Template talk:Infobox national football team

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox national football team template.

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

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Football

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles

Organizations

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles

Suggestions[edit]

First of all, great job on the infobox, Ed g2s!

I have a few suggestions to improve the infobox:

A box for the shirt badge
Use the {{PAGENAME}} template instead of the {{{Name}}} parameter
Highlight World Cup and European Championship (regional cup) for easier understanding.

Here's an example -->

England national football team

Image:England crest.png

Nickname

The Lions

Association

The FA

Coach

Sven-Göran Eriksson, 2001-

Captain

David Beckham

Most caps

Peter Shilton (125)

Top scorer

Bobby Charlton (49)

Home colours

Away colours

First International
Scotland 0 - 0 England
(Partick, Scotland; 30 November, 1872)

Largest win
Ireland 0 - 13 England
(Belfast, Northern Ireland; 18 February, 1882)

Largest defeat
Hungary 7 - 1 England
(Budapest, Hungary; 23 May, 1954)

World Cup

Appearances

11 (First in 1950)

Best result

Winners, 1966

European Championship

Appearances

7 (First in 1968)

Best result

Third, 1968, Semi-finals, 1996

Keep up the good work! - DragonFire 19:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With regards to your points:

I am converting the JPG badges to transparent PNGs on each implementation, http://www.brandsoftheworld.com have a quite a few relevant .eps files.
{{PAGENAME}} should always be avoided, as pages can be moved and disambiguated (e.g. "Australian national football/soccer") team etc. Although it's probably not going to have much of an effect here, it's bad practice. We already know we're talking about national teams, so "England" suffices as a caption. For countries with longer names, this is going to make the box unnecessarily wide.
I'm always reluctant to put in custom colours, hence the use of id="toc" which is set by the user's monobook.css / skin selection.

ed g2s • talk 15:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about an optional line for the captain? In many if not all cases it's clear, and the captain often outlasts several managers. -- Pellucidity 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an optional captain line is needed as well and since I've noticed nobody's against it I've added it to the template as optional and added it to a few national teams' pages. Yonatanh 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small problem[edit]

Look at Latvia national football team, the World Cup section. Since Latvia has never been in any WC, putting a "-" for "World cup first" gives us a wiki to Football_World_Cup_-. Leaving it blank is even worse. --Dryazan 14:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This could be easily solved by making the world cup appearences optional parameters. --Bob 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics on nickname[edit]

Ed, I've been going through all teams, making italics on nickname consistent everywhere -- the name in the original language is italic and the English translation, if any, is not: Les Fennecs<br>(The Desert Foxes). If there's only one name, it's italicized: The Lions. I guess the reverse is ok too, but I just spent 20 minutes cleaning this up. Please don't reverse it unless you think it's really necessary. --Dryazan 14:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tweak for women's teams[edit]

I have a suggestion regarding women's teams.

Create a separate template for women's teams, identical to the one for men, but with one exception—an added section for Olympics appearances and results. Reason: In the women's game, the Olympic tournament is every bit as prestigious as the World Cup (most definitely NOT the case for men). While the men's Olympic tournament is limited to players under 23 (with three overage players per squad allowed), the women's tournament is contested between full national sides with no age restrictions.

A suggested name for the template: "National football team women"

Any comments? Dale Arnett 21:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support --Monkbel 20:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Dale Arnett 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion - Add a section for Confederations Cup appearances, best results[edit]

For a few teams, the Confederations Cup is possibly worth another few lines at the bottom of the box, though as an optional set of parameters. --Richardb43 09:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and the data has been entered for all the tams who have taken part in it. Kevin McE 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added changble badge size[edit]

hey there,, I added a changble badge size in the thing to remove the size lock and streaching is some teams --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 22:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigramme[edit]

Is there really a need for this? Yonatanh 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of colour/color[edit]

There is a discussion on Talk:United States men's national soccer team about the different spellings of color. On US-interest pages the spelling should correctly be "color" but on UK-interest pages it should be "colour". This cannot be done without substituting the infobox into the page and changing the code. So, I suggest we change "Home colours" to "Home kit". It's less controversial and also, IMO, more correct. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

2nd Region for Australia[edit]

Since Australia is now in the AFC, there needs to be two spots for region, one for the OFC and one for the AFC. is there a way to da that?--Jaysscholar 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a real mess. If/when Australia will win an AFC cup, you can just add the year and "(AFC)", or add "(OFC)" to the previous victories.--Semioli 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the Australia national football (soccer) team article a while back to make this display a little better. Not strictly the best use of the template fields but it does the job! Whether they win the Asian Cup or not, appearances still need to be taken into account in the template. -- Chuq 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Hello.

As regards the use of kits in the infobox, I would like to know your opinion about wheter:

they should depict as close as possible to reality the current kits
they should depict the colours and styles (stripes, dots, decorations) of the national teams, without reproducing each design in the particulars.

To make an example, if you think that the Italian jersey should show the black swirls, or the Ukrainian jersey should be decorated with blue radial stripes, you are supporting the first option; if you think the Italian jersey should be plain blue, and the Ukrainian one should be yellow with blue borders, you are leaning towards the second option. --Spunti 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should depict the colours and styles (2nd option). If people try to recreate the kit exactly then it you could end up with amateurish replicas. I think collars and trim is as far as it should go IMO. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

They should be somewhere in between. However, they should be as factual as possible, without going down to the nitty gritty. They don't have to be exact replicas (they can and should be if its necessary!!), although I do not see a reason for them not to be. Lemme offer some examples where what you said is true and when it isn't:

[1] to [2] is acceptable and in fact good for Wikipedia. That design is purely aesthetic design.

[3] to [4] is bad. The edited jersey looks silly without the designs and the designs are critical to linking the German NT to its jersey.

[5] to [6] is bad in two ways. 1st, it is factually incorrect. The Ukraine NT has never used that shade of blue. 2nd, Ukraine's jersey design has never stayed the same, and unlike a lot of traditional countries such as Italy, England etc, they do not have a specific set of colors that their jersey will match year after year. It is in my opinion that in this case, the latest jersey is most accceptable to the team page. --Palffy 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spikes of the current Ukraina jersey are not spikes of Ukraina but spikes of Lotto, since also other teams using Lotto have the same design.

The decoration of German jersey is not typical German, but a decoration of all Adidas jersey.

