Jump to content

Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Recent Results

I think this should either be changed to 2007 Results and not include the 2008 Sweden match, or be left as recent results and include matches that took place in the last six months or are scheduled to take place in the next six months, thus following the six month rule for recent call ups. Thoughts? Grant.alpaugh 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter one way or the other? They're all recent results. I say leave it as it is.Batman2005 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the June 21st 2008 away match for WCQ? If the June 14th home match is listed shouldn't the away one also get listed? Gecko G (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the schedule and recent results section and it looks kinda cluttered. I had a few ideas. The match reports could be linked to the score via a citation. Also, the month of the date of the match could be abbreviated. WP:MOS states "Months are expressed as whole words (February, not 2), except in the ISO 8601 format. Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." Since this is indeed a table I think it could be abbrev. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. That hadn't even occurred to me. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop the edit war, please. Discuss your opinion here. Che84 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Nats" as a nickname

The US National Team is sometimes referred to as the Nats. See:

Fine, more examples:
http://www.soccer365.com/us_national_teams/story_211007043142.php
http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pcid=115&pid=23181
http://thekinoffish.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html
http://www.americansoccerdaily.com/freekicks/bobbeginseuro.htm
http://www.footie.us/index.php?showtopic=57
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/06/benny_and_the_nats.html

Nats is a nickname for the US National Team. Stop reverting it. Che84 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I call them the Nats. Mohrflies (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My son calls them the Nats. Mohrflies (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sams Army, the national team fan club, calls them the Nats.[1] Mohrflies (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the point, every major U.S. soccer (versus general public) publication refers to the national team as the Nats. This included Sams-Army.com, Soccer365.com, SoccerTimes.com[2], and Yanks-Abroad.com[3]. I use the Soccer Archives extensively for my wikipedia articles, and they call the national team the Nats[4]. If it is such a common nickname, then how can it not be a nickname? Frankly, Nats is more of a nickname than the others listed on the page. I don't use them and I don't know anyone personally who does. Everyone I know who talks about the national team calls them the Nats, and I've never felt the need to check with the New York Times (aka mainstream media) to see if it's a permissible nickname. Keep it in the article. Mohrflies (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that ESPN's website www.soccernet.com, Sports Illustrated, Fox Soccer Channel's website www.foxsoccer.com, or any mainstream (aka reputable) American sports news organization not use that nickname? All of the websites you've listed are niche soccer websites I've never heard of. The sites I've listed are part of multi-million user, multi-billion dollar international sports news organizations. I think that should be the standard we hold this encyclopedia to. I could give a damn what you and your friends call them, as its not verifiable. Reputable sources wouldn't use a stupid nickname like "'Nats," it makes them sound like flies or something.Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen, after looking at some of the sources you've suggested, I must say I'm shocked. Soccer Times looks like a website my 12 year old cousin designed, and Uncle Sam's Army looks only slightly better (maybe my 14 year old cousin). I'm now more confident than ever that the sources I've put forward should be given more weight than the sites that use "'Nats." If this is what you and your friends use for soccer info, I'd suggest upgrading to actual news sites. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, calm down there Grant.alpaugh! Let's not lose our tempers over something so trivial. Wikipedia:Verifiability states:

The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

This is often put, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." This is in no way an exceptional claim; in fact, it's quite a minor claim. And the sources show that those publications that focus solely on soccer have, and indeed do, refer to the team as the Nats. Personally, I agree with you that the name is pretty stupid, and you won't catch me using it. That being said, it's a fairly common nickname in American sports, used to refer to at least the Washington Nationals and Washington Senators (that's all I can think of offhand). A source doesn't have to be owned by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner to be acceptable, especially when it comes to such an insignificant claim. Still, here are a few more reputable sources:[5], [6], [7], [8] (this one is referring to the women's national team), [9], I could go on.
So, is the USMNT commonly called the Nats? Sure, but the thing is, a lot of national teams are referred to as the Nats by their local publications. For instance, here is an article which refers to Canada's national team as the Nats. The question as I see it isn't, "Is the team called the Nats?" but rather, "Is it worth mentioning that the team is called the Nats?" faithless (speak) 06:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Grant.alpaugh, I fail to see how there isn't consensus on this issue. The only one disagreeing with its addition is you. Also, with regards to its importance, seeing as how it's the most commonly used nickname for the US National Team, from what I can see, I'd say it's important enough to be added to the entry. Che84 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe we're having this discussion. As Che84 points out, the only one who seems to have a problem with the nickname is Grant.alpaugh, and it's almost as if he's running some sort of logical fallacy joke here. His argument consists almost entirely of appeals to authority (only the mainstream media can give a team its nickname); non sequiturs (my 12 year old cousing can design a better website); an appeal to ridicule (If this is what your friends . . .); an appeal to wealth (multibillion dollar . . .); and ultimately an argument from personal incredulity (I could give a damn what you and your friends call them). Keep the nickname because it is the nickname most often used by the national team fan base, as was amply documented by myself and Che84 in the many links we provided.Mohrflies (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with inserting "Nat's" as a nickname. As was pointed out by Faithless, ALL national teams can be called "Nat's." Additionally, stating that it's the "most commonly used" is highly POV and OR. If we include "Nat's" do we then include 'selecao" since Brazilian-Americans likely call the National team that? Do we include all nicknames that we come across? No, we certainly don't. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's advocate, the difference here is that we have sources to prove that the national team is routinely referred to as the Nats. And with the possible exception of Yanks, it's the most widely used (I would guess Yanks is more widely used outside the US, Nats more common inside the US). I might be wrong, but isn't Seleção used to refer specifically to the Brazilian team? I've never heard, for instance, Portugal referred to with that name, nor any other Lusophone country. I'd have to think they'd be pretty insulted if they heard the US referred to with the same nickname. My personal take on the matter: I don't really care if it's listed or not (though it seems like consensus is building for including it); however, I do think we need to get rid of "Stars & Stripes" and "Red, White & Blue." Who calls the team that?! :-) faithless (speak) 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, you're wrong about Lusophone countries not calling their national teams selecao, the Portuguese national teams are referred to that way. Secondly, pointing to even a dozen websites that use the term Nats, means little when you have yet to provide any sources from mainstream sports media sites (any one of which would have a regular readership that is 10 times all of the readerships of the sites you've provided). My point basically crystalizes into this: if several small town newspapers (say a dozen) started spelling America as Emerica, would we edit the United States of America page to include Emerica as an alternate spelling? There are sources that say anything and everything, but other factors like reliability and readership need to be taken into account when talking about how much they are representative of what the public does or does not think about something. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I copied this from the page after I searched ESPN soccernet for "Nats":
There are no articles about NATS in the SOCCERNET section.
The top result from Sports Illustrated's search?
Kill Fruit Flies & Gnats
Effective fruit fly & gnat control Low prices, Always free shipping
www.epestsupply.com
Trust Your Home to Orkin®
Leave It To The Gnat Experts Get $30 Off From The OrkinMan
www.Orkin.com
All of the sports stories were about the Washington Nationals.
Same thing with Fox Soccer, all the results were about Paul Lo Duca's contract with the Nationals.
I'm not saying that the only cites that should matter are the ones that come from multinational corporations, but when they entirely ignore a nickname that you allege is "sweeping the nation" or something, I find it a little odd. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Grant.alpaugh has now added two more fallacies to his argument. The first is ignoratio elenchi (Newspapers can't change the official name of a country, therefore fans can't decide on an unofficial name for their team). The second is ad nauseam, by repeating the same discredited arguments again and again a person wins an argument because everyone else gives up. Let's get back to the central, and undisputed fact: U.S. soccer fans call the team the Nats. This was documented in the first few posts of this string. Therefore, one of the team's main nicknames is the Nats. Mohrflies (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do actually have to refute my arguments, rather than just brush them aside and declare that you're right. I'm not saying that the country name would officially be changed to the United States of Emerica, just as you're not saying the article's title should be changed to Nats. What I am saying is that it wouldn't merit inclusion anywhere in the article that a dozen low-circulation newspapers had gone with a different spelling of the country's name, while you're saying that it is notable that you, your friends, your family (not ad hominim here, you did actually make this argument), and a few low-traffic websites call the team the Nats. Second, if it is one of the main nicknames of the the US MNT then why would all of the biggest sports media organizations completely ignore the nickname? I'm afraid its your argumentation that is getting tedious. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Steven Goff (Washington Post's Soccer Insider, the last link that Che84 provides) is one of the country's most respected soccer sportswriters, so for me that counts as an authoritative source. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a little tiring. Grant, please change your tone; you've been antagonistic from the start, and it's starting to get annoying. I haven't even disagreed with you, and you come at me with guns blazing. I said I might be wrong, so there's no reason to start your first correspondence with a person with, "First off, you're wrong..." Sources would also be nice. Now, the relevant stuff: the sources which I provided are from ESPN, ABC Sports, Sports Illustrated, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Press Enterprise. Sources don't get any more mainstream. This is ridiculous. I was neutral on the matter before, but your attitude has changed my mind. I'm reinserting it in the article. Please do not delete it without a legitimate reason (not simply "I don't like it") as sources have been amply provided. faithless (speak) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Characterising my tone as being uncivil based on an out of context half-quote is a little much, don't you think? Its not like I was attacking you, simply one of the things you said in your comment. I also thought it was quite funny that the first thing that came up when I did a search for nats was Orkin and other pesticide companies. Maybe my attempt at humor wasn't very well recieved but please see WP:Assume good faith. Either way, my tone is not a valid reason for rejecting my argument and assuming consensus. Now, on to the actual point, all of the sources you cited are more than five years old. We seem to have reached a stalemate. You say that all of your friends and the soccer websites you go to call them the nats, while I say the exact opposite. To me the deciding factor is that no major sports media outlet is currently in the practice of calling the team the nats. I again point to my United States of Emerica example. Just because some people do something doesn't necessarily make it notable. I'll agree with you that consensus appears to be building, but building does not equal built, and so I'm going to revert this again, and wait for your response. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, about what the Portugal national football team is called, I just searched it on wikipedia and saw the nickname, so that's why I didn't source it. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I assumed good faith earlier, when you were using a condescending tone with another editor, and I tried to diffuse the situation by asking you to behave more politely. It doesn't matter - let's discuss the matter at hand. I have never said that "all of [my] friends" call the team the Nats - in fact, if you'll look back at what I have written, you will see that I agreed with you that the name is stupid, and I specifically said that I would never use it. Simply put, the date of the sources isn't relevant. The fact (I'm assuming you're correct, I don't feel like checking those dates myself right now) that the articles cited are five years old means they are no longer usable? Please explain the logic there. I am going to insert it again; you are the only one objecting to it being included, and the information is sourced by several reliable sources. Again, please don't remove it without a legitimate reason, as you have yet to give one. faithless (speak) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't think I was being condescending, but whatever let's just move on from that. Yes, I am saying that the sources are no good because they are at least five years old. What I'm saying is that as soccernet and SI.com started to get more mainstream and popular, they began holding themselves to a higher standard and stopped using the nickname "'Nats." Things in sports change rapidly. The Cicinnati Reds used to be widely known as the Big Red Machine during the 70s, but since then that nickname has fallen out of use other then when referring to the team during that time period. Same with the 'Mazin Mets, the Steel Curtain, the Purple People Eaters, the Showtime Lakers, etc. The fact that the mainstream media is completely devoid of recent references to the team as the "'Nats" shows that this nickname either was never in wide use or is no longer in wide use. That's why I included all of those search results, not to be a dick, but to show that there really aren't any articles at those three sites that use the nickname. Be my guest and do a search through those websites. I was sure there would be one or two, but there were absolutely none. And really, I meant no disrespect to anyone earlier but I apologize if when read it came off that way. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for apologizing. But I'm afraid your argument just doesn't cut it. How recently does it have to be used in order to be acceptable? Is this a Wikipedia policy or guideline, or your personal feelings? ESPN and Sports Illustrated have long been the authority on sports in the United States, they haven't just gained respectability in the last five years. And speaking of which, of the sources I provided there is one from 2005 and one from 2006. So that argument's out. I get that you don't like the name, really I do - I don't like it either. But it's relevant and extensively sourced, and you have yet to cite a single policy or guideline to justify your repeated removal of it. On top of this, you have been reverted by several editors. If you still feel strongly about this, I would suggest you seek dispute resolution, but let's stop the back-and-forth. Cheers, faithless (speak) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Grant, Everybody on the planet refers the US Men's National Team as the 'Nats'. That's the nickname of the people, by the people and for the people. That's what we want to be referred to as.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Ramsey (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. I reside on this planet (I assume you were speaking of Earth), and I would never use such a stupd nickname. Nobody I know does so either. I've never seen it used by any of the sites I frequent. It makes the team sound like a bunch of bugs, and is not short for "National" like the baseball team in D.C. I follow the team pretty closely as my edit history shows, and I say that only to give myself enough credibility so as not to be seen as just some naysaying, soccer-hating, douchebag. I also think you should sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Also, we've moved this new convo to the bottom of the page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


That's funny b/c a majority of the websites I've visited have ALWAYS called them the 'Nats along with Sam's Army. The only person on the ENTIRE PLANET(Earth, the one I live on as well) that has a problem with it is YOU, Grant.

The Fans, Sites, and a couple journalists have referred to our NATIONAL team as the NATS!

