long as it is backed up by reliable sources. As to your other suggestions, you may want to review WP:CANVASS and WP:VOTE. There have been 1.6 million views of the USMNT page over the past 90 days, but you are the only one pushing for this change. As to your conformity argument, people regularly come onto this page demanding that the title of this article be changed from "soccer" to "football" to conform with other articles, but those efforts go nowhere. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce:Ok well I'll try to do some research with good sources to add a small elo section to the article and after I do I'll add them back to the infobox. I was actually hoping for some help though as I haven't edited too many articles but oh well. Now about the conformity there is a difference. In the US association football is called soccer while in other countries it's called by its proper name, so in that case it is correct for the title of the article to be different from others, but the elo rankings are the same for everyone. So are we in agreement here?

All Time World Cup Results

I removed this table because: (1) it is hideous, (2) it contains a level of detail that does not belong in an overview article, (3) the page is already quite lengthy, and (4) the information can be found at the United States at the FIFA World Cup page, which is linked to the main USMNT page. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

Claudio Reyna's actual USMNT caps are 112 104.167.135.107 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

104.167.135.107 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Claudio Reyna's caps are actually 112 not 111. Source: http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/reyna-intl.html 104.167.135.107 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

In the Top Goalscorers section in the Player Records section, there is a mistake regarding Bruce Murray's caps. He actually has 85 caps not 86. Sources: http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/player/murray-bruce http://www.ussoccer.com/mens-national-team/records 50.28.180.190 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07^Talk 22:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015

In the Current Roster and Recent Call-Ups sections, both Tim Ream and Terrence Boyd have an incorrect amount of caps. Both are given 13 even though they only have 12. Sources: http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/player/boyd-terrence http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/player/ream-tim 216.106.134.119 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07^Talk 02:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

In the "Most Caps" subsection of the "Player Records" section, Marcelo Balboa's caps are incorrect. He actually has 127 caps, not 128. Source: http://www.ussoccer.com/mens-national-team/records 216.106.132.27 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Jamietw (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free images

Non-free images, such as File:US Soccer Federation.svg, need to satisfy all 10 of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. They also need to not be used in any of the ways explained in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. One of these is No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI which says that is is unacceptable to use "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." In this particular case, the United States Soccer Federation is the parent organziation of all US national teams. This means the the logo of federation should not be used in article about these teams. This kind of usage has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe.svg and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and the result was that the logos should not be used. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You're taking this out of context. The US Soccer Federation is the "governing body" of its national team, so essentially they are one, and not separate entities. No team, no federation. If it was a sub-entity, it would (most likely) have its own logo as the MLS and its clubs do, which are governed by the league but are individual owned by its owners. Your argument is invalid. Also, in the future before removal, be sure to collect a census. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

However, you seem to be correct on the History of the United States men's national soccer team according to WP:NFURG. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Savvyjack23. For ther record, WP:NFC is a community-wide content guideline, just like WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. Therefore, a local consesus is not needed to apply it WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL anymore than a local consesus would be needed to remove a link to copyrighted material per WP:COPYLINK. The application of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI to logos like this has been discussed before (as cited above) in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png so your claim in your revert edit sum that "self-interpretation seems likely" is a little off base. Similar images have also been discussed at WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg, WP:NFCR#File:Hockey Canada.svg and WP:NFCR#File:Real Madrid CF.svg so the removal of the image was based upon established precendent and the current wording of UUI#17 and not self-interpretation on my part. However, since there is disagreement here, I will open discussion about the use of the image at WP:NFCR so please feel free to comment there if you like. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the usage of File:US Soccer Federation.svg was started at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:US Soccer Federation.svg in July 2015. It stayed unresolved at NFCR, so it was moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:US Soccer Federation.svg (as part of the cleanup after the merge of WP:NFCR into WP:FFD), where it was closed by admin Explicit as "The result of the discussion was: remove from United States men's national soccer team". Those who disagree with Explicit's close are encourage to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss it with them, or at one of the appropriate noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you guys are grossly misunderstanding the context of UU #17 and the relationship between US Soccer and the various national teams. #17 states, "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding." This clearly refers to a situation in which the child entity literally has NO branding whatsoever. However, the United States men's national soccer team DOES have its own branding - it just happens to share the same logo with the US Soccer Federation. It's easier to understand this when you consider the example of the United States women's team, which also shares the same logo, BUT with three stars representing three World Cup wins. Note that the USSF logo does not have these stars. This is because these are multiple entities sharing "the same" logo.