National team kits exist beyond fashion.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that those are standard Lotto and Adidas designs of the two respective jerseys. However, when you're displaying factually wrong information (as is the case with the Ukrainian jersey) and something that doesn't really resemble the German jersey, the issue should be compromised. Btw, here are all of the jersey designs of Ukraine, [7] and [8]. The designs change year after year, but none of those are what you have proposed. Also, please stick to one username, since I'm still convinced that you, Kwame Nkrumah, and you, Spunti, are the same person. --Palffy 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukraina nft jersey has been consistently yellow with blue inserts. The blue spikes are by Lotto.

And, please, note that how I am avoiding to answer your personal comment with another comment on what I think about you.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The shoulders are usually blue, and they're certainly not the same blue that you used. Why don't you let me know what you think about me?.. =) —Palffy 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change the shade of blue, if you like. The problem is the pattern, not the shade of blue.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pattern is also a problem. If you come up with a more appropriate pattern where the shoulder design is the right shade of blue and an appropriate historical pattern of the jersey, I will accept it. --Palffy 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should looks as close as possible to the actually jersey while still not looking silly, it this case the one I want to stay does not look silly and it looks good. -- Je suis _t\^c 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of your solution is that cannot be enforeced. Who decides what is silly? A user took time to design this Bulgarian kit because (s)he thought it was not silly and very close to actual jersey.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure if the reproduction of manufacturer's designs is allowed under copyright law. There are a certain few symbols and designs that are protected, but a lot that aren't, or cannot be. However, the most accurate representation of the kit is surely the best. Failing that, I would accept a kit reduced in detail to its most basic elements (eg plain white for Germany, B&W stripes for Juventus, Red body & white sleeves for Arsenal).

Last season Arsenal used an all dark-red shirt, which appeared in the infobox, but the red & white shirt was included elsewhere on the page as a representation of their traditional colours. Barcelona this season will have red & blue halves but their traditional format is in stripes, so I would recommend that the striped version appear elsewhere on the page.

What I will not accept is a misinformative representation of a kit. Ukraine have had several very different designs over their decade of international football but one constant has been the yellow shirt and blue shorts, so if someone (or his sockpuppet) starts adding blue cuffs (which don't appear on the current kit) I would most likely object. Slumgum T. C. 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blue borders stand for theblue inserts which always have been present on UA nft jerseys.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I think if you're intent on not having commercial representation of these jerseys, then I think you should come up with a better example of a UNT and German NT jersey on a test page and present it here. I think we are willing contributors and would be glad to compromise on some aspects. The problem that we're all having is that it's factually false and is not representative of their jerseys in any way. --Palffy 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bugaria nft jersey "factually false"? Yes, jet you said it was good to remove it. Now, why Ukrainian jersey is different?--Kwame Nkrumah 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my reasons again. Read Slumgum's response carefully. Let me also introduce you to, [9], it's a fascinating concept. --Palffy 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concept of compromise translates into "I do whatever I want, the others should prove me wrong". Oh, and thanks for your [[compromise.--Kwame Nkrumah 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I agree with you that these can be subject to change if you wanted to do. However, what you change it to must be reasonable. What don't you understand about presenting false information on Wikipedia? --Palffy 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like the Bulgarian design to go away, it can go, but if you don't like the Lotto design to go away, the burden of creating a test page and convince you goes to the others. And note that I am still avoiding answering your provocations (i.e. introducing you to a couple of words). Even more, if some compromises are not of your taste, you revert them, right? (hint [10])--Kwame Nkrumah 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because people appear to be content with the current jersey. It is you who is intent on changing them. I feel that I have done my part in the compromise and I will gladly help you with your selection once you create a test page for it (because otherwise I'm ok with the current status of the page). There is no compromise on the example you presented because your evidence is "this official website says so" and my evidence is that "the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, the official names of all clubs in Ukraine are in Ukrainian, Uefa sanctions the clubs as Chornomorets, not Chernomorets". Judging from your posts on the subject matter, you have 0 expertise as Slumgum suggested, something that I would agree on him with. --Palffy 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our positions are not conciliable. We shall see the end of this survey.--Kwame Nkrumah 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you show this to an administrator and see who he or she thinks is more conciliable. --Palffy 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I could be accused of "harassing" you, maybe.--Kwame Nkrumah 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you look at other Wikipedias in different languages, they try to get kits similar. -- Je suis _t\^c 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like these?

or like these?

--Kwame Nkrumah 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this, here and here? =)) --Palffy 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, someone's persistent. I still posted before you (22:05 vs 22:16) even if you decided to cut in front of my post. Anyways, those all look great, but in my opinion, the current jersey are better than any of those. However, you're welcome to start a test page and create a jersey based on these two that I might consider to be more factual than the ones you presented, here and here. However, I'm not exactly sure if you belong on Wikipedia, because of your behavior the past few days..so this might not really matter in the end. --Palffy 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the furthest it should go is like this page. I myself made the

image, mainly because it was a trim that many teams used (Rochdale, Grimsby, various other Nike manufactured jerseys). Trim and collars I believe are acceptable. And other wikipediae (sp?) shouldn't really be taken into consideration because none of them have standardised kit representations, merely what differing people thought what was best. The Bulgarian one looks silly with the overlay on it, mostly because it is not detailed enough, and looks cluttered.. The German ones are fine, as are the Ukrainian ones. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This discussion should be on Template_talk:Football_kit. As it was designed the templates was always to show team colours. Stripes, hoopes, dots, sashes, havles etc. are part of the colours. Anything else is per-season decoration, and will result in hundreds of template files, and loads of out of date pages. New templates are complicated enough to create without having to redraw thousands of them every season. ed g2s • talk 12:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the kits without detail are extremely ugly and are ruining Wikipedia and the beautiful game (football/soccer), I will keep on changing it back because it has had detail for about 5 months, and plus I'm adding and fixing info around the article too. -- Je suis _t\^c 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours is wrong under several POVs (don't get this personally):

"Personally I think the kits without detail are extremely ugly and are ruining Wikipedia and the beautiful game": I hope you accept this as you personal POV, at least
"I will keep on changing it back": working against consensus is plain WRONG
"because it has had detail for about 5 months": so what? after 5 months it is set in stone? did not see that on WP rules
"I'm adding and fixing info around the article": again, so what? the fact that you contribute to the article means you have the last word on it? remember that you do not own wikipedia

