Talk:Italy national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Italy national football team article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	The article on Italy national football team is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	The article on Italy national football team is supported by the WikiProject on Italian Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Italian football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the Talk Page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Article name 2 Recent Scandals 3 POV 4 Copyedit 5 Panairjdde - Re: Reverts 6 Traditional jersey color 7 Vandalism 8 Diving 9 Coff Coff 10 Article Title 11 Vandalism (as of 11 July) 12 Panairjdde 13 how can i get a jersey? 14 Please stop the crazy Kangaroo!!! 15 Jersey 16 Luigi Riva 17 Current players 18 Semioli: 1966 North Korea reference 19 Italy Squads at the World Cups 20 Upcoming Matches 21 POV, again 22 Italy second most successful team in World Cup history (or not?) 23 Blue Jersey 24 Current squad 24.1 Goalkeepers 24.2 Defenders 24.3 Midfielders 24.4 Strikers 25 logo 26 Blatter's apologies

[edit] Article name

Shouldn't the title be "Italian National Football Team" and not "Italy National Football Team"? Jez 12:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

All the articles about national football teams are entitled Nation national football team; see, for example, France national football team opposed to French national football team, England national football team versus English national football team, Brasil national football team opposed to Brazilian national football team, and so on.--Panairjdde 13:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone reformat the current squad list so it is more in line with others like Spain and Brazil, where the the region of birth flags are next to each player? --GoHawks4 19:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I did it time before, and I'm going to do it again when the 23-man will be defined. --necronudist 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the introduction of the region of origin of the player bears no important information. --Panairjdde 12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, and have entered the relevant images. --GoHawks4 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

reverted. Please explain why is important to know in which region they were born. Why not the city, instead? Why not their astrological sign?--Panairjdde 21:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually did it by province, not by region, which I suppose is more relevant. Not to mention that there is precedent in this:

Netherlands_national_football_team Spain_national_football_team Brazil_national_football_team Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team Argentina_national_football_team Germany_national_football_team United_states_national_football_team Mexico_national_football_team Canada_men's_national_soccer_team --GoHawks4 06:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was you, but someone added the region flags. Anyway, it is irrilevant the region/province a player comes from. And the fact it has been added to other articles is not a good reason (I plan to remove it from those articles the flags).--Panairjdde 13:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One could argue that any factoid in any article is irrelivent. I think that when it comes to nations like Italy or Spain for example, where the regions themselves have existed longer than the state itself, people feel as much if not more allegiance to their locality than the nation. I think it's interesting to see at a glance which regions of these countries are more represented by the national side than others. I don't see how it could possibly detract from the article. --GoHawks4 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nice argument. But current regions have nothing to do with with ancient nations, so that very few can recognize the flag of their region. And as regards "detracting", cluttering the article with useless informations actually detracts in readability, thus reducing the quality of the article.--Panairjdde 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"very few can recognize the flag of their region." false. we aren't Dutch. --necronudist 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how 30x20 pixel images really clutter an article at all.

Adding useless information always clutters an article.--Panairjdde 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing useless about it and I'm confident that if it ever came to a vote, the results would be in favor of including regional symbols as a standard practice.--GoHawks4 14:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the point in putting the region of birth of a player? As I already asked (and you did not answer) why not putting the city emblem, the province emblem, the astrological sign, the photo of the player or whatever?--Panairjdde 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I did answer the question. And when I put the images in question in the article, I used the provincial emblem. I assume that you're sarcastic about astrological sign, but if you honestly fail to see the differing degrees of relevance between regional indicators of the make-up of a national side representing the entire country and astrology, I am sincerely sorry. --GoHawks4 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I promised not to collaborate anymore but this is a debate I already had time ago:

• Is useless to debate it in this thick little page, it should be a widely accepted convention, see this.
• Don't forget that we [Italians] are strongly "regionized", but really people from other countries (yeah, Dutch for example) don't have a clue of how are their regional flags like.
• Regional/state/province/city flags are used not only in football articles, but also (e.g.) in ice hockeys.

P.S.: I'm pro-flags but Panairjdde isn't totally wrong, and there are more problems than it seems, need to discuss somewhere. Cheers. --necronudist 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like I'm completely behind in this discussion, but on the other national football team articles, the flags indicate where (club-wise) the player is currently playing - not where they were born. -- Chuq 23:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And this article too. As the text immediately after says, "Saudi Arabia and Italy are the only countries to submit squad lists comprised entirely of players contracted to clubs in their own country."