99.129.148.236 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Squad Listing

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 have no problems with that rule. So we include everyone who has been called in before the roster is named, but after that on the current roster and recent call ups we include those who were on the squad but not those only called into camp? If I understand it correctly, then I have no problem with it. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was proposing. Basically after the matchday squad was announced, I removed the eight guys who didn't make the matchday squad, but I was sure to re-insert those of them that had been called up to a different match in the last six months (like Califf and Johnson). --Balerion (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To be clear though, only those players named in the matchday squad in the last six months will be included from now on, not just those called into this or similar camps, etc. Right? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Although other than the annual January one, the USMNT typically doesn't have many camps in which there are "excess" players. I imagine the Recent Call-ups section will shrink as WCQ progresses and the Best XI are called in every time instead of Euro friendlies and MLS friendlies. --Balerion (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but sometimes before say the WC or GC, they hold a camp of like 30 guys before cutting down to the final travel squad, but I get your point. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with this. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


New Home Kit

The team has just recently been issued a new kit. I did, what I think to be, a decent job of drawing it, but I lack the know-how to change it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_kit.PNG

Omit the Nike swoosh and the crest (we don't put those in the templates), but otherwise it's a very good job. Bravo. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we are:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_kit.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewishudson88 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this to the template but we need the sleeves to be done too. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

outdated kit

the away kit is outdated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain

Who else besides Bocanegra has been captain in a game where Bocanegra was called up to the roster? Che84 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's different from being officially declared the captain. When a country has a permanent captain they play as long as they are healthy. Bocanegra didn't go to the Copa America or play in some of the recent friendlies in the US. I see you're point, but we're not talking about the same thing. Find something that says Boca has been named the permanent captain and I'll take your word for it, but I do remember seeing something about how Bradley was going to rotate the captaincy when he took over in 2007 (at that time Mastroeni, or however you spell his name, Donovan, Howard, etc. have had the armband in addition to Carlos). -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the start of the 2007 Gold Cup, Carlos Bocanegra has been the captain for every match he has played in. You want us to provide proof that Bocanegra has been named the permanent captain, yet all you provide is your recollection that you saw "something" that Bradley was going to rotate the armband. It has been rotated off of Keller, Donovan, Howard, etc. It has NOT been rotated off Bocanegra as every time he has been available for an International he has worn the armband. He is the captain of the USA, I am editing it back in, you appear to be the only person who holds the view that his captaincy is anything but permanent. Until the armband rotates off of him when he is named to the match day roster he is the captain. Onebaseman (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago we listed the captaincy as rotating. Unless I missed something there has been no announcement or press release to prove your positive. If Carlos Bocanegra has been named the permanent captain then please provide proof of that. I can't prove that there isn't such a document. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the proof I've been talking about. Look down at the bottom of this article. It's on the website of the union for US Men's National Soccer Team Players. Here's the part I'm talking about:
Instead Donovan was concentrating on the midfield duties that Bradley placed upon him, linking team-mates and engineering chances. The question about whether he is better used as a forward or a midfielder, and whether he should play wide or central, will not have been settled by this game. But he provided an all-round contribution that justified Bradley’s decision to give him the captain’s armband.
“Throughout this camp, Landon has set a good tone,” Bradley said. “As we’ve gotten to know each other better, we’ve tried to challenge each other. He has a good understanding of what I expect from him.”
Bradley might also have hit upon the correct strategy to motivate Donovan by withholding the captaincy for a considerable amount of time, awarding the honor to various individuals on a rotating basis, and stating that it has to be earned.
“He’s very perceptive,” said Donovan. “I felt entitled to wearing the armband, because I have a lot of caps. Bob doesn’t care, and he shouldn’t care. His job is to get the most out of every player, every time. I want that too. I’ve worked hard at it. I hope it continues.”
This is from a couple of months ago, so there's a source showing that just before the Mexico game the captaincy was still rotating, so it should be relatively easy to find a source from the last few weeks or so saying that Bocanegra has been named the permanent captain. Please provide that source before reverting again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that Bocanegra is the de facto captain, but since the US Soccer website never works for me, I can't check the more recent match reports to see how often he has been the captain. Che84 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the captaincy is rotating, so rather than talk about who is most often captain, let's just describe what is happening, which is a rotating captaincy which Boca happens to hold now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


The ONLY time that Bocanegra hasn't been captain since the first time he was given the armband, is when he hasn't been on the roster. EVERY other time that he has been on the roster, he he has been captain. He is the captain, period. Saying that it's rotating, yet the only time it rotates is when Boca isn't on the roster, is absurd. That's like claiming that it rotated when Beckham captained England, because when he was out through injury or suspension, somebody else wore the armband. Bocanegra is the captain, an official announcement need not be made, a press release need not be issued. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Show me a cite that has him named as permanent captain (i.e. refuting the article I cited above) and fine. Absent that, it is rotating. Beckham was officially named England captain at a press conference and in a million articles, etc. It has been rotating since Reyna retired after the 06 WC. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You're ignoring the facts to push your agenda. Show me a single instance where, since the first time Bocanegra was captain, that he has not been in a subsequent game that he was on the roster for...can't do it can you? Didn't think so. Beckham was named captain in a million articles because there ARE a million articles about English soccer. Reyna was never named captain in a large press conference, there was no front page story dedicated to it, ESPN didn't lead off sports center talking about it...so by your reasoning...it wasn't official. Reyna missed games through injury, or when he was not rostered, and the armband would go to a different player...usually Friedel, Keller or Donovan...so by your reasoning, it was a rotating captaincy. Not true at all Grant. Bocanegra has been captain for every game in which he has been rostered, for the past YEAR. Just because Bradley hasn't come out and said that Bocanegra is the captain doesn't mean anything. There are hundreds of articles on ESPN Soccernet, ussoccer.com, sams army website, etc, in which he is referred to as "captain" of the team, not "temporary captain" or "rotating captain." He is the captain. We have a consensus here, you are on the minority side of it, quite clearly by the way. Stop going against consensus. Also, you claim that Boca hasn't been called in for some matches, the only ones he hasn't been called in for were ones that were scheduled on non-international fixture dates (ergo, European based players were not released from their clubs to play) so that point is really....not a point at all, but rather a person who is clearly wrong grasping for any out of context tidbit to try to solidify a losing point. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
All of those articles refer to the fact that Bocanegra was captain for the game in question, except for the one about the 2010 draw, which is not as recent as the quote I pulled above where BB is talking about the rotating captaincy policy he's had in order to motivate Landon Donovan. I'm not asking SportsCenter to lead with the story, or a front page story. All I'm asking for is one measley article that is more recent than the one I pulled that names him permanent captain. My guess, however, is that this will be settled one way or another when England hosts the US, as the British Media will almost certainly refer to Bocanegra as "USA Captain" if he indeed is. At that point it will be settled. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Now you're assuming context in the articles and making it fit your point. Then you say that here in a couple weeks if the british media report that he's captain, you'll accept it. Yet you won't accept the fact that every major soccer publication refers to him as the captain. I see from the history of this talk page that you have a long tradition of editing against consensus and using various underhanded tactics to try to push your agenda. Bocanegra is the captain, the link you point to is dead and is no longer relevant. Every other source has been given to show that he's captain. Period. Keep it up and i'll be forced to report you for going against consensus time and time again. There are NUMEROUS editors here who have weighed in and a consensus has been reached, it's unfortunate that you were on the minority side, but that's how group editing works. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I don't think I'm making any outlandish assumptions. I'm sure if you went to the quote sheets for the games Landon had the armband they would list him as captain. Second, I don't see links to "every major soccer publication," I see links to one website, most of which are older than the link I posted to, which is quoted at length despite the link going dead (I'm working on finding it again). As far as I'm concerned it's one cite to one cite, hardly consensus. The reason I'm saying the England friendly will settle it is because the English press takes the official captain thing more seriously than the American press, so if nothing else this will be settled conclusively in the build up to that game. Third, there were two people over a month ago who disagreed with me, I successfully argued against them, and it was settled fo 6 weeks. A few days ago you brought this up, I'm arguing against you now, I would hardly call that a consensus. Finally, I'm hardly "editing against consensus." I've been in five disagreements over the last few months and the two that are resolved, (MLS team infoboxes and Notable/Famous Player sections) I was on the side of the final consensus. Just because there are three still ongoing (including this one) doesn't make me some kind of vandal, which is what you're accusing me of. I think you're taking this way too personally. You seem to be making this much more about me than about the article, and doing so constitutes a personal attack. I'd appreciate a change in tone. Finally, and by far the least important issue, if you want to be taken seriously, create an account. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I fixed the link. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, I don't give a shit what you'd appreciate me doing, so if my tone insults you...go to another page. There are FOUR users now who are against saying the captain is rotating and who have provided ample evidence that it is NOT rotating. Yet you are being petulant and you keep pushing YOUR agenda. Don't give me that bullshit that I need to have an account to be taken seriously, give me a fucking break...Wikipedia does not require one to maintain an account to have their opinions heard, nor does not having one mean my opinion is less relevant or important than any other, get off your high horse. If you want a change in tone, go somewhere else. You have been called out in not only this discussion, but the one just above it where you were one of two people (again, on the losing side of consensus) against including "Nats" as a nickname. You claim that this was resolved 6 weeks ago, yet it can clearly be seen through the discussion that everyone other than you is against saying the captain is rotating, what more than likely happened is that others lost interest or moved on, you apparently live your life by this page and did not do so. And it's not "one cite to one cite" i cited 5 articles, and searching google finds hundreds of others listing Bocanegra as the captain. You're clearly one of those people who ignore the obvious as the expense of your feelings. You are also apparently unable to admit that you're wrong, because you're STILL arguing this ridiculous point, and have coneceded that you're going to be wrong in two weeks time when some random English paper calls Bocanegra the captain....as if a podunk little newspaper in a random English town is more reputable than ESPN Soccernet, USSoccer.com, Sams Army, etc. Get serious. This conversation is a joke. The consensus is against you, get over it and move on. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how bout you also admit that Donovan only wore the armband against Sweden because it wasn't an international fixture date and ZERO european based players were on the roster. Hahahahahahaha get serious Grant, you're absolutely wrong on every level here. Now you're grasping for any bit of crap you can twist and obfuscate to fit your dying argument. If Boca had been on the roster...he'd have been captain for that game too....just like all the rest for the past year, and you know it. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
http://usa.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/the-captain.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.177.162 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First, your repeated violations of WP:CIVIL are unacceptable, whether you have an account or not. I don't think I'm the one who "lives my life by this page," as you're the one who seems to be all hot and bothered by this discussion. Belittling someone is the lowest form of argument, and it is unacceptable on WP. If you continue making personal attacks, I will report you and have you banned. Second, blogs don't count as reputable sources on WP. If Google kicks back hundreds of other articles listing Bocanegra as the captain, why don't you provide some that don't deal with specific matches and are dated after my cite. This issue will be settled when the BBC or Sky Sports refers to Bocanegra as the USA captain or they don't. I never said anything about a "random English paper." Third, 2-1 hardly counts as a consensus, and if the other editors "lose interest" in the discussion, it goes as tacit agreement with the status quo. They didn't continue the discussion further. That's consensus. Finally, I never said you had to create an account in order for your opinion to matter. What I said was putting a name to your statements gives you more credibility and a track record. I view all anons as being the same, regardless of how many there are. Creating an account is easy, free, and adds a lot of functionality to WP. You'd understand how it's easy to keep track of article changes without "living your life by them" if you had a watchlist, and so on. If you don't want to create an account, that's fine, but don't be suprised if people are dismissive. Either way, improve the tone of your argument, or I will report you for the violations I've mentioned above, and this discussion will be over. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Gentleman (I'm guessing), a little civility on both of your parts is in order. Grant, you also don't have the power to "get somebody banned" an administator would look at the situation and judge accordingly, and given your demeanor in the earlier discussion and your dismissive attitude in the current one, your report would likely be ignored. From an outsides perspective, here are some questions. 1) Grant - you quote an article by Andrea Canales, an ESPN.com writer as a credible source of a rotating captaincy, yet you won't accept an ESPN.com source as credible showing that Bocanegra is the captain? 2) Grant - you claim that BBC or Sky Sports are more reputable sources of information about the US team than the webpage of the federation which governs the team. Why?

I was clearly referring to going through the process of getting an admin to look at the situation. To suggest I was implying otherwise is silly, especially as anon points out I've been in several disputes in the past so I'm familiar with the process. As for the Canales ESPN source, none was provided. All I asked was if Google kicks back "hundreds" of articles that show him as the permanent captain, simply provide a link to one. The reason I said we should just wait until the game in England is because the English media will cover the game to a far, far greater extent than any outlet in the US, and they also happen to obsess more than most nations about captaincy issues. The captaincy for the England national football, rugby, cricket, etc. teams are as well established as (or more than, sometimes) the managerial positions for those teams. When Beckham was captain, Sky would always list him as "England Captain." The fact that the English captaincy is itself rotating at present, means that if Michael Owen, for instance, is named captain for the game, but they don't list him as "England Captain" in the build up, but they do list Bocanegra (a player they are familiar with, I might add) as "USA Captain," then the issue is definitively settled. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, it appears to me that Bocanegra is the captain, and that it is no longer rotating. It rotated for several games between several players, and has landed on Bocanegra who has kept it for an entire year. The Copa America is irrelevant since it was a, by all accounts, third-tier team. That another player wore the armband during a game in which only domestically based players were utilized is also irrelevant. The context of Canales's article must also be looked at. Given the absence of the normal captain (Bocanegra), Donovan was given the captaincy as a result of his hard work in that camp. Surely you can see this? Go ahead and add my name to the roll call of people who think that it is appropriate to list Bocanegra as the captain, and not as a rotating captain. I would say 4-1 counts as a fairly good consensus given that as of now only 5 people have taken part in the discussion.

With all due respect, what part of, "Bradley might also have hit upon the correct strategy to motivate Donovan by withholding the captaincy for a considerable amount of time, awarding the honor to various individuals on a rotating basis, and stating that it has to be earned," don't you understand? This source is from only a few months ago. Show me something from February or later that is similar to the World Cup draw quote sheet with Bradley and Bocanegra, and you have won the argument. That's all I'm asking for. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My other option would be a request for comment or some other form of dispute resolution that doesn't involve using a british newspaper for news about USA soccer, that to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Especially given the availablity of sources from within the team that show that Bocanegra is referred to as the captain. The same sources which during the Sweden game (where Donovan temporarily wore the armband) did not refer to his as captain in the post-match interview transcripts the way Bocanegra was referred as captain.