--Kwame Nkrumah 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, the discussion is moved at Template talk:Football kit, where users interested in football kits in general can take part in the discussion.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of FIFA rankings[edit]

Is really important to add sections like "First listed in FIFA rankings", "Highest FIFA ranking", "Lowest FIFA ranking"? They carry few information, and ask for an ELO ranking equivalent.--Kwame Nkrumah 12:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not sure why someone found it necessary to add this, it doesn't add any real value and takes away from the rest of information in the infobox. --Lowg 05:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really important? Well, what is? First fixture? Heaviest defeat? International representative football? I added it, initially in response to a request on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I fail to see how it takes away from info already there, and it provides an insight as to how the team at present compares to its predecessors. I am unsure as to what Kwame means when he says "ask for an ELO ranking equivalent" If he is asking for that, then he is at liberty to research and provide it, although I would argue that the unofficial nature of ELO rankings would make that less relevant to an encyclopedia. Kevin McE 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must set an end at the number of items in the infobox, do you agree? If you put all those informations regarding one ranking system, how could you possibly refuse to add many more informations?

As regards your edit, you put it as answer to a single talk page, and now your choice is challenged. If there is consensus, it should go away.

And note also that there is very little information carried. The FIFA ranking was introduced in 1993, very late in comparison to international football history, and received a major change in point attribution system just a month ago. So it is non-consistent and useless as a measure of the historical strenght of the teams.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specified length to an infobox. If there's more information that needs to go in the infobox, I don't see that being a problem. Most of the pages had already listed that information in a separate section, and that organizes that data very well. I can't comprehend your last two arguments to answer them.. --Palffy 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this information is of dubious value, given how much the FIFA ratings algorithms have changed over the few years they have been operating. However I do think that the max/min ratings and dates are still interesting information and should be kept. The "1st ranking date" seems pretty pointless to me, given how recently the ratings started - I think that the "1st ranking date" item should be removed. -- Wantok 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that addition myself, so I second Wantok's suggestion. Most of the countries were ranked at the inception of Fifa's rankings anyways. --Palffy 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the "information is of dubious value" (Wantok), and we allow it inside the infobox, how could we decide what is going to stay within the infobox and what outside? The infobox has the pourpose to gather the most important information about the team in a handable way, not to collect all the trivia.

As regards the information about the FIFA ranking, it is limited in scope, since it started in 1993 (and thus the 1st time ranking carries very little information), and almost meaningless, since the ranking system radically changed in July, and the previous positions are weakly comparable with the latest one.

According to me, they should go away.--Kwame Nkrumah 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline with regards to what to put in an infobox at the moment, so I would imagine that voting or concensus are 2 possible solutions to deciding what goes in the box. Fifa rankings are the only "official" rankings at the moment (although Elo is usually deemed to be a better indicator of team strength). I also wouldn't say that the system changed radically of late--the only teams that really moved were those in North America and Asia--and for good reason, because the previous Fifa rankings gave too much weight to teams from those 2 continents. The two rankings cannot be properly compared quite yet, since the true effects of the changes have yet to be seen (a majority of football followers agree on that). --Palffy 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take it to a vote. -- Wantok 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think having the highs/lows of an unofficial rating is kind of a stretch. A lot of people want Elo ratings gone because they themselves aren't even an official ranking system, but having a hi/low is probably a tad too much. I would like to start a vote on this if no one minds.. --Palffy 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete or keep 1st FIFA ranking date[edit]

Delete - near-meaningless, I think, since FIFA rankings have only been around a few years. -- Wantok 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wantok.--Kwame Nkrumah 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Palffy 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not as useful as the date of first match, which we already have. Slumgum T. C. 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I originally said, it doesn't add any real value and takes away from the rest of information in the infobox (including space). --Lowg 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 08:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pointless. Dodge 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless information. Robotforaday 13:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too many have the same date of August 1993 anyway. Fedgin 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous delete - I will delete now. -- Wantok 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept a unanimous vote, although I believe that this field was useful in setting some of the criticisms below in context, and was particularly apposite for teams such as Hungary and Uruguay, whose performance in the last 15 years has not reflected previous glories. I am dissappointed that Wantok has opened and closed a vote within 36 hours while making no attempt to contact the initiator of this field. Kevin McE 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call, my apologies for being hasty. -- Wantok 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete or keep FIFA rank min/max (with dates)[edit]

Keep - while statistically also not very meaningful, since the calculation system has had two major changes in the last 7 years, I think these are nevertheless interesting to people in general, and thus worthwhile keeping. Even if the calculation system has changed, the min/max values still reflect broad changes in form. -- Wantok 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the ranking in itself is very little meaningful, it has a short life-span, it changed radically last month, it is an invitation to add many more useless informations to the box.--Kwame Nkrumah 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nom. --Palffy 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They've not been going long, so only the current rankings are relevant. It's no guide to the status of 20 or 30 years ago. Slumgum T. C. 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as above, including the that having too much in the infobox is not the purpose --Lowg 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 08:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite important, I feel. King fish erswift 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I personally don't care about FIFA rankings but there's no doubting that they themselves are notable and any encyclopedia should include as much relevant statistical info as possible IMO Dodge 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's always going to be an argument over how useful or accurate the FIFA rankings are as a system (I personally think they're a joke)- but alas, such arguments are POV, and so don't merit deletion. However, given the relatively short time such rankings have been around, to suggest that they give a historic overview of the form of a team would be nothing short of misleading. The current ranking is relevant as an official piece of FIFA information- but everything beyond that is merely fluff. Robotforaday 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as from July 2006 rankings, as these are using the latest algorithm. Fedgin 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite people criticsizing the system, it's a statistic and it should be kept. I thought it was great when I first saw the max/min rankings (it made me look the articles of a ton of national teams).Bruno18 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely at this stage, there is little significance in variation since July 2006? Perhaps in 10/20 years such variation might have statistical significance, but to add it right now seems odd, to say the least. Robotforaday 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No strong consensus. As these are optional fields, I suggest we leave them in the template for now. Let's err on the side of not throwing away information. -- Wantok 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this things only been going 2 days dude!? comon wait a bit. Well anyway, as we would say, they serve no purpose other than mmmmmmeeeerrrrr value (pointless nerd facts) and due to the constantly changing procedure etc, they cannot really be compared, without explaining the context. So yeh, delete them. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete or keep Elo rank min/max (with dates) (Elo rank itself is staying)[edit]

