Talk:United States men's national soccer team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nicknames[edit]

@Braxtonrob: My dude, that was maybe the worst edit I've ever seen on this dumb website. "Yanks" is far and away the most common nickname for the US national team. Personally, I've never once heard anyone call the team "The Stars and Stripes," but whatever. It is indisputably true that "Yanks" is a common and accepted nickname. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt the need to make a personal attack; unfortunately, I'm still in disagreement with you. 'Yanks' is a term used to refer to the USMNT, however, your overstatement of the use of this "nickname" only further supports my implied point - that being that wikipedia isn't really intended to be a marketing tool for what some fans have a particular fondness for; the term is simply not used that much (as I watch every game they ever play, via broadcast, cable, and internet.) Again it's simply an exaggeration. If the team has any nickname at all, it's clearly 'Stars and Stripes' as I've at least heard that mentioned more "on the air" by longtime USMNT announcers and former USMNT players, although that's not used a great deal either. Again, wishful thinking or as a marketing tool by some select fans, entries like this are not honestly reflective of reality, and should not be included on ANY wikipedia page.Braxtonrob (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You can't disagree unless you're writing from a parallel universe. It's an indisputably true fact: Yanks is an extremely common nickname for the USA. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That's true, 'Yanks' is indeed 'an extremely common nickname for the USA' ... if you're a doughboy from the year 1917. And you're right again, '(I) can't disagree' because it's just a 'fact' that Yanks is not a nickname of the USMNT, even if you and 17 other people heard it once, in a commercial, approximately a decade ago.Braxtonrob (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/06/12/us-player-ratings-bradley-cameron-arena-lead-way-brave-yanks
http://americansoccernow.com/articles/5-key-takeaways-from-the-yanks-impressive-cup-run
http://www.yanks-abroad.com
https://twitter.com/ussoccer/status/883768832548114432
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/03/21/14/10/20170321-feat-wnt-weekend-rewind-yanks-settle-in-abroad
https://fansided.com/2017/04/27/week-us-soccer-mls-yanks-target/
Again: you apparently do not inhabit the same reality as this article. Yanks is, OBJECTIVELY, an extremely common and well-known nickname for US Soccer teams. You are done here because you are obviously and objectively wrong. Do not reply. Do not vandalize this article again. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I see the problem now; you don't know the difference between a nickname and a wishful-thought. i.e. Pele is a nickname for Edson Arantes do Nascimento; if I say 'Pele' to half the people in this country, they know instantly whom I'm speaking of. If I say 'The Yank's to the same group of people, they think I'm talking about the baseball team (whom I presume you're a tremendous fan of, since you've so voraciously defended your position). (BTW, your desperate list of sparse citings, by random writers, only proves my point further.) Be sure to let me know the next time you hear ANY nickname for the USMNT (<-an ACTUAL nickname for the United States Men's National SOCCER Team) used in ACTUAL broadcasts of the GAMES, where said use is a result of it's UNDENIABLE popularity. (Hint: there isn't one, nor will there be one any time soon.) Just give up already.Braxtonrob (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You're a joke. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Both names appear to be cited so there's no reason not to include both. There's also no reason to be so rude, so please stop, Wicka wicka.Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that there are reason to include both. I would strongly disagree that there's no reason to be rude when a willfully ignorant person vandalizes the article and then digs his heels in about something that is objectively false. Editors need to stop worrying about being rude and start worrying about being right. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Being right and being uncivil are two separate issues here. No one appears to have removed the material since the first time on July 22, so there's not even an edit war. It is a content discussion where one editor is being pointlessly rude. You yourself are also wrong in repeatedly calling this vandalism, neither the edit nor the discussion are in any way vandalism. You only hurt your own case by acting this way.--Cúchullain t/c 15:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't care. I will not let editors vandalize pages just because they don't like reality. You can throw a fit about people being "rude" or you can get on board with Wikipedia not being a dumpster fire. Up to you. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)