For the IP editor, you are right, you need not create an account, but Grant made one or two valid points about edit history, etc. Being dismissive of an IP editor isn't acceptable, but it happens and one way to get around having the "IP" stigma, is to create an account. While it appears to me that you have been uncivil, I do not think it rises to the level of being banned. I would say that you, and grant alike, need to take a break from the discussion and seek alternate methods to mediate the dispute. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarity's sake I've interspersed my comments between yours. I appreciate the attempt to mediate the issue, and your calls for civility have, at least on my part, been heard loud and clear. Unfortunately I still disagree for the reasons I've outlined above, but in light of new evidence I can be convinced. The article has been this way for several weeks, and if nothing else we can figure it out after the England game in 2 weeks time. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the site that Grant has been using as his sole defense. http://ussoccerplayers.typepad.com/ussoccerplayers/2008/05/american-abro-4.html It refers to "US captain Carlos Bocanegra" It's also important to note that the article that Grant has been citing used the word "might" and was pure speculation on the part of reporter Andrea Canales. With Grant's only reference now referring to Bocanegra unequivocally as the US captain, I'm editing the article to reflect that. I hope Grant will respect the consensus that has clearly developed. Onebaseman (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya that's fine. Thanks for creating an account and for finding a reference. I appreciate it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the same user as the IP editor above. Onebaseman (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations has flowed forth on this topic for months, Grant just couldn't accept them and continued his petulance and pov editing. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Those statements are violations of WP:NPA, and if you don't strike them and/or apologize for them here or on my talk page I will take the actions necessary to get you blocked. I did not agree with you for legitimate reasons, until a citation was presented that was better than the one I had presented. I'd thank you to be more civil in the future. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to say that you were pushing your pov, that's what you were doing. You were shown source after source after source and shot them each down with weak reasons. Many citations were presented that were better than the one you presented and the one that Onebaseman presented, you refused to accept that you could be wrong and instead BEGAN the uncivil behavior. You're not going to hold me hostage Grant, i'm not striking my comments or apologizing for them, I do not see them as violations of NPA. I believe we have BOTH violated CIVIL, so perhaps you should cut your losses and we'll both move on from here. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please attempt to refrain from personal attacks and maintain civility

The level of tension in this discussion is way too high. 98.220.177.162 has been the most egregious offender, but I think everyone here needs to step back and take a break. Failure to maintain civility and/or commenting on the editor rather than the edits will result in warnings with the possibility of an eventual block.

As an example of what I am talking about here, it is unacceptable for 98.220.177.162 to refer to Grant's "petulance." If you feel his edits are not acceptable, continue to discuss that in the talk page. If you feel has not been reasonable, start an RfC or a Wikiquette alert. Call someone petulant is not a recommended part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

Please, everyone, try and tone it down. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me where, on the dispute resolution process page, it shows that the way to win a dispute is to ignore cite after cite after cite after cite and push your POV to the point of absurdity. If ANYONE can show me that, then I'll cede my point. Short of showing me that, I maintain that Grant continued his, rather alarming trend, of POV editing and he FIRST resorted to incivility when challenged on it. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Round

If/When the US makes it into the Third Round, should we include the group table on this page? They do the same for some of the other national teams I've seen. Just a thought. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Captain, Part Two

We are not about to start this again. Bocanegra didn't play in the match because the US was already up 8-0 on aggregate. He's still the captain, it is absolutely not rotating. Che84 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that when you've had three captains in as many games, it is the very definition of rotating, or at the very least is unabsolutely not rotating. I've given up on this issue, but I wanted to hear a different justification than "Carlos Bocanegra has been captain for every game he has been fit and in the squad for," as he was fit and in the squad for this game, yet wasn't given the armband. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
He wasn't on the field, he was only on the bench. He can't be given the armband when he isn't playing. Che84 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is similar to one held by supporters of the Mexican national football team. While the role of captain has rotated between Marquez, Sanchez, Borgetti, Torrado, and Pardo; it is well established that Marquez is the default captain when he is either fit, available, or needed to play. As an unbiased observer of your discussion here, it appears rather evident that Bocanegra is the default captain of the US squad. Why the need to continue this debate? And best of luck in your qualifying group!.cosme. (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

United States men's national soccer team → any of the following United States national football team, United States national association football team, United States national soccer team, United States men's national football team — The first is to fit we all other national football team articles, the rest are other suggestions users have made. Buc (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support a move to United States national soccer team, Oppose a move to any of the others. Whilst I personally hate the term, there is no disputing that the sport is known as soccer in the USA. I really don't see why the term "men's" needs to be in the title though. There is no doubt that the men's game in the USA receives much more international coverage than the women's game. I can name several male American "soccer" players, but not one female player. Renaming the article would also bring it in line with the precedent set by the other national football/soccer team articles. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See my discussion below - basically, the sport is soccer, and the name of the team is soccer. For the gender distinction - this is the men's national team, and there is a women's national team, and there needs to be a distinction between the two. There is no "national soccer team". It's men's or women's. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name of the sport in the United States is soccer (the term "national football team" in the U.S. means something else entirely). I theoretically like the idea of dropping "men's" from the title but, as Grant points out below, the U.S.'s women's team is one of the few that receives nearly as much national coverage as the men's team, so the "men's" is sort of justified. As an aside, not all other national team articles are "---- national football team," Canada, Australia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands being the other exceptions that come to mind. faithless (speak) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my discussion comments below. At least in the US, with the possible exception of the last few years as the men's team has improved significantly, the women's team has been the more notable of the two. The women's team is the most historically succesful team in the world. In fact, part of the problem with the sport's mainstream acceptance in the US is the fact that the sport is viewed as "a girly game" by a ton of ignorant people in the US. While I wish the term "football" was more widely used in the US, and I wish the USMNT got more coverage and was more successful, the status quo mandates the use of both "soccer" and "men's." -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I am more adament about the keeping of "soccer" than I am about "men's," so if this is the only nation that uses the "men's" qualifier, I would be all right with dropping it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic, it has to be soccer, not football; that's what the sport is called in the US. As to "men's", as Grant says, the US women's soccer team has been and possibly still is the more notable of the two, so the wording "national soccer team" would not unambiguously imply the men's team, as it would in most countries. Therefore by WP:COMMONNAME, "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", and by WP:PRECISION, "don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings", the qualifier "men's" should be included. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia has long since used local variants of English when discussing local features (local politics, sports teams, notable brothels, etc.). I have no idea why we would violate that for this article, even if the Americans don't know their foot from their hands. And as for removing the word "Men's", surely that is bigotry! Nfitz (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Football is called football because it is played on foot as opposed to on horseback. The name came into use several hundred years ago. Take a look at football (soccer) if you don't believe me. So we Americans know our hands from our feet just as well as Aussies, rugby (union and league) players, and Irishmen, thank you very much. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
That is not what we call the sport in the US. Our FA is US Soccer, not US Football. We're also one of the only nations in the world where our women's team is as well known (if not more well known) than our men's team, which is why we have men's and women's in the title. When you thrown in the fact that there is a United States national American football team to boot, (that sport is known as simply "football" in this country), changing the name to your suggestion would be problematic. While I personally would not be opposed to the change, I don't think it would be the right thing to do. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No. The sport is called soccer in the United States. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What they both said. I don't care if calling it a "football team" puts it inline with the other national team articles. That's not the name of the team. The name is the United States Men's National Soccer Team. The overseeing organization is U.S. Soccer. That's their title, their name, their form of address, and that's the name of the sport in the United States. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the opposition to the removal of "Men's" from the title so far seems to be on the grounds of disambiguation and even that the removal would be "bigotry". If this is the case then surely "Men's" should be added to the titles of the (majority of) national team articles that currently don't include it. I personally don't think that this needs to be done, but I'm playing devil's advocate... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you at least in principle, but the thing is, most nations don't have a women's national team that is really that notable. I would say only Germany, Brazil, Norway, China, North Korea, and maybe England are really that notable, along with, of course, the USWNT. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Grant. Most women's national teams aren't nearly as notable as their men's counterpart. Really only China and North Korea come close there. (The other teams you mentioned (Germany, Brazil) being good teams and quite notable, but paling in significance to the men's teams.) faithless (speak) 04:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good point. Okay, so then I think we agree that while technically there are a few more nations that should probably be changed, nobody is banging down the door trying to change them. I really think that the only logical and consistent way to go about this is to change every article to "men's" or "women's," but that's never going to happen. Buc/Bole2/whoever you want to call yourself, if you really want to deal with the inconsistency, I would suggest bringing this up at WT:FOOTY. Please realize the fact that it is a fool's errand to do so, however. Also, you should have done this poll before you tried to move the page unilaterally. As for changing "soccer" to "football," I would have thought someone whose user page shows a picture of themselves wearing a Tampa Bay Buccaneers jersey would understand the ridiculous if not outright antagonistic nature of that suggestion. You really should have known better. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I an fully aware that they call it "soccer" but that's not what the rest of the world call it. Also the sport full name is Association football so that is one way that the confution with American football. Buc (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The rest of the world uses the metric system, but American articles are written using US Customary because thats whats used in the US. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Who cares what the rest of the world calls it? -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)#
Well I and the rest of the world do. I'm guessing you don't though. Buc (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a site just for Amricans, it's for people all over the world. Buc (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, no one else uses "association football," so that would be just as much of an exception, except no one in the US uses the term "association football" so no one would know what that was. Also, "soccer" is an abreviation of "association football," which was created by English prep school children after rugby union was created. They would ask each other "Do you want to play football?" "Sure! Rugger or soccer?" as the fashionable slang at the time was to add "-er" to everything. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What's that got to do with it? The core article is called Association football. Buc (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to England national association football team article, which is conveniently located at England national football team, you dolt. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What it has to do with is that there is no article called Germany national association football team, so why should there be an article called United States national association football team? You're trying to solve a case of "American exceptionalism" by proposing another exception. The only thing that would be consistent would be moving to United States national football team, but that creates a million problems, as illustrated above by myself and numerous others. What I'm saying is that you should be thoroughly beaten with a trout for losing all of your common sense. I really hope that's the case, otherwise you're a troll who's just trying to pick a fight and you should be summarily banned. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No other articles are called "men's soccer team" either. I'm not a troll, I've been on here for over 2 years, if I wanted to "pick a fight" I would have been far more faseeshus. Buc (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you actually bother to read what you respond to? All of the proposals you've chosen would either be exceptions (i.e. no article is at "Germany national association football team" so why should there be one at "United States national association football team") or would be incredibly problematic for the US in particular ("United States national football team," which is currently a disambiguation page for reasons that should be obvious to someone with the picture you have on your user page) or would not accurately disambiguate between the men's and women's team because of the inordinate popularity/notability of the women's team ("United States national soccer team"). If you really wanted to accomplish this you have to provide suggestions that are 1) actually formulaic, otherwise you lose the whole argument as to why it should be moved in the first place or 2) don't cause myriad problems themselves. You're simply either too oblivious to be a valuable member of the project or you simply lost your mind temporarily and should be beaten with a WP:trout until you regain your senses. I'm afraid there are no other possibilities. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think that you are going to convince anyone that changing the word soccer in the title is a good idea, Buc. The WP:COMMONNAME of the sport in the USA is soccer, so you really are fighting a losing battle. I would quit while you are behind if I were you... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, the yanks just live in there own little world don't they. Buc (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I was suggesting. Obviously we can't use "football" as the primary use of this term in America is to refer to the gridiron variety. I wouldn't like to see "association football" as it's a pretty archaic term and not in common usage anywhere in the world, especially America. The fact of the matter is that Americans generally (apart from the anglophiles) refer to this sport as "soccer", so that's what should be in the title. As for "the yanks living in there (sic) own little world" – they're not the only country to primarily use "soccer". Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You (Buc/Bole2/whoever) have a picture on your user page of (presumably) yourself in a Tampa Bay Buccaneers jersey and hat for Christ's sake! You, as an American football fan, more than most in Britain, should be aware of the controversy surrounding the name of the sport in question here in the States. Either that or you are so clueless I'm actually suprised you were able to put your pants on in the morning, let alone access the internet. My guess (and your comment above confirms it) is that you were bored and decided to pick a fight about this for your own amusement, which should be dealt with via liberal application of WP:TROUT and probably a formal warning/block. Please do something useful and stop wasting all of our time. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to bother if your just going to be rude. Buc (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Wasting all of our time with this nonsense was rude. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Monaco flag