Delete - A lot of people want Elo ratings gone because the Elo rankings aren't even an official ranking system, but having a min/max seems quite superfluous, especially with Fifa min/max staying. --Palffy 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that FIFA ranking starts in 1993, and Elo in 1872?--Kwame Nkrumah 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we keep this, we should include other bollocks like the Unofficial World Championship. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Don't confuse "unofficial" with useless. Elo ranking is just the same thing that FIFA rnaking, only with better algorithms and over a larger life-span. FIFA World Cup and Unofficial World Championship are completely different things.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who cares about it. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Palffy. Marcus22 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for these reasons:
- FIFA's ranking history only goes back to 1993, whereas Elo data goes back to the start of international competition (1872) - click on any team name in the ranking list on the Elo site and you'll see the entire history. This is the main reason, to me: if we are going to have any ranking history here, there's a stronger case for the Elo data than FIFA. As an encyclopaedia, we should use the data that gives a reliable, long-term overview of the ranking history, and that's what Elo gives us.
- Elo rankings are algorithmically superior to the FIFA rankings (in that they are widely regarded as being more accurate and reliable).
- the algorithm is stable, so the historical data is actually meaningful... as opposed to the FIFA max/min data, which is pretty lightweight, given the changes in their calculation system.
- As for being official... a moot point, but I take the view that FIFA doesn't own the game of football. They do not devise or maintain the rules of the game (IFAB does). They organise tournaments, largely. Other ranking systems are perfectly valid. -- Wantok 03:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I support Wantok, with the further caveat that if Elo min/max go, so should FIFA min/max, which are less useful.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because they are unofficial(FIFA may not "own" football, but they do have universally accepted authority to recognise international matches), and whether they are preferable to the FIFA rankings is POV. However, if they are to be retained, they need to be space limited: on the Brazil page, highest ELO ranking occupies 12 lines (the instigator of this field objected to FIFA 1st/highest/lowest because it took up too much space!!!). I would suggest only put the date that this highest or lowest was first reached (as on the FIFA max and min). Kevin McE 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted - that list of max Elo dates for Brazil was crazy. I've just contracted it to one line. Also, I note that the "max FIFA date" there says Sept 1993, when it should say something like "multiple times 1993-2006" as well. I suggest we take that approach for both Elo and FIFA dates. -- Wantok 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re "whether they are preferable to the FIFA rankings is POV", I would agree in terms of comparing algorithms, but there's no POV in the historical depth aspect: data going back up to 134 years is clearly preferable over data going back up to 13 years, in that respect. -- Wantok 03:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coach/manager terminology[edit]

Currently we have Coach and Asst manager fields. I suggest we change this to Head coach and Asst coach for consistency and accuracy. -- Wantok 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need Assistant coach at all?--Kwame Nkrumah 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not a required field, I don't see a reason for it not to stay. No comment on the terminology though. --Palffy 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was also me who put in the Asst manager field, after watching the painful attempts of an editor to include Bobby Robson's role with Ireland in that Infobox. In fact, asst manager does not fully describe his role there, he has a title of "International football consultant" or something similar, but that was obviously not going to be applicable to many nations. I am perfectly happy that there be changes for consistency, but to what? In UK use, manager would indicate the person who makes the team selection and has tactical responsibility, and coach would indicate a subordinate who leads or assists in training sessions: more widely, coach includes the top role. Kevin McE 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason I suggested Head coach and Asst coach is because they seem to be the most widely used terms. Even in England, Steve McClaren is officially called 'head coach'. There is variation, but if you've got to pick one, it should be the most widely used/understood term. -- Wantok 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this change now then. -- Wantok 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

home stadium terminology[edit]

I noticed an anon added "Home Stadium" [11]. It's a good idea, but to keep it consistant with the club template perhaps this should be changed to "Ground" or at a minimium for "Home stadium" for style consistancy in the template. // Laughing Man 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the label to "Home stadium". // Laughing Man 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest win, Worst defeating[edit]

Just a quick question about this. Do they count U-19 match for the largest win and worst defeating ? --Manop - TH 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless the article is specific to the U19 team. I think only this one exists. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology used in the infobox is a bit inconsistent: 'largest' v 'worst'. What would people think about changing to, say, 'largest win' and 'largest defeat'? OR something that at least uses the same adjective to show a direct comparison? Largest and worst are neither synonyms nor antonyms for each other, and it doesn't really make sense. Fedgin | Talk 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggestion -- largest win/largest defeat are more straightforward and consistent. // Laughing Man 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just go with the template variable name, even more straight forward -- Largest win / Largest loss? // Laughing Man 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me - anything that compares win/victory/loss/defeat but with the same adjective. Biggest win and biggest loss; record victory and record defeat; any are fine. Any more support so this can be changed? Fedgin | Talk 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Kit and Away Kit[edit]

"Home Kit" and "Away Kit" aren't really accurate descriptions. Teams wear their first kit, unless it conflicts with the other team's kit. I suggest we change to "First Kit" and "Second Kit." 69.159.14.21 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that was true. Sʟυмgυм • т • c 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with the unsigned editor above. Kits are only changed when there is a clash, in which case the home side gets to use their first choice kit. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Untrue. Use of change strips are inconsistently applied. Some wear their away kit when there is no clash (Wales vs Northern Ireland a couple of years ago in Cardiff, NI wore the away kit). It's been suggested that this is often done to increase sales of the away kit. Either way, it happens. Still, they don't always wear the 'away kit' when they're away so 1st/2nd Kit or Home/Change Strip would be more appropriate. beano 16:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honours[edit]

With no discussion here, somebody has added an Honours section to the infobox, that places unlabelled pictures of trophies immediately under the team crest.