Restriction #17 is meant to prevent editors from including the US Soccer logo on the USMNT page when the former does not represent the latter. That is not the case here. The logo represents US Soccer and all of its teams equally and thus should quite clearly be included on all pages. However, the impenetrable bureaucracy of Wikipedia is preventing me from going down the proper channels to rectify this. I hope someone can assist. Eightball (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The licensing of File:Crest of the United States Soccer Federation.png has been converted to a free license and the file is now available on Commons. I thought this might be a possibility, but wasn't sure. Anyway, unless the file's licensing is challenged at Commons, it should be fine for use in any article since free images are not subject to WP:NFCC. As for UUI#17, I think this reflects the way it has been applied through various NFCR/FFD discussions. My understanding is that in was added to try and keep non-free content minimal per NFCC#3, and not allowing such logos in individual team articles (even when they "share" the same logo). I'm not trying to say your arugument is wrong and perhaps further clarification/discussion is really needed, but I think it would be best to do that at WT:NFCC or someplace similar than an article talk page or Wikiproject talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the impenetrable bureaucracy of Wikipedia is preventing me from going down the proper channels to rectify this. It is a system explicitly designed to maintain the status quo as it is only fully understood by established editors, who tend to have no interest in changing such things. Regardless, I think it is very clear that the logo for the US men's soccer team can be legally included in the US men's soccer team article, free or otherwise. To suggest removing it is to suggest making the page worse and less informative, which requires a far stronger argument than has been presented. Eightball (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The very last sentence of the lede for WP:NFC says "The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law", so the use of a non-free image that may be legally possible does not necessarily guarantee compliance with WP:NFCC. If you disagree with the particular wording or intent of that sentence, then you can be bold and directly change it yourself or you can propose it be changed at WT:NFC. Personally, I think the latter would be the better approach to follow since it is a policy/guideline type of page. The same applies to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI if you feel it needs to be tweaked or clarified in some way.

The file you added File:US Soccer Federation (2016).png was non-free and non-free content usage is required to satisfy all 10 criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c, which says, among other things, that a separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each usage (emphasis is mine) of non-free content. You added the file to the article, but did not add a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page; therefore, I removed it per WP:NFCCE (as I posted in my edit sum and further explained after the fact at User talk:Explicit#US soccer team crest). It is the responsibility of the editor uploading or adding non-free content to provide a valid rationale for each usage. Failure to do so means that the file may be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6 or removed per NFCCE. Moreover, adding a rationale does not automatically mean it's a valid rationale, but at the very least one needs to be provided. If another editor feels the rationale is not valid, then they can discuss the file's use at WP:FFD or challenge it per WP:F7. NFCCP begins with "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia" and ends with "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met". It is the burden of those wishing to use such content to show (i.e., present a "far stronger argument") how a particular usage satisfies NFCC, not the other way around.

I can't really help you with the bureaucracy of Wikipedia; it's something we all have to deal with. If you disagree with a particular close of a discussion, then the thing to do is to try and discuss it with the editor who closed the discussion. If that leads nowhere, then the next step may be to ask for input from other editors via WP:DRV or WP:AN. Either way getting somewhat entangled in Wikipedia red tape seems unavoidable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have written three paragraphs laced with impenetrable Wiki policy, rather than concisely explaining what the actual problem is, says everything about the potential to get this logically resolved (or lack thereof). Eightball (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You added a non-free image to the article, but failed to provide the required non-free use rationale for said usage (per Wikipedia's non-free content policy) so the image was removed. When you want to add an image to an article, go to the file's page and check the licensing. If it's non-free, then just make sure you add the relevant non-free use rationale. If someone disputes the validity of the rationale, then they can discuss the file at FFD. The image currenty being used in the infobox is freely licensed; it's not subject to the NFCC, so there's nothing left to resolve. You can use that file in other articles if you like, just make sure WP:IUP is satisfied. If someone disagrees with you and removes it, then ask them to discuss it on the article's talk page like you would any other content dispute. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States men's national soccer team. 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/20130522002015/http://www.ussoccer.com/media-library/videos/us-men/2009/the-yanks-are-coming-commercial.aspx to http://www.ussoccer.com/media-library/videos/us-men/2009/the-yanks-are-coming-commercial.aspx

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} 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on United States men's national soccer team. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsssf.com/tablesu/usa-intres-det69.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/hof/patenaude/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planetworldcup.com/STATS/statrecs.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0906/soccer.biggest.us.wins.in.history/content.10.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/michael_lewis/news/2000/11/10/lewis_history/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/michael_lewis/news/2000/06/30/lewis_insider/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/results/matches/match=97410025/report.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goal.com/en/news/8/main/2009/02/12/1105528/united-states-rain-on-mexicos-wc-hopes
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2009-04-01-3106056220_x.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160701145714/http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/39/98/53/eng_56_0701_bel-usa_usa_playerstatistics_neutral.pdf to http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/39/98/53/eng_56_0701_bel-usa_usa_playerstatistics_neutral.pdf

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)