I disagree with the argument that putting the flag of Monaco next to AS Monaco is no different than putting the Canadian flag next to Toronto FC or the Welsh flag next to Cardiff. As far as I'm aware, Cardiff and Monaco are members of England and France's associations, respectively. Toronto, on the other hand, is a member of Canada's association, despite playing in the US, as evidenced by their ineligibility to compete in the US Open Cup or qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League via MLS. Based on this, I'd say that players from Cardiff should be labeled by the English flag, Monaco players by the French, and Toronto players by the Canadian flag. This seems logical to me. Che84 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff City are associate members of the FA and full members of the Welsh FA, but that doesn't matter. The way we handle situations like this (at least from what I've seen in every other article involving, Wales/England, Northern Ireland/Ireland, etc.) is that we list the club with the flag from the country it is located in, in this case Monaco. The only situation we would list them with the French (or Welsh, etc.) is if they had qualified for an international competition via that country's competitions. So when Derry City, which is located in Northern Ireland but plays in the Republican league because of security concerns dating back to the Troubles, qualifies for the Champions League, etc. because of their place in the FAI Premier League, they are listed with the Republican flag (which causes some problems with people, but that's the way we do it). Another example would have been if Cardiff City had won the FA Cup and been given a berth in the UEFA Cup, we would have listed them with the English flag. In all other situations (national team rosters, etc.) the flag of the country where the club is located is used. I really hope that made sense just now but I'm seriously in need of sleep. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
AS Monaco have players in 3 other international squads: Congo DR, Uruguay and Croatia. The articles for all three list the players involved as being at a French club. I would take that evidence as showing that the consensus across Wikipedia is that this should be considered a French club. But as this issue involves other articles, I would suggest that the discussion take place at either the AS Monaco talk page, or at WP:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding this at WP:SOCCER and the consensus seems to be to use the French flag. The discussion can be found here. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There was a consensus on this at WP:FOOTY, which discussed the differences between the situations of AS Monaco and Cardiff City. Any wish to change the wikipedia-wide convention of flagging AS Monaco as French should be raised there. Kevin McE (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Why would you raise the French flag next to AS Monaco's name, I know this is a french club but they're located in Monaco, I think the name should be on there along with the flag of where they're located, not what league they're in. Michael (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. The Cardiff situation juxtapposed to this one makes it look like Wales is more important than Monaco. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, there was never a consensus at WT:FOOTY on this issue. Everything was based on OR, so there was no consensus about anything. We need to develop a rationale for flags and exiled teams. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I disagree with your definition of OR: Sources quoted in that discussion include FIFA, the French Football Federation, Weltfussball, and concrete cases involving EU law. Clear differences between the cases of Cardiff and Monaco were explained. As regards the consensus there, the !vote was 6-2 in favour of showing a French flag.
The essence of the issue is that the existence and boundaries of nations are not an exact science (just take a look at the talk pages or revision histories of an article like List of countries). In some contexts, England is not considered to have the status of a country, in others Catalonia is. So we need to have a consistent standard about what list of countries we use in each field of discussion: we don't usually focus on the Englishness of an Olympian, nor on the Britishness of a footballer, because those are not the relevant national descriptors. So for football (soccer) discussions, we use the national level that FIFA recognises: it may seem inconsistent that a Greenlander is considered Danish but a Faroe Islander is of those islands, but that is how FIFA has it, so that is what we do: Jersey is not part of England, but Brett Pitman is shown with an English flag on his club's article, because the Jersey FA is not regarded as a national FA by FIFA. To take an example from another sport, Mark Cavendish is from the Isle of Man, and represents that country in the Commonwealth Games, but on the Team Columbia article, he is correctly regarded as British, because Britain is the appropriate member nation of the UCI. Contributors to the club articles of Rugby Union teams are not all Irish nationalists arguing for a united Ireland, but in such articles, players from all parts of that island are shown as having a shamrock as their national flag (e.g. here), because the relevant body, IRB, has accepted the IRFU as having whole-island jurisdiction, and Wikipedia accepts that, for that sport, as the relevant nationality. Returning to the point in question, AS Monaco are listed with both the French and Monegasque Football Associations, but only one of these is a FIFA member nation, and it's not the one in Monte Carlo. The FAW, on the other hand, with which Cardiff City are registered, are full members of FIFA. Kevin McE (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about it this way. If Cardiff City was to compete in European competitions, they would compete as representatives of Wales, hence why they cannot qualify for Europe via any of the English competitions. They would only have been entered in this season's UEFA Cup as a wildcard if they'd won last season's FA Cup, since English football rules state that they can only enter members of the Football Association in European competition. Therefore, Cardiff City should be (and is) linked with the Welsh flag. AS Monaco, however, as members of the French Football Federation, compete as representatives of France every time they play in the Champions League or UEFA Cup, hence why they should use the French flag. – PeeJay 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Because the FA backed down and agreed with UEFA to nominate Cardiff if they had indeed won the FA Cup they should have been listed with an English flag as a representative from the FA Cup. It is the same reason why we list Derry City with the Republican flag when they qualify for Europe. Even though they are in Northern Ireland, they compete in the FAI Premier League and qualified through that competition. We use the flag of the competition they qualified from, but for all other purposes we use the flag of the country they're from, hence Cardiff City has the Welsh flag on EJ's line because the club is based in Wales, but were they to get to the Prem and qualify for the Champions League, they would be listed as an English team since they qualified through an FA competition. Basically, you have your facts wrong. But that's okay, I buy the whole FIFA doesn't recognize Monaco thing, mainly since I'm the one who brought it up. One last question: would a Monegasque citizen be eligible for the French national team? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Are we finally settled on the uses of flags? Does anyone else have any concerns for any of the previously discussed clubs - Monaco, Cardiff City, Derry City etc.? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I just said, I would feel better if there was some sort of uniform policy involving exiled clubs that was posted somewhere, but whatever. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There isn't any talk on this page, but it might be a good talk page to use for such a purpose at football clubs playing in the league of another country. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympics medals

The medals table lists a silver and a bronze in 1904. At the bottom of the article under "International Honors," it states a silver medal in 1904 and a bronze in 1896.

In 1896, the sport was introduced and I don't believe medals were awarded. What is the route to take with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withoutthee (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Section headings and meaning of the word Squad

I note the conversation above, (Section #Squad listing), and I get the impression that there might be an Engvar issue here. I raise no doubt but that US English is appropriate for this article, but I would also suggest that there should be consideration of consistency with other articles of this type. In UK English, Squad applies to the group of players from which a team is selected. It starts of simply as the group told by the manager/coach that they might be called up, and gradually narrows down through training camps and honed selection, and ends op with the matchday squad of the starting XI plus substitutes. I am not sure at what stage the US English word roster becomes, or ceases to be, appropriate. Of course, squad can be qualified (provisional squad, training squad, final squad for a tournament, matchday squad), but the place for such qualification, and specifics of the match(es) for which a squad has been named, belongs in the text, not in the section heading, as is done in the vast majority of nft articles. Section headings are not appropriate for use as "breaking news headlines". Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that the way the header is being used is to "break news," it is being as specific as possible to allow for the fact that Tim Howard is considered to be a member of the current US squad, regardless of whether he is released back to Everton if/when the US secure qualification for the Hex against Cuba. Because of this, I don't think it is inappropriate for there to be a subheader right after the "Current Squad" header, in order to denote the specifics of the squad being listed, just like how it is done for the "History" section, where there is a subheading for the first topic in the section. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Precisely: Tim Howard is part of the Current squad. Why then is there a need for a sub-heading between the "Current Squad" heading and the listing of that squad? I do not believe that it is proper use of subheadings for them to be written such that they need to be changed every time the content of that subsection changes, nor for them to simply be a summary of the line that immediately follows them. I would suggest that consistency with the other national football/soccer teams articles is more important than conformity to previous presentations of this page, which readers will not normally see. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If people come to the page and look at the ToC they will be easily able to see that there is a squad named for the upcoming or recently played game and can more easily find it within the article. There is simply no need for the information not to be presented in this way. Just because a bunch of other pages don't do it this way, is not a good enough reason not to attempt to innovate. I think that this article is head and shoulders above most of the other national team articles in presentation, ease of use, and detailed information. In other words, I think more articles should look like this one, not the other way around. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If a reader looks at the ToC that I would suggest, they will see the words "Current Squad", and therefore will be able to navigate to the current squad: your preferred subheading is entirely redundant in enabling that. If you think that there is a fundamental fault in the way nft articles are presented, bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams or its parent project: your preference is not consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the England national football team article. The squad is not presented in the way it is in 90% of articles. Deal with something as big as that before dealing with something as small as a subheading. Either way, the page has been this way for several months entirely without objection. You must build consensus to change it, not the other way around. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Monaco flag icon

If Cardiff City has a Welsh flag even though they play in an English league, and Toronto has a Canadian flag even though they play in an American league, shouldn't AS Monaco have a Monagesque flag icon rather than a French flag? Charles 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, AS Monaco FC, where Adu plays, are members of the French Football Federation. In any and all football competitions they represent the FFF. Toronto FC plays in the MLS and they're the only team in the league from outside the United States, but MLS isn't an "American league" even though it's based in the United States. Toronto FC is not eligible to compete for the U.S. Open Cup because they are not members in any way, shape, or fashion of the United States Soccer Federation. On the other hand, Cardiff City F.C., although they are associate members of the English FA and play in the English league system, are actually members in full standing of the Welsh FA. Historically, their primary means for qualifying for any European competitions was through winning the Welsh Cup, whose winner qualifies for the UEFA Cup. However, in recent years it's become an issue in England as to whether or not Cardiff is eligible to qualify for European competition via the English system. In 2008 they almost won the FA Cup; you can read about it here on Cardiff's WP page. If Cardiff City were to win their way into a Euro competition such as the UEFA Cup or the Champions League via winning the FA Cup or a strong finish in the English Premier League, respectively, they would be representing England and in those competitions, and in those instances only would an English flag be placed next to the club's name. I hope that explanation is concise and satisfactory. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've said, except that MLS is not an American league. It is clearly affiliated with U.S. Soccer, but Toronto FC is affiliated with the CSA. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, we use the Welsh flag for Cardiff City, though they are members (of whatever stripe) of the FA. That rule should then apply to Monaco, except the Monegasque FA is not a member of FIFA or UEFA. That has to be the reason we use the French flag and not the Monegasque one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for clarifying that the Monegasque Football Federation is not even a member of FIFA or UEFA. For those who are interested - no one has even bothered to create a WP page for them. As such the Monaco national football team don't compete in any UEFA or FIFA events. See also: NF-Board and Viva World Cup. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Current squad box

I've changed the table for the squad listing to one that is used in most other national team pages (and is actually used on this page for recent call-ups). A couple notes:
1. There is no column for numbers. You can easily add it, obviously, but I don't feel it is needed because numbers for the national team change often and aren't even announced until a specific match. Therefore that column would be empty most of the time.
2. I took off the Debut column. I'd actually like to have this, but I couldn't for the life of me find any decent resource to determine the debuts of most squad members. It would have just been a pain in the ass to do. If you want to add them, go for it. Charles 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The format used in this article (until you unilaterally changed it, of course) is the one used in squad articles for tournaments, as well as the one used in the majority of the national team articles (England excluded, again, of course). Thanks for stopping by to let us know, by the way, that was really wonderful of you. Squad numbers are important, and for major tournaments are assigned for the length of the tournament. Since the USMNT plays in many, many tournaments (Gold Cup, Copa America, Confederations Cup, World Cup - compared to England, which play in the odd one, when they're good enough to qualify, that is) the format has quite useful information in it. Also, the format is more appealing to the eye, and displays the information in a much less cluttered way than simply using a wikitable. The only reason it makes sense to use one for the recent squad is that it A) more easily denotes that these players are not part of the current squad, and B) allows us to show when the last time the players were part of a matchday squad. Either way, please do us the courtesy of having the debate about whether to change formats before you go about changing them based on your own personal preference. This article is trying to be slightly better than the majority of national football team articles, which are quite cluttered, poorly layed-out, and not well updated. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess instead of just saying, "thanks but no thanks, here are the reasons why" when someone makes an edit you don't like, you exclaim "OH NO WHO DARE STRAY INTO MY DOMINION" and write a paragraph in your "condescendingly bitter" persona. Listen: the next time someone makes a change you disagree with, revert it, explain why as if you were addressing a human being, and then remember that you are an adult regardless of whether or not you act like one.
By the way: you don't own this article. Take a seat, that may be shocking for you to hear. Charles 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's another addendum: since you can easily add a Numbers column to the Wikitable, I'd argue that the only question is which one is more appealing to the eye. Since the Wikitable divides the squad into positions, it is my opinion that it is a more easily readable way to organize the squad list. So if you want to show me the discussion where it was agreed not to use a Wikitable, I will gladly go on my way. Otherwise I would say we need to put it up for a vote. Charles 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's calm down now. Grant, you do a great job of keeping this page organized and updated, but there's no need to flip out and be so smarmy when someone makes an edit you don't like. It's unprofessional and disrepectful, it's makes you look bad, and it's against the core principles of WP users. Also, making fun of the English team is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and it's a topic better reserved for message boards. That said, I agree with Grant that the format we already had here is better than the table in regards to the active/most recent squad. I'm in favor of putting this up for a vote or for suggestions on other ways it could possibly be improved rather than fighting or having an edit war. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) User:Grant.Alpaugh was unnecessarily incivil in his reply to you, but he is right that there is strong consensus for using the {{nat fs player}} etc. templates for squad lists, and there really is no compelling reason for this article to be different from several hundred other ones. If you like to see the table divided by position, take a look at how it was done—using the standard templates—on Mexico national football team#Current Squad. Would that be acceptable to both of you? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in an edit war, which is why I haven't made any further edits. I was looking at the FIFA rankings earlier and the articles for the first three teams all used a wikitable. After he reverted it I looked back at many more articles and it's obvious now that more use the squad list, which is fine with me. I do like the list divided by position as it is done on the Mexican list, and I believe also on the Netherlands article.
Grant does do a lot of work on this article, I've noticed that before, but it still does not give him the right to act as if he owned it. I easily could have made a major change to the article and not mentioned it on the talk page, and specifically did so in case someone opposed it. Charles 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I want to apologize for being a dick. I was having a bad day at work and blew off some steam at you, but that is no excuse for my behavior. That being said, there was no excuse for yours, either. You should have brought something like this up on the talk page, especially since you were patently wrong about your format being used in "most other national team pages." And the idea that you were somehow being generous in dropping by the talk page after making the change is preposterous. You don't get brownie points for engaging in the consensus building process for the same reason we don't give medals to people for not robbing banks. You shouldn't get extra credit for something you should have done in the first place. I have to disagree with segmenting the squad after there are numbers listed, however, because positions are often fluid on a football field, so something that doesn't change (like numbers) to sort the squad makes things much more encyclopedic. Finally, I appreciate the kind words about my work on the article. That appreciation makes the hours of updates to American soccer articles worth it. That being said, I have to take issue of my "ownership of the article." Not once in my previous comments did I justify my objection to the new format by saying that since I make a lot of edits it should be my way or the highway, nor did I ever say that suggestions or edits would be unwelcome. All I said was that you can't up and change the format of a major section of the article without having a discussion about it first. I would also remind people that making frivolous allegations of that kind can constitute a personal attack. Again, I'm sorry for the tone of my response, but procedure should be followed by everyone, not just me. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no "procedure" that mandates talk page discussion prior to edits like that. In my eyes, User:Eightball's changes were a typical instance of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. He had to have known that it was going to be a contentious edit, otherwise he wouldn't have felt it necessary to justify himself on the talk page. If he had done so he would have found that the premise of his change was flawed from the start, (thinking that he was bring the page in line with a non-existent consensus or policy) and he would actually have learned he was doing the exact opposite. That way he wouldn't have wasted a bunch of time messing with code only to have his change reverted. That was all I was trying to say. I honestly didn't mean this personally, nor did I intend to make this a big thing. I blew up at him, I apologize. I'll try to keep my temper in better check next time. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I justified myself because the table I based mine off of was from the Spain national team article, and that one had columns for numbers and debuts. Since numbers aren't out yet and I couldn't find debuts, I felt it necessary to explain why I removed those just so my edits wouldn't be reverted by someone who only objected to those changes (sometimes you make the time to make a major edit only to have it reverted because you made a grammatical error or something minor). I have no problem with keeping it the way it is as long as that is the consensus; I'd still like to see it divided by positions because that is more useful in my eyes, but if no one else agrees I'm not going to be a stickler for it. Actually, right now I'd just like an answer to my Monaco question that I asked before this one, I'm still a little curious about that (I read the other discussion, it came to no conclusion, so I mentioned it again). Charles 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The Monegasque FA is not a member of FIFA. That is the simplest explanation that makes it so that we don't have the change thousands of articles about French footballers. It can't be that they are playing in the French league, because obviously we've got EJ playing at Cardiff City, a Welsh team in the English league, and there are many other examples. I really don't know what else to tell you, but the bottom line is that it would be a ridiculous task to change everyone's article, and we have to keep things consistent across the encyclopedia as much as possible. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Stadium abbreviation