There is an argument that major honours might merit more obvious inclusion in the infobox, although I am happy with the World Cup/Confederations Cup/Continental championship sections at the foot of the box. BUT an additional sizeable image pushes other info off the "first view" screen, do not impart information to the reader who does not recognise the trophy, and no proposal has been made as to which level of trophy merits pictoral inclusion. Continental titles (eg CONCACAF Gold CUP)? Sub-continental titles (eg COSAFA Cup)? Will the England article have 54 images of the Home Championship trophy? The idea may have merits, but needs discussion before further implementation. Kevin McE (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Like the idea though i would be more nicely formated, not having to put in the actual text for the images and sizes. that would be used with a template maybe?. I'm for World Cup, Confederations Cup, Continental championship. Not much more. as you say, you cant have it filled with too much. Chandler talk 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, they might have to be a bit smaller, if something like Argentines 14 Copa America wins should be added? :) Chandler talk 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Rankings[edit]

Are a countries ranking at the current time WP:Notable, maybe their highest and lowest? This seems to be WP:Recentism Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their infoboxes should be updated with the current ranking. If you're talking about something like a list of every rank that would be pretty unnecessary. But I think if you're for example writing in the history section I think nothing their highest ranking would be notable enough, "Xs good position in the X Cup led them to tenth on the FIFA World Ranking, the highest to date" or something. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 13:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Competitions to include[edit]

I like the little section at the bottom of the infobox that lists appearances in major competitions, and best performances, but I would prefer that it be restricted to The World Cup, the finals stages of each conference's championship, and the Confederations Cup. Editors have exercised good restraint, and thus far I haven't come across many instances of minor competitions being added. Would others agree with me that the VIVA World Cup does not merit a pace in this section, or would it be thought that as it is the highest level to which the "national" sides involved might aspire, at least for the foreseeable future, that it should stay? Kevin McE (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

u-20 teams[edit]

Seeing the increase of u-20 national teams, there should be parameters for u-20 rankings, tournaments (like the u-20 WC), etc. Digirami (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree strongly. To my mind, the only mention of U20, U17 or Olympic teams should be listing in the See Also section of the article. If we are talking about a team of which Capello is the manager, Terry the Captain and Shilton the player with highest number of appearances, then we are talking about the full England team, not the U20s. Kevin McE (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get Digirami's point. This template is currently used for both senior and U-21 teams - it has special fields to accommodate U-21 competitions. This means we don't need to maintain two separate templates for senior and U-21 teams when they differ only by a few fields. Now we could create an entirely new template for the U-20s, but it should be pretty trivial to add a few optional fields to this one which would allow for the use of this infobox for such a purpose. I'm happy to accommodate this if a list of required fields is provided. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only field that would need accommodating or adding for a U-20 national team is for the U-20 World Cup. The rest of the fields work just find. I can't think of any other examples at the moment. Digirami (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - {{{U21WC apps}}}, {{{U21WC first}}}, {{{U21WC best}}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter for regional body[edit]

I'd like to suggest a new parameter to indicate which regional body the team is affiliated with. For example, Kenya football team is affiliated to CECAFA, Algeria are affiliated to UNAF etc.

This is what I'm proposing:

| label2     = Association
| data2      = {{{Association|}}}
| label3     = Subregion Association
| data3      = {{{Subregion Association|}}}
| label3     = Confederation
| data3      = {{{Confederation|}}}

Currently there is no way to display this in the template.TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that notable, that it's worth putting in the infobox.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. ;) It's important for African nations, less so for other continents.TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't some national teams play in sub-confederational tournaments? For example, South-East Asian nations play in the ASEAN Football Championship, run by the ASEAN Football Federation. In Asia, there's also the West Asian, South Asian and East Asian Football Federation, so I'm sure this isn't exclusive to those two continents. – Pee Jay 11:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I was right. CONCACAF has NAFU, UNCAF and CFU. – Pee Jay 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Peejay are you agreeing with my suggestion? TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support the addition of this parameter to the infobox. – Pee Jay 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

There has been a recent rash of editors changing the contents of the name field from Fooland to {{fb|Fooland}}, with the result of adding a flag above the infobox. Numerous reversions both ways have ensued, but that is not a way forward. Personally, I'm against, but what is the intention and consensus here? Kevin McE (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) And now someone has started adding stars for WC winners: what part of the word "name" do people consider to be an invitation to do this? Kevin McE (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These edits should definitely be reverted. Those icons seem to be being used purely for decoration, which is contrary to the spirit of WP:MOSICON. – Pee Jay 00:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see this more frequently. Should we create docs and state that it should not be done? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "create docs": what we should do is enable discussion to establish a clear consensus, and then apply it. What discussion there has been in the past has been against, but it has been so scant that it does not seem to justify being held to be the clear collective will of the community. Kevin McE (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I definitely disagree with any use of flags in the title of the infobox. They are completely unnecessary and sometimes unreflective of the nation(s) actually represented by the team in question (e.g. the England national team may also include players from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but those are not part of England). – Pee Jay 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New optional min/max parameter for FIFA rank and Elo rank[edit]

After a careful consideration, and having checked the previous discussion from 2006, I decided to add the following new min/max parameters:

FIFA max year =
To be used ~~as an optional alternative,~~ instead of "FIFA max date".

FIFA min year =
To be used ~~as an optional alternative,~~ instead of "FIFA min date".

Elo max year =
To be used ~~as an optional alternative,~~ instead of "Elo max date".

Elo min year =
To be used ~~as an optional alternative,~~ instead of "Elo min date".

According to the previous discussion from 2006, the challenge was recognized, that we shouldnt let the infobox grow into an incomprehensive size. When listing all dates for FIFA min/max and Elo min/max, the line would grow way too big for certain countries, and here the Brazil national football team and Argentina national football team are so far setting the record of having most dates to list, with more than 30 periods for their Elo max. Previously the suggested solution was, that for national teams with multiple lines of max/min dates, it was better just to write the min/max date as either: first or most recently.

Today I checked how the infobox for 11 different national teams, at this point of time had preferred to list the parameter. The first search result, showed that 9/11 national teams (Denmark, Scotland, Spain, England, France, Italy, Argentina, Portugal, Netherlands) had chosen to list all data for FIFA min/max. The second search result, showed that 8/11 national teams (Denmark, Scotland, Germany, Spain, England, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands) had chosen to list all data for Elo min/max. Based on this current status, it is evident that Wikipedians in general prefer to list a complete set of data for the min/max parameter. As most of us apparently also agree, that datalines in the general infobox should not grow too big, I decided to create the new ~~optional~~ parameters to list the FIFA and Elo min/max pr year instead of date. This will allow that we can list complete data for the parameter, while still keeping it short. To give you the best example of this, you should check out the article for the Brazil national football team, being the most comprehensive data set we got, and here I just made an update with a complete set of data, and yet managed to keep the data for Elo-max inside an acceptable sized parenthesis of 3 lines.

