Talk:United States men's national soccer team

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States men's national soccer team article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 60 days

Football: American & Canadian / National High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the national teams task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This page is not a forum for general discussion about United States men's national soccer team. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United States men's national soccer team at the Reference desk.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Andrés Escobar#Death|murdered]] The anchor (#Death) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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. Sounder Bruce 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. Sounder Bruce 03:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical Writing

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 August 2024 and 17 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Derrecksoriano (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Derrecksoriano (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]