I abbreviated the name of Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium for two reasons.

  1. No one calls it by its full name, mostly referred to just as "RFK Stadium." I still kept the full name as its link.
  2. By shortening the length of the name in the table it helps narrow the overall table, allowing it to better fit into some user's browsers. I have my resolution width set fairly high, but most people like their text larger for readability's sake. There may not be a MoS rule directly stating that criteria as a priority, but the first sentence on Wikipedia:Accessibility says that readability and easy navigation is a priority.

I'm not dead set on the change. I just thought that it makes sense. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I only reverted because I thought it was odd that this was the only stadium in the article with its name shortened. Obviously the full name is rather long, so if you want to revert it, be my guest. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"POV" in section headings

It is pretty hard to argue that the 2006 World Cup was a failure for the USMNT. The actual text of the article, which you don't dispute, says as much. There's simply no reason why the section heading can't refer to it as such. You would have to be pretty thick to think that the heading means that the tournament was a failure for every team in the group. I don't think it is POV to have the article refer to time periods, tournaments, etc. from the perspective of the USMNT. The 1970s-1980s were a rough period for U.S. Soccer, but was a golden age for the Dutch, Argentines, etc. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't say that the 70s and 80s were rough for the U.S. I think you are taking way too narrowly the concept of NPOV. The headings as I wrote them are pretty objective, and accurately reflect the overwhelming consensus of opinion on the periods in question. As for the final section, I simply think that it is more accurate to refer to the heading as being about more than simply the 2010 World Cup preperations. It is/was about the 2007 Gold Cup, the 2007 Copa America, the 2009 Confederations Cup, the 2009 Gold Cup, and so much more. I just think that there is nothing wrong with the headings as I have them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You frequently seem to justify your edits on the basis of what you decide that you like, even declaring in edit notes that a consensus on this talk page is not valid because you "changed your mind". Everything in Wikipedia is bound by the principles of Wikipedia, which include the notion that you cannot claim that biased statements here are justified by the evidence of bias on other pages, the principle that pages are open to being changed, and maybe even improved, by other editors, and the absolute rule that all material must be neutral. It also makes it incumbent on all editors to treat others with civility, and so I would ask you not to use phrases like "You would have to be pretty thick". You undoubtedly contribute some good factual information, but you also seem to have a determination to add, and retain, journalistic phrasing and subheadings, that do not distinguish between objective facts (success or failure) and subjective responses (joy or disappointment), and which are not suitable to an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You obviously don't seem to understand that if outside consensus about something is a certain way, then according to WP that is an unbiased consensus. Find me a single source saying that the 2006 World Cup was not a disappointment for the USMNT, the subject of this article, and I will gladly concede my point. Again, you would have to be of below average intelligence to construe from my heading that the 2006 World Cup was a failure for all of the teams in the United States' group, and I don't mean that as an insult to you, I mean it as in it doesn't pass the sniff test. I don't think there's anything wrong with section headings referring to a team's golden years, or disaster periods, and if you do, then I suggest you do some looking around the encyclopedia some more. As for the second heading, it is also pretty clear that the Bradley era hasn't been just about the 2010 World Cup. I'm sorry, but I think there are simply too many flaws in your logic, and if I didn't think that I would not be disagreeing with you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested to see the Wiki policy statement that backs up your first assertion here. You still have not addressed the issue of subjectivity and journalistic style. Your continued suggestion that I should direct my attention to other articles is a total red herring. No editor is going to be able to take responsibility for every article: like any other editor, I will try to address what I see to be shortcomings on the tiny proportion of the encyclopaedia that I have on my watchlist. And my role, like any other editor, is to try to make those pages conform as well as possible to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I believe that this article is a long way from that: it has much that is journalistic, informal, POV, heavily biased towards recent events, and unreferenced, and it makes little effort to conform to the pattern of other national football team articles. There are vast edits I would be inclined to make on this article, but your refusal to allow any other editor to make substantive change to the page, while considering your own preference to be of absolute authority (to judge by your edit notes) renders this impractical for me or any other editor. If you genuinely believe this to be the paradigm of what an national football team article should be, I would challenge you to submit it for peer review: if you are unwilling to do so, then be willing to drop your defensiveness of the status quo. Kevin McE (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Where have I stopped you from making substantive changes to the article? The only changes you made are problematic in the following ways:
1) you've taken issue with 2 of a dozen headings, while ignoring the others, if you were serious about improving the article, roll up your sleeves and get to it (that's what I did, it took hours),
2) you are arguing that the article can in no way refer to time periods, tournaments, etc. as successes and failures in relation to the article's subject, despite the "editorializing" accurately reflected the overwhelming consensus of the outside world on the time period, and
3) you ignore the undesputible fact that there is more involved in Bob Bradley's reign than simply 2010.
The only other editor so far to comment on this issue, agrees that there is nothing substantially wrong with the article as it was, and it should be reverted unless you gain further support. I sincerely hope that you do help improve the content of the article, but do so in a way that is not peicemeal, grammatically correct (there should be a "the" before 2010 World Cup if you are putting it in any sort of phrace, i.e. not all by itself), and not combative. There is more that I could say, but I'll wait to hear what you have to say about this before getting into that (I mean to quarrel with the characterization of the article as "journalistic, informal, POV, heavily biased towards recent events, and unreferenced, and it makes little effort to conform to the pattern of other national football team articles"). -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
For the third time, my objection is to subjective language, not objective language (to "disappointment", not "success".
This is not the only time editors have expressed concern over your attitude that suggests that you believe you have a right of veto over a range of articles.
As I have already stated, I would be minded to make severe and extensive changes to this article, but even beginning to change a couple of minor issues elicits extreme defensiveness from you.
As to the accusations that you wish to reject, look at a range of other nft articles.
I am going to be away for the next few days, so I will not continue this dialogue further, but I would again challenge you to either propose this for peer review, or back off and let this be the wiki community's article, and not your personal fiefdom. Kevin McE (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Right, and what I'm trying to say is that the statements are as close to objectivity as possible. Seriously, find me anyone who thinks the 06 WC was not a disappointment for the US, and I will gladly concede the point. The simple fact is that you can't, and the fact that you continue to push this point despite the fact that you surely know I'm right about it being a disappointment is a violation of WP:POINT. I've read a lot of the national team articles, and most of them are garbage. They are formatted poorly, have a vast variation in tone and content, tables are all over the place, and with ridiculous colors that make them impossible to read. I submit to you that if this is the most eggregious violator in your opinion of the several criterion you outlined above, surely you are having a laugh. What fries me further is that you've only chosen these two things to take issue with, rather than actually trying to improve the article from its sorry state, as you suggest. It's not like if you make changes and they are reverted they disappear forver. If you are really right about the condition of the article, make your improvements, and surely they will rise to the top. It's really easy to say that you would improve the article "if only I'd let you," but there's simply nothing I can or would do to prevent you from making actual improvements to the article. If you're not willing to do that, then please leave it alone. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In this instance I believe that a heading referencing American disappointment in '06 would be valid because it accurately reflects the team's results. After the US turned in their best-ever modern-era performance in '02 the '06 WC was a letdown. In the same way the subheadings about the teams in the 80s reflect disappointment so can the modern ones -- there the actual results were different but there was just a difference in expectations. Although I do think that "Darkest before the dawn" is a bit over the top. I'd also have to say that the Post '06 WC era, including the hiring of Bradley, is more about the future as a whole than simply about 2010. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Disappointment" does not reflect results, it describes a response to results: a response that is, by its very nature, subjective. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
By all means I'd love to see different language. I rewrote the article and then lost it by clicking the wrong thing, so I was rewriting it for the second time in a day, which took forever. I agree the language is over the top, so if you want to make improvements in the language I'd be more than happy with that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify, because your edit notes are contradictory. Is it your contention that it is OK (or even desirable) to write this article from a US perspective, because of its subject matter, or is your position that there is no more objective phrasing than disappointing that can be applied to the US performance in 2006? Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My contention is twofold - I believe that there is nothing wrong with referring to tournaments from the perpective of the subject of the article. Obviously the perspective on the "Hand of God game" is different in the England and Argentina articles because for the England national football team the game was a disappointment, and for the Argentina national football team it was a tremendous triumph. There's simply nothing wrong with that, and to overlook the relative successes and failures with regards to the team would be folly. Secondly - I have no problem with declaring a timeperiod or tournament as an upset or disappointment if the overwhelming outside consensus is one way or the other. As has been said by two people in this particular thread, after the best finish in modern WC history at the 2002 WC in Korea/Japan, crashing out of the group stage after going winless in Germany was as close to an objective disappointment as there can be. Chelsea had a pretty objectively frustrating season last year, finishing 2nd in three competitions, and Hull City are having a fantastic season this year after being firmly in the top half a third of the way through the season. If it were Hull City finishing second in the Prem and getting to the Carling Cup and Champions League finals, and Chelsea outside the European spots, the reactions to those happenings would be different. That is because the relative expectations of the two clubs are vastly different. To not understand that is bafoonish. Being unbiased doesn't mean that the coverage of everything is exactly the same, it just means that the attitude toward events shouldn't be unjustifiably altered by prejudice. There are plenty of good reasons to describe the 2006 World Cup as a disappointment from the U.S. perspective, and it will take more than typing in ALLCAPS in some edit summaries to overcome that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
We obviously differ in our understanding of the word "objective". Frustration is a reaction of one party to a situation. Because it is one party's reaction, it is subjective. Objective frustration, or objective disappointment, is an oxymoron. A subjective statement to say that a team fell short of expectation is perfectly possible: a subjective reference to disappointment in one team's performance in a competitive event is not. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You are arguing semantics. And you would be hard pressed to find one other person to agree with you. It is as close to fact as one can get to say that the 2006 World Cup was a disappointment for the USMNT. Since this article is about the USMNT, I think that it is more than acceptibly implied that when the heading says "2006 World Cup: disappointment" we are referring to the USMNT's performance, and not the tournament as a whole (obviously Italy's assessment of the tournament would be rather different). -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is also wrong pertaining to the concept of frustration being subjective. While I generally agree with your premise, if the overwhelming consensus about an event is one way, that is as good as fact for the purposes of WP. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:US Soccer logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WC 1930

If anyone can find any evidence in this link that says that anyone regards USA vs BEL occurred before FRA vs MEX, please draw my attention to it, because I can't see it for the life of me. If, on the other hand, it is not there, I will await an apology from the editor who has twice asserted that it is, despite the clear statement at fact 2 here to the contrary. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently withdrawing an unjustified claim of evidence is now described as a "show of good faith" Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not ceding the issue, I'm simply trying to compromise in order to keep this from going another 10 rounds. You are an exceedingly petty editor, and one with a tenuous grasp on the concept of NPOV, judging from your edit summaries. I'm just trying to keep this from becoming an edit war. Also, disagreeing with you isn't something I intend to apologize for, and your asking is what provoked the charges of being petty. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You stated twice that the first link I give in this thread says that the USA game is recognised as have been prior to the other. This is plainly not so. I don't expect an apology for the fact that we disagree, but I know that if somebody pointed out that I was repeatedly making a false claim about the content of a source (although I would read a source before I refer to it), I would apologise for that error. If there is evidence that FIFA say the USA game was uniquely the first, that's fine and should be posted, but a source that does not give evidence cannot be defended. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Claims with sources that contradict the claim