~~For national teams with only 1 max/min date, I suggest we continue to use the parameter "FIFA max/min date" and "Elo max/min date".~~
~~Decided by the argument, that readers in general prefer to read the exact time the national team had their SINGLE high/low.~~

For all national teams ~~with more than 1 max/min date~~, I suggest we start to only use the parameter "FIFA max/min year" and "Elo max/min year".
Decided by the argument, that readers in general will prefer to read "all years with highs/lows", rather than either the "first date of highest rank" or the "most recent date of lowest rank".

Another point to keep in mind, is the accuracy of data. In order to be correct and accurate, the format for "max/min date" will require us to list all month intervals with the max/min. To give a short example, the correct way to list the data for a team being nr.1 at two times in 2008 and nr.1 at three times in 2009, when using the parameter "min/max date", would be to list all these five intervals by month: ie. Feb.2008-May 2008, Aug.2008-Sep.2008, Feb.2009-Mar.2009, May 2009-July 2009, Sep. 2009-Nov.2009. While the correct way to list the data, when using the format for "max/min year", will be to note these five intervals as just one overall interval: 2008-09.

In the given example above, the year parameter would be more appropriate to use for the general infobox at the top of the article, as the purpose of the box is to provide a first hand introduction of the team. If the reader subsequently get curious to learn more about the exact max/min intervals by month, then he should not be able to read this at the general infobox (due to the argument that the infobox will grow too big if it contain all detailed data), but instead find this detailed info described later in the article -or at the FIFA/Elo website.

Danish Expert (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a second consideration I just changed my mind, in regards of my previous proposal, that it would be appropriate to keep both variants of the min/max parameter. For all the reasons listed below, I now instead propose we should start to replace all min/max date with min/max year:

If we use two different types of min/max parameters, we risk that both readers and editors will be confused, about what the correct data format should be for a min/max line.
Encyclopedic relevance of noteing the exact Month, for the min/max of the Elo ranking and FIFA ranking, is close to zeroe. Simply put, both rankings are calculated by models which include (or heavily weight) all the results from the last 4 years of the national team. This basicly mean, that whenever a team has reached its max/low in a certain month, it would be scientific wrong to conclude, that the team in that particular Month, also with certainty had the highest/lowest performance throughout the history of the team. Strictly speaking, its only scientificly correct to state, that the teams average performance throughout the past 4 years, at that particular point of time had reached the lowest value. In other words, the exact min/max Month doesnt necessarily outline when the team precisely had the worst/best quality, and keeping that in mind, there is no Encyclopedic relevance to note the exact min/max Month. If we instead list the min/max by Year, this will on the other hand comply with the criteria of having Encyclopedic relevance, as this would be a good way to indicate in which years the national team actualy had their highs and lows throughout their history.
To secure an acceptable level of data accuracy, we should also keep in mind, that of course its impossible to ever get a precise ranking after only a few games played. The football game contain several parameters of uncertainty; with elements of luck, injuries and momentum (or changed strength) of opponents, that disturb the accuracy of the ranking after just a few games. In comparison, when we follow the performance of club teams in the national leagues, we also tend to aggree that the true performance level of each team, can only be decided when all league teams have played two times against each other (with all uncertainties thereby being leveled out, throughout the season). The same argument -in general terms- apply for the national teams (with the performance cycles requiring minimum 2 years and preferrably 4 years, before an acceptable statistical certainty is reached); And when there is no sufficient statistical accuracy of the ranking change after a single match/month, we should also refrain to list min/max by Month.

Due to the 3 arguments listed above, I propose that we start to replace all min/max date parameters with the new min/max year parameters -in all the 250 articles about national teams. If there is no objection to this proposal within the next 2 weeks, I will start to implement this change both in the template and the articles using the template.

Danish Expert (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that: I can see your logic, but the data (for FIFA rankings: I would be for the removal of ELO rankings, which I have never seen referred to anywhere outside Wikipedia, and which are recalculated after every match, and so only occasionally accurate for many countries) is calculated and published monthly, and so that should be reported. I am concerned that the simplification gives false "information": looking at the linked example above, were Brazil really top of the ELO rankings from 2002 to 2010? (No, Spain had a run of more than a year at top during that spell, and two other teams held the title for more than 9 months.) Nor were they FIFA leaders for 2 uninterrupted spells, one of 14 years and one of one year. A team's ranking can vary considerably within a year, so much so that FIFA makes an annual improvement award. We don't need to adjudicate on a level of accuracy of the rankings, merely to report accurately FIFA's calculation of the rankings, so how many games are played is not our concern. Similarly, we are not claiming a team's triumph or slump, and readers are perfectly capable of recognising that.

I understand the desire to limit the number of dates being added: I'd suggest first and most recent, to monthly accuracy, for both highest and lowest rank attained. Your recent introduction of smaller fonts makes this neater, and clear phrasing of the field names should make it easy for editors to fulfil expectations. No doubt some won't, but those who don't conform can be corrected with reference to the discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the comment, about the suggested lack of relevance, to list Elo ranking data:

I disagree with your oppinion, that the Elo ranking data is not relevant to list, just because it happen to be an unofficial ranking. In my point of view the relevance of Elo ranking data is justified by the fact, that this calculation formula is more accurate and historic complete (going all the way back to 18xx), compared to the official FIFA ranking. I agree with you, that the Elo ranking contain a weakness in its formula, for those teams who seldom play matches, and thereby are not having their Elo points adjusted to their "current level", at an acceptable ongoing timely rate. But this same kind of weakness can be found in the FIFA ranking formula, which as a standard calculate the point average per year for minimum 5 games, and thereby overly penalizing teams that play less than 5 games per year. When we speak about the accuracy of the Elo ranking, I think its save to claim, that for all those teams who play -lets say- minimum 5 games per year (and with minimum 2 of those games, being played against nations ranked at the same level or above), the Elo ranking formula should be considered to be more accurate, compared to the FIFA ranking. The reason for this, is that the FIFA ranking contain more "statistical noise", as it calculate the point total by some "roling windows", where the number of "important games" inside one of those windows, has a major influence upon the calculation of the overall point total, scored by the team. Keeping this in mind, one of the negative consequences of the FIFA ranking formula, is that a host Nation of the next World Cup or Continental Championship (being automaticly qualified to participate, and therefore not getting the opportunity to play any important games for a 1.5 year period ahead of the Championship; while all other Nations in the world are playing the important qualification matches -with many ranking points at stake), as a rule of thumb can expect to see their FIFA ranking drop around 10-20 places, compared to the amount of points they statisticly would have achieved according to their ranking position ahead of the period with qualification matches being played. It is a well known problem with the FIFA ranking, that it penalize a national team, which for a long time only play friendly matches, and not get the chance to score more heavy points in some of the "qualifying games". It should also be kept in mind, that those nations who have the expected quality to perform well, but fail to qualify for a championship, will also be overly penalized by the FIFA ranking formula. Simply because, they are not being allowed to play at least 3 "very important games" with many points at stake at the championship (with the qualified nations surrounding them in the ranking, thereby getting the chance to improve more than they deserve in the ranking -simply by playing a higher number of important games). Another negative consequence of the FIFA ranking formula, is that if a highly ranked nation decide to play a lot of friendly games, it will be directly penalized for that, compared to those nations who only play few friendly games. On the bottom line, the fact that the Elo ranking formula is using a "more intelligent" formula, which only adjust the previously scored points according to the result of the next match, is why so many of us continue to claim, that it is more accurate and without the anoying "statistical noise", compared to the FIFA ranking formula. To say it short, the relevance to report the Elo ranking data, is fully justified by the fact, that it has been used to calculate data all the way back since the first International match in 18xx, and that it utilize a complete different and superior calculation principle (compared to the FIFA ranking). As the report of Elo ranking data is not up for debate in this chapter, I appoligy for writing so much about it. I just couldnt help myself, to use the opportunity to defend the relevance of the Elo ranking. The rest of my reply, will now focus on the subject we have started to discuss in this chapter, about the format we should choose for our min/max data. :-)

Reply for the discussion, about which data format we should use for the min/max data:

After some additional consideration, I am ready to support the argument listed above by Kevin: That the relevance of posting the min/max by Month, is actualy justified by the fact, that FIFA has decided to calculate and publish these ranking data at a monthly basis. The fact that the used calculation model doesnt merit publication on a monthly basis (but in my point of view only merit a publication at a yearly basis -defined as being the end of each season at July 31), is a concern FIFA should deal with, and not our Wikipedia infobox. A part of me also agree with the concern, that if we start to report the min/max data only by some simplified "Year intervals", then it might be interpretated in a misleading way by many readers. However, this concern could easily be solved, if we slightly change the data format, so that we list all specific "Year intervals" without any simplification. To give an example, this would mean that the FIFA max intervals for Brazil, should be listed as: 1993, 1994-2001, 2002-07, 2007, 2009, 2010 , instead of: 1993-07, 2009-10. I tend to agree, that if we decide to list the data by "Year", then it would also be most appropriate, to list all intervals without simplification. This solution would however mean (as shown by the given example), that the size of the datalines again would be a problem. After this further reflection, I have arrived at the point, where I now support the counter proposal posted by Kevin:

We should stick with the format to report min/max data by Month; and when we have more than 1 Month with a min/max value to report, it should be a new common standard, to report the data by writing (with the FIFA max for Brazil given as example): (first time: September 1993, most recently: May 2010).

If there is no objection to this new standard format, posted within the next 7 days, I will continue my work to implement this as a new official standard for the template.

Danish Expert (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

How about an optional vice-captain line? Many teams have a fixed vice-captain (Barcelona, Spain national team etc.) who is just as notable as the captain. Would do it myself but I have little experience and am scared of breaking wikipedia since this is such a high-risk template. Could someone let me know if they do this? My watchlist is kinda cluttered. Thanks. basalisk (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kit manufacturer[edit]

Just a random thought after seeing the US-Ecuador game and wondering about Ecuador's kits: what about a line indicating a team's kit manufacturer? Obviously we can't put the logos in the kit images (and someone really needs to go on the Commons and get rid of the logos on the images there, I've seen quite a few of them) it could be useful to include. Any thoughts? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it is a totally incidental bit of info which tells us nothing about the team. It might be important to Umbro the company that they provide the kit for the England football team: there is no great importance to the England football team that their kit is provided by Umbro. Purely commercial arrangement, so sporting significant, so relevant in the article about the commercial entity, but not the sporting one. Not our job to do the promotional job of kit manufacturers for them. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. As I said, it was just a random thought I had. Nothing particularly vital. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

I think "Biggest win" and "Biggest defeat" should be reworded to "Largest win margin" and "Largest defeat margin" respectively, especially if for example, a 4-2 win is regarded the same as a 2-0 win. Is this something that can be changed in one place and will update everywhere, or would it need to be changed in each article? --ChaChaFut (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home Colours vs. First Kit -- Again[edit]

Years ago, after discussion, Home/Away Colours was changed to First/Second Kit. Then someone changed it back without discussion. It was restored to First/Second Kit, and then was changed back one more time, again without discussion. There seems to be agreement here that Home/Away is less accurate than First/Second. That being the case, why does it keep being changed back? And would someone please restore it to First/Second? 70.54.89.245 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should settle it: [12] Read page 32, point 3 (or page 44, point 5). According to FIFA regulations, a team wears its "official team kit" unless there is a conflict. Then the visiting team (or team B in the tournament) changes to its "reserve team kit." 70.54.89.245 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SVG kit template[edit]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't find any way to change NT's kit into svg version (there is no png of what I wanted to do). There is such a possibility in Template:Football kit but |filetype doesn't work here. Arvedui89 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

will fix. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest win / biggest defeat[edit]

There is a proposal under discussion to remove the biggest win and biggest defeat entries from the national team infobox template. That discussion is happening on the WP:FOOTY talk page. If you have any comments, please leave them on the WP:Footy talk page, not here. Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but It seems win/loss records are put back as per: 12 February 2016‎ Fenix down (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,601 bytes) (+761)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by PeeJay2K3: A couple of editors having a chat is nowhere near sufficient to remove parameters from a widely used temnplate. Needs to go back to WT:FOOTY for more discussion. (TW)) (undo | thank) edit. BiHVolim (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the removal of these as well as the Elo ratings (as mentioned below) were undone... I haven't yet had the energy to reopen the discussion about it. I guess a vote with lots of people is required, to avoid people who don't like it from reverting it. –Sygmoral (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, in instances like Australia and Bhutan, there are clear grounds for including record results, given that Australia's infobox includes a world record victory linked to an article on the game and Bhutan's includes what was then a world record defeat. Additionally, in both articles instances, the length of the article more than justifies the length of the infobox.