Would anybody like to explain how this statement: "One of the hallmarks of Bradley's tenure as national team manager has been his willingness to cap a large number of players, many of whom for the very first time. This practice has been praised by those wanting to see a more diverse player pool for the national team, as well as criticized by those hoping for more concistency and leadership from core players" is supported by this source? The very title of the cited article "Bob Bradley’s US Squad Stale and Predictable" should make clear that it does not sustain the assertion that the defining aspect of his tenure has been experimental new caps. Kevin McE (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More than 7 weeks on, no-one has tried to defend the contradiction, so I will delete the paragraph in question. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for assuming that rather than just look at the headline, you would actually bother to look at the source in the seven weeks you mentioned. If you had, you would have found that the article talks about how in the first year of his tenure he capped no fewer than 80 players, but has since settled on a much more stable group of players, many of whom he capped in that first year. In the opinion of the author, this is unacceptable, but it is reasonable, I think, to question the validity of the criticism based on the reasonable assumption that there is not an infinite pool of potential players and trying to cap 80 players every year leads only to inconsistency. Hopefully this settles the issue, as the part I am most concerned with is showing that when he first started as manager he gave a bunch of players a shot, many for the very first time. Please worry about your own national team's article, which for reasons I can't imagine, still doesn't use the near universal template for listing the roster. It appears to do so so that the vital information of what the date and opponent of the player's first cap can still be included, for if lost, the article would clearly suffer. Deal with that, then nitpick this article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't you dare assume to tell any editor what articles they have permission to revise. Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll do so as long as you bother to actually read sources that you claim to have a problem with. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that that comment makes any sense at all: If I read sources you will continue to make arrogant pronouncements about what articles editors can work on. Hmmm. And this from the man who several times insisted that this link proves that the USA match was prior to the France vs Mexico game. Incidentally, my "own national team's article" uses exactly the same template for the squad as the US one. Kevin McE (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, stop the personal attacks. No on wants to create a bad or misleading article so don't forget to assume good faith. You can't tell other people what they can and cannot edit. No one owns this article. Having editors from outside the United States can provide a different perspective on the team and the management's strategies. Nor can you site disagreements or errors made on other articles as reasons to discount someone here. Ad hominem is not a valid method of argument. I read the article, and although the title of the article is negative, it both praises and criticizes Bradley's strategy. First, it criticizes him for settling on the wrong set of players now that his player pool has been narrowed down. Second, it praises him for using a diverse pool and capping many players in his first year as manager. Lastly, it suggests a few players that the writer would like to see suited up. I believe that this is a viable citation for the given statement in the WP article, but more citations would be preferred. To say that many people criticize and support his strategy should require multiple citations that would fit both opinions. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Ching

According to the upcoming roster on ussoccer Ching has 32 caps and 10 goals, but we only have 31 and 9 listed. I've tried some searches, though I'm not sure what we're missing. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just went back through the records, and here is what I found. Since there are no complete rosters for 2003 on the U.S. Soccer website, I have to take as granted that Ching made his debut against Wales in 2003 and came on for the last 16 minutes, because that's what the 2003 stats say he played: 1 cap, 16 mins, 0 goals. From there we have full lineups for 2004-2008 and counting them all leads to a total of 31 caps, 9 goals. Also, if you go back to the press release leading up to the second Cuba match, they correctly list Ching as having 30 caps, 8 goals. Since he played and scored in that match, but wasn't even in the squad for the Trinidad and Tobago game (the USMNT's last game), we have to assume that they simply double updated the stats for the Cuba game, made a typo, or something. This is the only one to deviate from the correct count. The national team did something similar with Brad Guzan before his move to Aston Villa, and added a ghost cap to his records (maybe to help him get a work permit, no?) and then caught the mistake, because when I went back through the records again months later, they were correct. I think that at this point it is best to chalk it up as an administrative error on their part, not ours, especially since we've been double checking our counts before this match and this was the first discrepancy we've found in a while. Either way, I don't think we should be required to fall in line with a typo in a press release. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That explanation is quite good enough for me! :) Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nats" as a nickname... again?

People, we had this discussion almost a year ago. No new edit wars, please. The previous discussion has still not been archived, and it is available at the top of this page. If the prior discussion was unsatisfactory then please state why we need to have it again. I was not participating at the time of the last discussion. In review, in the previous discussion 4 users were in favor and 2 were opposed, and it appears that for the past year the term "Nats" has not been used in the infobox as a nickname. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in starting an argument about this, as I really don't care, but I have to throw my two cents in. In the previous discussion I provided source after source after source showing the Nats is a nickname of the U.S. soccer team. If you don't like it (not you, JohnnyPolo24, just a general "you"), tough. I agree, it's a stupid nickname, but that's completely irrelevant. People, you need to leave your personal opinions at the door when editing Wikipedia. We include what other people have said, not what we think. ESPN, The Press-Enterprise, Fox Sports and more seem to think it's a nickname...how can anyone here possibly say it isn't?
There are two legitimate arguments (that I can think of) not to include it. First, it's not specific to the U.S. team; here the Atlanta Journal-Constitution refers to the German team as the Nats. (Though this is similar to Seleção, which, though it usually refers to Brazil, is also used in other countries.) Second, we have to ask ourselves if it is a common enough nickname to warrant inclusion. But to say that it isn't a nickname is simply absurd. faithless (speak) 17:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the citations provided by other users I'd have to agree with those who say that "Nats" is a commonly used nickname. It is used on by soccer-specific and mainstream sports publications, illustrated by the many sources provided in the above discussion. Although not everyone uses the nickname, it appears to be used in many places. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Club Names

We need to stop the edit war on the roster section. Most, if not all, of the foreign clubs were listed in their short form here until recently. Since there seems to be a resistance to change then I believe that anyone who wishes to use use the longer, official clubs names should make that case through discussion before we make the change. Shorter names were the consensus for a long time, and most club page titles are in the shorter forms, which proves an even stronger consensus for shortened or anglicized club names. Examples of short page titles include Standard Liège, FC Bayern Munich, Hannover 96, and PSV Eindhoven, which are used rather than the longer titles of Royal Standard de Liège, FC Bayern München e. V., Hannoverscher Sportverein von 1896, or Philips Sport Vereniging NV, respectively. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is the wanton, inconsistent standard used. I think that there is simply no reason to have Sevilla and Munich in the same encyclopedia, but I'm not arguing for the moving of articles, especially on the big European club pages. What I am saying, however, is that if we would list a player as playing for Real Madrid, we should list Gooch as playing for Royal Standard de Liege, so as not to be inconsistent. If Bayer 04 Leverkusen exists, why shouldn't it be Borussia 1900 Moenchengladbach? Because things like "Which name is used more" are often entirely subjective standards, I think that the only objective way to proceed is to use the full name, excepting for the nearly universal removal of abbreviations of Football/Sports/Athletic/Cultural/etc. Club up to and including things like e.V. Anything less is unencyclopedic in my opinion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that clubs have full names (e.g. TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen e. V.), names which we use to title their articles (e.g. Bayer 04 Leverkusen) and short names, which are commonly used in speech (e.g. Bayer Leverkusen). You can't standardise the shortening of club names as the "rules" are different for each club, but you can refer to each individual club consistently by a short name. The names that I have tried adding to this page are examples of the short names that are commonly used (as opposed to their article names, which are often different to the short names in order to avoid naming conflicts with other clubs or even the town that the club is from). – PeeJay 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Standard Liege for example is the common name, Real Madrid is the common name, just because 1 year after it was formed there came another Madrid club. If Real Madrid was the only big club called Madrid I'm guessing its common name would have been Madrid (perhaps they wouldn't have added the Real). We have the common name/English website rule, and it works the best in most cases. — CHANDLER#10 — 16:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The "commonly used" rule is so problematic with regard to club names because it is a property that is often in flux. It might be the best available option with regard to other subjects, but in football we have officially registered club names that are accessible, and we should use them if for no other reason than they are exact (they also have the added bonus of being correct, but that, aparently, is a trifling matter). It is simply unencyclopedic to expect Spanish names to be used when German ones cannot be. It is a uniquely British attitude toward language, and it is one that creates a number of problems, to say nothing of the inherent inaccuracy it introduces to the situation. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
So, instead of using names that are in common usage, you've decided to use names that aren't in common usage? I'm fairly certain that goes against WP:COMMONNAME. – PeeJay 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is further information on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and, move obviously, Wikipedia:Naming convention#Sports teams that back up the WP:COMMONNAME assertion. There is no need to use names that far less readers would recognize when there are far more accessible names available. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I applied the "Google News search result" rule from Wikipedia:Naming convention#Sports teams. I ran my searches immediately preceding the posting of this comment. My Google News "Advanced news search" setting is set to sort by relevance; my "Preferences" are set to prefer pages written in English, moderate SafeSearch Filtering, and 100 results per page. I put each search result in quotations so as to exclude hits that have the words/numbers anywhere in the article. Results:
  1. Hannover 96 - 565; Hannoverscher von 1896 - 0
  2. Standard Liège - 745; Royal Standard de Liège - 1
  3. Mönchengladbach - 5,778; Borussia Mönchengladbach - 3,419; Borussia 1900 Mönchengladbach - 0 : the difference between those that include "Borussia" and those that do not is lesser than the number of hits that the club gets with the name included.
  4. Bayern Munich - 5,570; Bayern München - 9,787 : Only the first 25 hits "Bayern München" were in English, and the rest were all clearly not in English. There were another 10+ pages of 100 news hits per page full of German-language news articles. Also, "Munich" is also the standard English-language spelling for the German city.
On a related note, "Calcio" is simply the Italian word for "football" so it falls under the same umbrella as clubs with F.C., S.C., etc. attatched to their names. Therefore "Brescia" is fine on its own since it is also the standard name for the club. It is referred to as such in places such as Template:Serie B teamlist, Serie A and B, and Lega Pro Prima Divisione. Unless a club is most commonly referred to with the Calcio attatched then it should also be omitted. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem that I have is that these standards are enforced arbitrarily. You could make a case for Hibernian only being referred to as Hibs, Tottenham Hotspur only referred to as Spurs, and Queens Park Rangers only appearing as QPR. These standards also change, which creates problems as this encyclpedia becomes more than just a few years old. The only standard that is universal is the club's actual name. Another major problem is that British media sources are notorious for not referring to things correctly. I point no further than the FIFA Club World Cup, which until Manchester United won it was not given the privilage of being referred to by its correct name, and was instead referred to as the World Club Cup, the Club World Championship, the World Club Championship, and any number of other ridiculous permutations. This extends into club names as well, like with Sporting Club de Portugal, which is known far better in the English world as Sporting Lisbon, despite the word "Lisbon" appearing nowhere in the club's name, and the club disliking the fact that it is referred to incorrectly. It is precisely for this reason that we have to refer to Stade Rennais as just that, instead of Rennes, in order to maintain consistency and accuracy. We should either include things like "Real" in all languages or in none. The same goes with years, and prepositions like "de," and on and on. The only standard that doesn't create these problems is using the actual name of the club, and proceding accordingly. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that I'm not asking for page moves, so the COMMONNAME argument doesn't apply. We can pipe links however we want. And also, to be clear, your convention for referring to Bayern as "Bayern Munich" requires Sevilla to be referred to as "Seville," which I've gotten no answer to. I guess what I'm arguing is that there are two different standards, one refers to the city, which might very well have different names across all languages, but the actual club(s) we're talking about have just one name. This is similar to how we wouldn't refer to Jose Mourinho as Joseph Mourinho, even though the name "Jose" clearly has an English equivalent, "Joseph". -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Grant, what don't you get about this? This is the English language Wikipedia. We use the English names. If you truly believe that Bayern Munich should be written as Bayern Munchen, why don't you move the article? While you're at it, move Germany to Deutschland, Italy to Italia, Mexico City to Ciudad de Mexico and Beijing to 北京市. Again I ask, has it occurred to you that it is the other articles which need to be fixed (that is, translated to their English names)? This is really getting old, and consensus seems pretty clear. Please stop the edit-warring. faithless (speak) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Cause I'm not arguing about page moves, I'm arguing about piping the links. Again, this is like translating Jose Mourinho to Joseph Mourinho or Sevilla to Seville. The city might have multiple names, but not the club. COMMONNAME has nothing to do with what I'm arguing. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The Seville-based club that takes the city's name is near-universally referred to "Sevilla" in the English-language sporting press. The more successful of the Munich-based clubs is universally referred to in English as Bayern Munich. Putting "Bavarian Munich" is frankly ridiculous, as it is not a name used in any language. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion and edit-warring is getting rediculous. Grant, you haven't provided a stronger argument, and WP policy is not on the side of your argument. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you don't like the way that the British media uses language or conducts itself; that's irrelevant here. Don't pointlessly edit and translate this article -- [[Hannover 96|Hannoverscher von 1896]] , [[Standard Liège|Royal Standard de Liège]], [[Borussia Mönchengladbach|Prussia 1900 Mönchengladbach]], [[FC Bayern Munich|Bavarian Munich]], [[Villarreal C.F.|King's-Town]] -- just to "prove a point" that you have yet to prove through discussion. This is the English-language WP, and the language used therein should be that which is most commonly used by anglophones. You are the only one who wants to edit in this fashion, and that fact further proves that you are in opposition of consensus. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, firstly there need to be a number of clarifications. WP:COMMONNAME only has to do with where we place pages in the encyclopedia, i.e. the article titles. There is simply no policy regarding how we refer to or link to articles, which is clearly logical as we can refer to Jermain Defoe's new club as being Spurs, and his old club as Pompey, as long as we have established earlier which clubs we are talking about. That being said, There is simply no standard for how we must link to articles. As this is the case, I am suggesting that we use the correct, native name of the club in question, removing only those parts which refer to Club, Football Club, Sports Club, Social Club, etc. in all of the various forms. Translating the club names to English would require translating "Bayern" to "Bavarian" and "Borussia" to "Prussia" and "Villarreal" to "King's-Town." Since obviously this is ridiculous, why don't we just use the club's (wait for it) actual freaking name. This is exactly like referring to Jose Mourinho as Joseph Mourinho because the generic name "Jose" has an English equivalent "Joseph." If anyone would like to argue the actual merits of my point, rather than quoting policy that they clearly misunderstand and does not apply, please be my guest. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Grant, this utterly absurd crusade of yours is making you a laughing stock, damaging your previously good reputation, and creating a new reputation for you as a short-sighted, obtuse troublemaker. If you can point me to one single English language soccer source where Villarreal is referred to as "Kings Town", or where Jose Mourinho is referred to as "Joseph Mourinho", and where the article is a serious journalistic piece and not a joke, then I will concede that there are points of precedent. However, as I am certain that you will not be able to do this, then you simply need to stop. The reason Bayern Munich needs to be used in the English language version of Wikipedia is because 99.99% of the English language soccer press uses that name when referring to the club which, in German, is called Bayern Munchen. Is it an inconsistent, badly translated mongrel name? Yes, it is. But despite this, IT REMAINS THE CORRECT COMMON NAME FOR THE CLUB IN ENGLISH, and therefore HAS to be used - doing otherewise will confuse casual readers, and undermine the integrity and usability of the soccer pages in this project. It's not a case of it being a nickname, or a club name being translated for poor uneducated Anglophones. Hibernian is not called Hibs because the club is called Hibernian IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Portsmouth is not called Pompey because the club is called Portsmouth IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Villarreal is not called Kings-Town because the club is called Villarreal IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Jose Mourinho is not called Joseph because the man is called Jose IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Therefore, Bayern Munich should not be called Bayern Munchen or Bavarian Munich because the club is called Bayern Munich IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. The end. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And as soon as you point to a policy saying that we HAVE to pipe all links based on the most common name, I will gladly concede the point. But the fact is you can't. The policy you cite, and clearly misunderstand, only applies to article names. Until that policy extends to links find another way to justify your point. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not citing a policy, because no policy for this kind of thing exists. Perhaps the reason this for this is because it never occurred to anyone that someone woudl try to change all the common name links into links with names which a large number of Wikipedia users will not understand. Lets put it another way. If ESPN asked you write an article about the soccer, and told you that the audience for this article was the 'soccer layman', would use the names Bavarian Munich or Bayern Munchen instead of Bayern Munich, or Joseph Mourinho instead of Jose Mourinho, even if you knew that in doing so you would confuse/alienate a large proportion of your readership? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a standard for the way names ought to be piped, no one else who has yet to weigh in on the issue has agreed with you. It's just a fact of life that some names, places, etc. get anglicized while others don't. There isn't an English word for "quesadilla" - we just use the Spanish word. Though we do call the Chinese food "bird's nest soup" rather than its native "yan wo (燕窝)". Not everything can be translated; not everything can be left in its native tongue. You have to use common sense. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus, common names should be used in piped links, not the full club name. If the club is usually referred to in English by a specific name, that is the name that should be used. King of the North East

English Wikipedia, therefore use English names. Beve (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rennes vs Stade Rennais

Rennes is certainly the common name of the team. Grant, I don't mind if you disagree with that view, but reverting my edit and lying and saying it is vandalism is absolutely ridiculous. Like I've said before: you do not own this article. Eightball (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing something that you know to be controversial without leaving an edit summary is why I reverted it as vandalism. Wikipedia policy says that the article name should be the most common name, and since the article in question is at Stade Rennais F.C. and not Rennes F.C., you simply have no grounds to argue that Rennes is the most common English language name for the club, from a wiki-sense. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
How come every single league table I find (including the one right here on Wikipedia) shows the name as Rennes? And frankly, from reading some of the other discussions on here, you are the only person with this point of view. So I'm going to change it back, because it appears to be consensus whether you like it or not. Any reverts YOU make will be vandalism. Eightball (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You obviously missed the discussion on WT:FOOTY where the conclusion was reached that we should use the article name excluding any "F.C./C.F./C.D." extracuricular nonsense. I'm sorry, but your disagreement with my opinion doesn't make my edits vandalism, however the way in which you're going about your edits does make yours so. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Grant, the conclusion reached (which I should know, as I proposed it and you agreed to it) was that the link piping should be: 'Actual name of team on the first line of the page in question|Most common name used in English' - so in the case of this particular french team, it would be Rennes. The link of the discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_27#Bayern_Munich_or_Bayern_M.C3.BCnchen.3F. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That was certainly not the conclusion we reached. We said that since Bayern Munich was at FC Bayern Munich and not at FC Bayern München, the link should be piped to Bayern Munich. Same for 'Gladbach, etc. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The only thing in Wiki policy that says what a team's most common name is, is the article title. So in that sense I agree with you. Since the article name must be the team's most common name, then the link should be piped to the article name, excluding extra bits like F.C. and whatnot. The article is at Stade Rennais F.C. and so then by definition the club's most common name is Stade Rennais F.C., and it should be piped as Stade Rennais. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you can refute that logic. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can claim to have not agreed with something you previously agreed to, but there you go. I'm also not sure how you can implicitly claim that you have the correct reasoning when pretty much every single footy editor in Wikipedia disagrees with you, but that's a whole other matter again. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

!vote

Some editors seem to have difficulty recognising, accepting, or conforming to WP:Consensus, so let's try to be clear about where that lies. 4 tildes should suffice: the arguments have been rehearsed many times. Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Preference for Rennes

Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Eightball (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
— CHANDLER#10 — 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As discussed (to death) elsewhere, it's English Wikipedia and we should use the common English names; Munich rather than Muenchen, Rennes rather than Stade Rennais etc. There only seems to be one person who disagrees, with an "everybody else is wrong and I'm right" mentality towards editing. Beve (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — If there is evidence to prove to the contrary then I have no problem acknowledging it.

--JonBroxton (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Preference for Stade Rennais

-- Grant.Alpaugh 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, I'm Wikipedia. I work based on consensus, which is not to be confused with majority rule. Some of my editors can't seem to wrap their heads around this distinction. The only policy I have with regard to using the most common name of something has to do with article titles. If an article about a football club is located at a given location, then that is its most common name. If an agreement is reached to pipe links to the most common name of a football club, then it should be more than obvious that the article title should be used. Thanks for having fun with me.

Grant, this is the most immature thing I've ever seen posted on Wikipedia. Please, please do us a favor and just take a break. You aren't helping anything. Eightball (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thinking that we should actually follow policy doesn't mean I need a break. If you actually made an argument that was based on policy, then we could have a discussion. Since I've repeatedly tried, and all you've come up with is "I think we should do it my way," followed by "let's have a vote," shows that you badly misunderstand policy, and therefore should not be involved in discussions about policy until you do. You don't seem to grasp the concept and applicability of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. It is incredibly hard to argue on the merits with you as long as that is the case, so I thought a first person narrative might better illustrate the point, since obviously standard argument-counterargument wasn't getting us anywhere. Anyway, the point is that you should revert your last edit before you get blocked, as you're engaged in an edit war, rather than a discussion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Grant, you are digging a hole deeper and deeper. You contribute a lot to this article and it's sad to see you fall so far. Eightball (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And that's great that you feel that way, but that has absolutely nothing to do with policy and its effects on the state of the article. In that regard you should revert yourself because you are in violation of the WP:3RR, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:CONSENSUS. 3RR is obvious, as is COMMONNAME, but the CONSENSUS, which you don't seem to understand, is that arguments determine consensus, and not voting. This is why your arguments are flawwed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You're the only one making an argument man, everyone else realizes that the discussion is over. Eightball (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Not so much over as never having been started. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how if Stade Rennais F.C. exists, the club's most common name isn't Stade Rennais from a Wiki sense. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate to actually justify you with an answer, so I'll make this brief. Wikipedia does not magically determine the common name of a team (or anything else for that matter). The fact that WP:COMMONNAME says that is insane, so I draw your attention to WP:IGNORE. Eightball (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it magically determined anything. I'm saying that the page is there for a reason. If it was supposed to be at Rennes F.C. then it would be, but it's not, and I'm sorry that that makes your argument impossible to win, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a valid point. Please revert your last edit now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Rennes FC is misleading; that is not the name of the team. Rennes is simply the most common way to refer to that team. When people talk about the USMNT, they rarely say "United States men's national soccer team." Yet that is the name of this article because that is the correct name of the team, not the most common. Look at Bocanegra's article, for example. Under national team it reads "United States," not the full title of the team, because that would be insane. Regardless, this discussion never needed to happen. I am only taking part of it because I feel there is the tiniest chance it will shut you up. But consensus has been repeatedly reached against you, so ultimately whatever conclusion you and I reach is pointless. Eightball (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. The consensus is to remove the "F.C." and whatnot from club names because it is understood, and for the United States men's national soccer team, the understood bit is the "men's national soccer team." These two situations are not similar. Also, since "consensus" doesn't mean "majority rules," the only way we can reach it is through discussion, and only those consensi reached through discussion matter. Therefore since we can't reach a consensus to change (i.e. you present logical arguments that your interpretation of policy is the correct one), the article should remain as it was before this incident. As such you should revert your edit. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The common name of Rennes is always Rennes or Stade Rennes, just as Lyon is Lyon or Olympique Lyon, not Olympique Lyonnais and Stade Rennais, and they are also used almost universally on articles where we link to the teams. While consensus might not be majority rules, when everybody except one person has come to a certain consensus that one person can't come and say it's not a consensus, because just as consensus isnt majority rule, it's not 100% agreement either. — CHANDLER#10 — 04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Grant: consensus HAS been reached. I can't make it any clearer than this. If you choose to ignore that because you are immature and refuse to accept the results, fine. But I won't revert my edit and I will continue to revert yours. Eightball (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd thank you to refrain from the personal attacks that come in the form of the repeated assertions that I'm behaving immaturely. Simply thinking that we should have discussions based on policy rather than conjecture or wishful thinking regarding what policy could or should be doesn't make me immature. Back to the actual point, the reason that I accepted the compromise regarding Bayern, 'Gladbach, Standard, etc. is that those pages are located at FC Bayern Munich, Borussia Mönchengladbach, Standard Liège, etc. which is by definition these teams most common English names. If that was the case with Stade Rennais F.C. then I wouldn't have much ground to stand on, but I think that if we're going to have policy, then I think it would be a good idea to follow it every once in a while. If we're supposed to name articles based on what makes it easiest to predict what their titles are so that we can link to them as easily as possible, then that is fine, but if the purpose is to make the article titles as accurate as possible, then we should do that as well. The point is that we should have one or the other, so that the system makes sense. Basically we should have Bayern München and Stade Rennais or we should have Bayern Munich and Rennes. As policy currently stands Stade Rennais is the most common name of the club, and therefore should be what the link is piped as. If anyone would like to argue the merits of my point, please feel free to (though I suspect you'll have trouble, naturally). Otherwise, please stop wasting time by keeping the article out of line with policy and process. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You are willfully ignoring consensus in order to get your way. Your immaturity is not a personal attack, it is a fact. Eightball (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If you do not like the idea of personal attacks, and none of us do, perhaps you will refrain from accusing those who make edits based on a clear consensus of vandalism and threatening them with the 3RR. Kevin McE (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This nickname deal

Grant likes to say "don't change anything until the discussion as ended." Well, there already was a discussion. If you look up you'll notice the section "Club Names." This dealt with the exact same topic we are once again discussing. See when it ended? January 15. If you read the discussion, you'll notice why. Every editor except for Grant agreed on which common names to use, but he refused to concede the point and continued to change the article. He was actually blocked from editing at one point because of all the reverts he did (this has happened to him many times, by the way). Eventually it seems the rest of the editors simply got tired of dealing with his crap and let it go. I won't do that. I'm not going to simply let Grant run the article as if it were his own. The guy repeatedly shows flagrant disregard for the decision making process. I'm not going to cite all the various examples of Wikipolicy he has shattered, because frankly I don't think that matters as much as the complete and utter disrespect he has shown for all other editors. Grant contributes TONS to this article, which is why it's so strange that he's started to act this way. But I think if can't stop being so selfish, obtuse, and disrespectful, the admins need to start looking at a ban rather than a temporary block. Eightball (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And as a result all of the clubs were piped the way the consensus was agreed (i.e. by piping to the most common name). That situation existed until you started an edit war yesterday. The name of the article is the most common name of the club. I don't know how many different ways I have to explain that to you. As soon as you want to have an argument about that, and your argument is supported by policy, then fine, but until that happens you must revert your last edit, as it is not supported by policy (in about 3 different ways). I would also remind you (again) not to make personal attacks about my sanity, maturity level, or anything else, as I have done. My attacks have all been that you are circumventing policy, and you are welcome to do the same, but the extracurricular stuff is out of bounds. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the case of Rennes/Stade Rennais is unusual, it is not unduly complicated. The most commonly used name for the football club I support is Gillingham, the most commonly used name for the football club in this discussion is Rennes. Both Gillingham and Rennes are the names of the towns in which those towns are based, and towns have the greater claim to the single word as the name for their article space. So we need to have something that is not the most common name as the article name to disambiguate. In the case of Gillingham, this is easily acheived, as the official name is the town name/common name with F.C. added; in the case of the French club, this cannot be done as easily, as there is no justification of any combination of the letters FC or AC and the word Rennes. The less commonly used, but officially recognised, name of Stade Rennais is therefore used. This is a result of Wikipedia's need to disambiguate, and does not change the fact of which name is most commonly used. I will propose a move of the page from Stade Rennais to Rennes (football club) on te appropriate talk page, so that the article title more closely follows WP:COMMONNAME, but the fact that the article has not been a close fit to that policy does not justify refusal to use the common name elsewhere. Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's neccessary. The name of the club is Stade Rennais FC; the name that is most commonly used to refer to said club is Rennes. The title of the article shouldn't be the most common name, it should simply be the correct name. The most common name for Coca-Cola is "Coke," but to make "Coke" the title of the article would be inaccurate and misleading. Also, now that I've read WP:COMMONNAME, Grant's interpretation of the policy is inaccurate. Article titles should follow from common names, not vice versa. There is no Wiki definition of a common name, as Grant has tried to argue. Rennes is the common name of Stade Rennais FC, and the only reason the article is not titled as such is because, as you have pointed out, Rennes is the name of a city. Eightball (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that we should use the most proper name, especially since the concept of redirects exists to funnel "more common names" into the proper one. Unfortunately as a result of that proposal FC Bayern Munich should be moved to FC Bayern München, and we just had an argument about that and the policy which governs football club articles (as well as all others) is that they should be located at their most common name. Since Stade Rennais F.C. is the location of the article, the most common name has to be Stade Rennais for Wiki-purposes. I agree that we need a uniform standard, and even that the standard should be the most proper name of the club, but the accepted standard on WP is that we use the common name, and according to that interpretation we must use Stade Rennais as the common name for Stade Rennais F.C. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I implore you to actually read my post and quit saying the same thing repeatedly. Wikipedia does not determine common names, how you fail to understand this is beyond me. Rennes is the common name of the team, but that is also the name of a town, so we use the second most common name - Stade Rennais - as the title of the article. Eightball (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, that's eight reverts. Get it right. Eightball (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Grant said <quote>Since Stade Rennais F.C. is the location of the article, the most common name has to be Stade Rennais for Wiki-purposes.</quote>
I'm bringing this up for clarification pusposes... That makes sense for titling the article, but the fact that it is becomes the article's title does not make it the common name. Stade Rennais is not the common name because that's what the article is already titled. State Rannais is the article title because the common name is already taken. It would be preferred that the article be titled the most commonly used name, Rennes, but that isn't possible. How then should it be handled? Pied links, a page move, what? I'm just trying to keep the conversation policy-oriented. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Still going on... It's quite easy. Without being knowledgeable in French -ais is according to the internets and French conjugation a suffix. And as I've said numerous times, the same thing is found at the end of Lyon's Olympique lyonnais, always referred in English as Lyon, the same thing as with Rennes. Which is perhaps in English media even referred to as "Stade Rennes"[10][11][12] more often than "Stade Rennais"? This has been disruptive edits for months now, starting with putting out Bayern and all club teams to the full name... Just stop it, the consensus is for Rennes, it's the most common and most recognizable name of the team — CHANDLER#10 — 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to start another discussion. It was agreed by every involved, except for Grant, to use Rennes. He refused to accept that and repeatedly reverted the article. But he's blocked from editing for at least another day or two, so don't worry about it. Eightball (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this article for 48 hours because of the excessive edit-warring. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chatter