The problem arises when infoboxes are full of information but the article is very short. The correct way to dealing with this is not removing parameters from infoboxes which then affects every article, but to do what we are all supposed to be here to do and do a little editing, add content to the article discussing the points in the infobox. I have no problem with these parameters not being used when the matches they discuss are not referenced in sourced prose in the main body of the article, but that is not the same as not having them at all. I would ask all editors to refrain from removing parameters again in future without clear consensus. The last discussion I am aware of did not seem to achieve that. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elo Ratings and Biggest Win/Defeat Parameters[edit]

There is currently a discussion at the WP:FOOTY talk page regarding the length of this infobox and whether all the parameters, specifically those parameters related to Elo ranking and biggest wins and defeat. Please discuss this there. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also look above for some more opinions.-Koppapa (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sections of the infobox have now been removed. See the other talk thread for the discussion. —Sygmoral (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

infobox width change request[edit]

Hi, I am a fan of recent change to remove biggest wins and losses from the infobox for the already mentioned reasons. Nice one. I do have a request. Could you please extend the width of this infobox as some of the nations with long names will have their flags sitting on second line as a result of the long country name. See example here: Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team. As you see Bosnian (Republic) flag is moved (under FIFA international). Would appreciate the change. Thank you BiHVolim (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think there's any need for those flags anyway, so this request is moot. – Pee Jay 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I vote for the flags to be removed. Cheers BiHVolim (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fair for you to only modify Bosnia page removing the flags and not do any other page. You say there are over 200 pages to do. That is an easy excuse. How about you change Wales for starters or leave Bosnia the way it was originally. I gave it a good fix. Why not leave the way it is, why be so stubborn and keep modifying only Bosnia page. Does not seem fair. Please consider our feelings. THANK YOU VERY MUCH sir! BiHVolim (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily fixed using the {{nowrap}} template, as demonstrated here. Number 5 7 10:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pls also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football BiHVolim (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal: condense "Largest win" and "Largest loss" fields under a common "Records" section[edit]

Lately, there's been some back and forth on removing both ELO ranking and biggest wins/defeats, with a recent discussion held at WikiProject Football. Some people argued for the complete removal resp. actually removed the parameters, while others defended the inclusion on the basis the parameters have been present since 2006.
I actually don't care about the ELO rating, so let's keep that aside for now. But while the numerically largest win and loss may be notable enough to be mentioned in a Trivia or Records section, they are clearly not relevant enough to be featured under their own headings in the infobox, see for example the intrusive multi-line sections on Germany national football team. The first international game may be slightly more relevant, but neither does it merit its own section.
Now as a compromise, I propose turning all of the three parameters into standard, single-line merged rows, merging the largest win and loss with other existing parameters (most caps in history, top scorer in history) into a new "Records" section. Secondly, the first international game is something akin to the team's establishment, so that one may be merged up to the initial section, while being restricted to a single-line, short mention. More details can be given in a linked article, but if the game doesn't even have its own article, it clearly isn't important enough to have multiple lines of details with flags in the team's infobox. --PanchoS (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a bit of a mess on many articles right now... I have linked to this discussion from the general WP:FOOTY talk page, where more people may read it. –Sygmoral (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The debate around biggest win / loss in infoboxes is to my mind creating a solution to a problem that does not exist, or at least is trying to state that there is a problem when actually there is a very simple solution. I completely agree that a fully populated infobox in an article where the sourced prose is only very short is not really appropriate either from a content pov or visually. However, the way to deal with this is not to remove parameters from the infobox but, and I know this is a radical proposal(!), to actually do some writing and provide sourced prose in the main body of the article to flesh out the statistics provided in the infobox.

For example, this article, which I am involved in, uses all the parameters noted above. From a visual pov, the longer infobox to my mind actually sits better in the article where there would otherwise be significant whitespace. Additionally, all elements of the infobox (including both the results and the ELO ranking) are discussed in the main body of the article. Furthermore, they are also useful parameters to use on results lists, where arguably they are even more relevant.

If a solution is required, I would suggest that instead of it being the removal of parameters a note included at the top of the infobox stating that all entries in the box should be discussed in sourced prose in the main body of the article or be at risk of removal. This way we should avoid having inordinately long infoboxes in relation to the overall length of an article, but at the same time allow editors the greatest amount of room to use the infobox to provide a concise summary of the article. That being said, I am open to suggestions as to how the infobox can be made more efficient without necessarily removing any parameters. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bad link and a link to a DAB page[edit]

In Bahamas national beach soccer team, this template is calling FIFA World Cup instead of FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup, and the DAB page 2017 World Cup instead of 2017 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup. Can someone who knows their way around this template fix these problems? Narky Blert (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template accepts |type=women and could benefit from also accepting |type=beach with a similar treatment. I'll have a go at this unless any of the regular template editors step in soon to oppose the idea or do the job themselves. Certes (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Certes (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 March 2020[edit]

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

Add parameter "Last game", for defunct national teams such as Mandatory Palestine national football team and Soviet Union national football team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done S.A. Julio (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Elo[edit]

Now that the official world rankings are simply an adjusted Elo as of 2018, can we remove the Elo sections from this template and all national football team articles? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding First game section[edit]

Should we accept the first game ever of a national team in this section even if it is an amateur one or should we accept only matches recognised by FIFA?

Brayan Jaimes (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brayan Jaimes: I would personally only use FIFA-listed matches. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nations league divisions[edit]

Can we add the division that UEFA and CONCACAF teams are on their respective confederation's Nations League? Say, stating "League = A" for Spain and Mexico, and so on.

--AndSalx95 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA rankings[edit]

How come we're not showing confederation (e.g. UEFA) ranking, only FIFA? Wolfmartyn (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is UEFA the only confederation to have its own ranking? – Pee Jay 09:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manager[edit]

'Manager' needs to be a template option.

'Coach' may be used commonly in American English to describe the person in charge of coaching a professional sports team.

In British English, however, the person in charge of coaching the men's England association football (soccer) team and the person in charge of coaching the women's England team is known formally as the manager — is not known as the coach, nor even as the head coach.

See the relevant webpages on the England Football website at https://www.englandfootball.com

eg https://www.englandfootball.com/england/womens-senior-team/squad Humanity Dick (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]