Hello, all. I just wanted to remark that there has been little to no discussion here so far in 2009. If anyone has any ideas for ways to improve the page then don't be afraid to talk about it here or be bold. I guess the up-side of that is that we've gone over three months since any controversy. Thanks to everyone for working together so far this year and reducing the stress of editing the page of our great team! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A... JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume that everyone editing here is a fan of the team :@) Articles need balance, and work best when the editors, or at least a proportion of them, are disinterested, but not uninterested. Kevin McE (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to offend. It's just that we used to have a lot of problems with certain editors, and the interactions here in the last few months have been far more cordial. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No offence taken, did you not notice the emoticon? Kevin McE (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Grant Alpaugh was indef-blocked -- that probably has something to do with it. howcheng {chat} 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if there might be a better way to do the recent change of including the prose about qualifying? I think I like the idea of providing more information closer to where it is relevant, but I think there might be a better way to do it. I know that the recent call-ups section used to be sorted by date of call-up. Are there any thoughts as to which format is better? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, having re-read that section, it sounds a little too, "rah, rah" to me, if that makes sense. Any thoughts? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is my sollution to the blurb about tournaments thing, and I was wondering if anyone thought it was a good idea. I think that in the interest of keeping the article current, while keeping the main history section clear, consice, and consecutive, we should continue the practice of having blurbs about tournaments in the section under the schedule where all of the group standings/knockout brackets are. When those sections are removed (i.e. the last game of that competition was played more than 6 months ago), then we can move the cliff notes version of that blurb to the main history section. That way we don't have things like first half of qualifying, followed by confederations cup, followed by gold cup, etc. Thoughts? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The other thing that it does is prevent recentism from entering the main history section of the article. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea. I've tried doing that in the past, but Grant would often revert my edits. It almost felt pointless because everything resulted in an edit war. I see you've moved some stuff already. It looks good. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I mean obviously things should be trimmed down when the sections get moved into the main history section, and I guess they could be combined too, into a "summer of 2009" section or something. I think that in the main section of history, there shouldn't be any mention of goalscorers unless they were particularly historic goals (i.e. Landon's goal to take the lead from Waldo), but I think maybe they could be mentioned slightly more in those other sections before they get moved to the main history section. Thoughts? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the other thing waiting 6 mos will probably do is help everyone get some perspective on things when they are added to the main article. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the wish and the motive, but this seems clearly and directly in opposition to the principles at WP:Recentism: one is scarcely acting with a view to the "ten-year test" ("In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?") if one is writing something with the express intention that it be edited out (not merely updated) in a matter of weeks. Wikipedia is really not the place for trying to provide commentary on recent matches that is not encyclopaedically appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be useful to create a page for 2009 results that would be similar to the United States men's national soccer team 2008 results article. It's something that could be updated and documented more thoroughly that the national team page, and it would not taint a more broad article with recentism. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, Kevin, but my issue with your approach is this: I think it is difficult, if not unreasonable, to ask the article to have the same historical perspective regarding something that happened a week ago and something that happened years or even decades ago. I don't think it is wrong to cover the most recent developments with the national team, especially as this article is linked to ongoing tournaments, and those presumably get and funnel more traffic to this article than, say the 1934 World Cup, for example. That being so, it also seems wrong to lump the most recent developments in with the rest of the history of the national team, as that section is much briefer regarding entire eras of the national teams, much less performances in individual tournaments. Therefore, I think a decent compromise between keeping the historical section in tact and not having to edit it every few weeks to update individual campaigns and covering important recent developments in the national team's development is the approach used now. It removes the most recent tournaments from the main history section, where more detail can be provided for those who want it, and then after six months has gone by we can provide a much shorter summary of that tournament or qualifying campaign that passes your "10 year test," which I agree is an important part of checking undue recentism. Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I again want to thank you for discussing your concerns before just moving everything back the way it was like Grant would have done. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, it's not my ten year test, it is a quote from WP:Recentism. I would strongly suggest that any attempt to get this raised to a good or featured article would founder on charges of recentism and lack of stability if there is a suggestion that this "temporary detailing" were to be held to be a policy of this article. I would far prefer JP24's suggestion above. Kevin McE (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to characterize it as your ten year test, that was a bad choice of words, and I apologize. This article is constantly updated because the national team is constantly playing games. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think that there is no reason not to provide relevant information about the most recent national team campaigns. There's nothing over the top about it, there's just more detail than there are about things that happened 15 years ago, which I don't think is out of line or unreasonable. Personally, I don't care about the status of the article good, bad or otherwise. I want this article to contain accurate, relevant information about the national team, and I think it does that very well. Better even than most other national team articles. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Colors

Is there really a need for the results/schedule to be color coded? It seems more like decoration to me than anything. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Most pages with results (college athletics), US pro sports and a few national teams (Spain as one example) use the color coding. Dgreco (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but most national team articles don't and I think this has more in common with those articles than college or U.S. pro sports. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Anybody know what happened to the crest, btw? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering what anybody's thoughts as to whether we should show scores like 3-1 or 3–1? I think we should stick to one or the other both throughout the article and in tables and whatnot. Anybody have an opinion either way? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
En-dashes should be standard for scores. howcheng {chat} 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this up again before this turns into an edit war. I'm not the only editor who has expressed a dislike of the color-coding. I understand that it is used elsewhere, but I think it hinders readability and looks more decorative than anything. The scores are clearly labelled as wins, draws, and losses, making the color-coding unnecessary. Either way, I think that there should be more than one line of text on talk supporting something that has been reverted now three different times by two different editors over the last several days. Pleas bring this to talk. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the color-coding. It is more distracting than it is informative. It especially clashes with the use of national flags within the table. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kit

Has the team done away with the dark blue shorts for the home kit? They wore white shorts all throughout the Confederations Cup and are wearing them in the Gold Cup as well. Rhinophant (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they did so only because of FIFA's rules about avoiding clashes. Brazil once had to wear their yellow shirts and white shorts because they were playing Japan who were in all blue in the World Cup IIRC. Tonight, they probably did so for the same reason. If/When they play Mexico, and Mexico wears their white shorts, you will surely see the U.S. back in blue shorts. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, what the hell does this have to do with wikipedia? – Michael (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anyone taking such an approach merits an answer, but it is relevant in determining what kit is shown on the article. Kevin McE (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The US is listed as the "home" team against Honduras and are still wearing the white shorts, so it might not be solely based on the FIFA rule. Rhinophant (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but "home" kits in int'l soccer are subjective. It's not like other sports where wearing white equates to being the home or road team. They can wear whatever they want to wear whenever they're designated as the home team. They haven't changed their uniform stable in a while now, so there's no need to change the infobox. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent History

Why was/is the 2009 Confed Cup completely absent from the the history of The US National Team? Even once sentence would be sufficient. Gutch220 (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look further down the article, you will see there is an entire section about it, along with the Group B table and the knockout bracket. We're trying to see how it works if we wait until 6 months after the tournament is over, we move the section about it into the history section. This prevents rampant recentism from entering the main section of the article, and it keeps chronology from interfering with things. What I mean by the last bit is that the Confederations Cup and the Gold Cup interrupt World Cup qualifying, so dealing with them all as they finish helps solve that problem organizationally. Finally, thank you for bringing this up, and please start new sections at the bottom of the page. You can do so most easily by clicking the tab at the top of the page next to "edit this page." AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Home Stadium

What is the home stadium, if any, of the USA National Team? If one doesn't exist, and they have many suitable venues, I think one should be selected. Perhaps the new Giants Stadium? But maybe moving the home games around is better for the sport. Gutch220 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no home stadium for the team - heck, there is no home stadium in any city. The Mexico World Cup Qualifier has been played in Columbus Crew Stadium each of the past three cycles, but they played a game in the semifinal round in Chicago at Toyota Park (against Trinidad and Tobago) and then a game at Soldier Field (against Honduras) in the final round. US Soccer likes to move games across the country, and selects venues based on the size and importance of the opponent and the game. Pack87Man (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Uniforms

I noticed the US has been wearing an all white uniform lately but the article only has a white shirt on blue shorts uniform version. Have they changed or is the all white a third kit per say. OneiroPhobia (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues. Think, think about it.

So there is some cleanup that can be done on this article in order to raise the standard of quality. Here is a short list of things that have been edited and re-edited recently, most of which falls under the Schedule and recent results:

  1. The color coding on the schedule
  2. The inclusion of non-USA results under tournament sections
  3. The length of individual tournament sections
  4. When to move information from the recent results section up to the History section.

I also think that the history section itself has some problems. There are a lot of subsections, inconsistent quantity of coverage of various eras, and not nearly enough citations. I think it would beneficial if we could expand the history section and move it to its own page (a la England and Scotland), leaving just a summary of topics here on the main page. If anyone has a book on the history of soccer in America – comprehensive or simply on a specific era or event – then please add it to the FOOTY booklist and get editing. If you'd like to address a specific topic that I mentioned above or something else I didn't mention then please start a new section for that specific topic. Keep it here for general cleanup talk. Happy editing. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the schedule/results list, this is what I'd like to see on the page. If anyone has a problem with that design please let me know and I will be happy to make some changes to try and find a middle ground. In general I think reformatting the schedule list should be a pretty simple endeavor and it would be prudent to focus most of the discussion on cleaning up the history section. Another relatively simple problem I have with the page is the nicknames list; I, for one, have never ever heard anyone refer to the team as "the stars and stripes." Eightball (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to a few of the changes: the soccer ball image in the goal column, the use of background color, and the elimination of the stadium in which the game was/will be played. I realize that listing the city instead of the stadium is a preference, but the bg colors are very distracting for me when trying to read the text. The soccer ball is also a distraction that is very repetitive and doesn't serve a purpose because any player listed in that column is listed there because he scored a goal. That ball image just adds clutter. I'm indifferent in regards to listing the time of the goal rather than the player's career int'l count. Also, I know it's small, but the months can be abbreviated because they're in a table. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the colors and the ball icons are very distracting. The stadium rather than the city/state is also better, as there is a discrepency between whether to list sub-national territories for games outside the United States. I mean, the U.S. isn't the only country in the world with states. South Africa has them, as does Spain, Mexico, etc. So without having to get into all sorts of different formats, we can just list the name of the stadium, which always exists.

As for the moving to the regular history section, I think it would make the most sense to do that when we remove the group table/bracket for those tournaments, which should be done six months after the last game in that tournament, when we remove the game from the schedule and the players from the recent call-ups. That way everything is consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.186.225 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The ball icon isn't something I'm adding in personally, it's just what is used when you list a goalscorer. Plus I don't see any reason to do anything to the list if we're not including colors, virtually every other page uses colors and I find that it's a fantastic way to quickly and easily check out wins/draws/losses. Eightball (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I made an updated version of the table that takes into account some of your suggestions (page is here). At some point I'm going to include 3-4 different versions at the moment I'm very lazy so it's just the one. Also: I never got around to changing "location" to "stadium" so you don't really need to mention that as I'll probably just throw it in there at some point. However, the home team/away team thing is in there as a result of changing location to stadium, as I feel it is easier to ascertain where the game is taking place (the name of the stadium isn't always a dead giveaway). Eightball (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_men%27s_national_soccer_team/Archive_4&oldid=1136225990"