[edit] Recent Scandals

Should anything be added to the recent history about the scandal and the possible implications in the cup? I'd say that if Buffon can't play, that's big news, same with many of the other players. 67.176.41.21 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is something that has consequences on the team, yes, we should add it. But if only a single player can not be called (and this is not sure, at the moment), the news should go in the player's page, eventually.--Panairjdde 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article seems like a polished job. It seems to gloss over any disappointing results of the Italian team and focus too much on minor successes. POV.--Sir Edgar 09:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are biased. The article reports the history of the team, with both triumphs and disappointing results. Furthermore, calling three World Cups, one European Cup, 16 partecipations to WC (of which last 12 in a row) "minor successes" is an example of "sour grapes". Stop vandalizing this page, and remove the {{POV}} tag.--Panairjdde 09:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing the page. I am merely putting it up to the same standards you have held up other articles to. In addition, I am quoting the same articles that you have in 2002 FIFA World Cup (match reports).--Sir Edgar 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you add an "unreferenced" tag to a section that says that "Italy hosted the World Cup in 1990" or to another that says Italy won in 1982, it is either stupidity or vandalism, because you just click on "1990" and "1982" links and find who hosted the 1990 edition and won 1982 one.

As regards the performance of Italy in the last years, I removed it from the introduction because it is referenced in Italy national football team#Recent years section, and thus is duplicated. Since you look to disrupt this article only to show a point on SK team page, notice that there there is a "footnote" on a competition that is not dealt with in the rest of the article.

As regards the performance in 2002, note that already there is a reference to the relevant article, so I removed the duplicated info you added. Always with the will to show you the difference with SK article, notice that it was someone else to add a reference to Italy and Spain defeats in 2002, I just added more infos, in a footnote.

Also, since you seem to disrupt this article only to prove your point on how SK article should be written (but this is against Wikipedia policies, see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point), I removed the POV tag.

--Panairjdde 08:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Panairjdde...what a mess you made, Edgar! --necronudist 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am merely putting a more balanced perspective to what looks like a total polish job.--Sir Edgar 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After this comment you lost any credibility.--Panairjdde 08:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the page is not necessarily the information presented as the style it is presented in; hence the copy-editing tag below. Labeling sections as "triumphs" and "dark days", among other stylistic problems, paint the editor as a fan of the program and not a responsible Wikipedia editor. It's okay to be a fan (after all, one who follows the program most closely tends to have more information on the program) but you can't let it shine through like it does in your writing. More restraint is necessary. Frackintoaster 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking into making similar changes to this article, so thank you for properly cleaning up Frankintoaster. I went into the Moreno article and cleaned that up a bit. So definately, I agree with what Frackintoaster says above. --Jayohz 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The mention of the Aus v Italy game should state that the final penalty kick was HIGHLY DISPUTED, and considered dubious by most observers of the game. Phanatical 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The following sentences are POV'd:

• but the Azzurri won an incredible semi-final
• As shown by their pathetic displays in the group matches and their inability to play offensively for most of their game against South Korea.

The following sentence needs sources: As evidence of this, was the remarks of Christian Vieri who blamed Trappatoni's negative tactics as the main reason of Italy's failure in 2002.

Please proceed with the due changes or it will be reverted. Thanks. --Beamrider 09:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these sentences are the result of Mr. 58.178.91.113 edits, that I reverted twice, presuming his good-faith, but that now I assume backed only by his will to introduce negative elements in this article. The only exception is the first sentence, which refers to Netherlands-Italy Euro 2000 semifinal: I think winning 10 against 11 with two penalties against should be considered "incredible", however I am open to suggestions on how this adjective could be sobstituted.--Panairjdde 09:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've made some changes to the paragraph, albeit maintaining the overall sense, to make it more NPOV. --Beamrider 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the edits before reading this post of yours. Pardon. However, let me say that "for the record" is as POV as you claim is "incredible". I do not think "incredible", which is usually celebrative in sport-related articles, is completely out of place, here. If you don't like the adjective, change it, or remove it, but I really prefer the previous sentence flowing.

--Semioli 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree. This is not a "sport-related article", it's a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a blog or a newspaper. Wikipedia should list facts, not express opinions. My edit showed the singularity of the penalty scores anyway, and anyone who "gets" football should be able to make his opinion without hints like incredible or whatelse. Therefore I'm reverting it back, and I would prefer discussing it here than starting an edit war. --Beamrider 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now relax and read again my post. Done? So you noticed we are holding the same opinion? In that case, it would be nice if you take my opinion into consideration, and rewrite your edit, instead of pushing your version as you did. This is a collaborative enciclopedia.--Semioli 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how often just having a different opinion is marked as lack of relax. Whatever. Anyway, I'd love to read why you think "for the record" is POV'd. I'm not changing the edit right now, but I'm open to discuss it, and if you have better ideas which stick merely to facts I'm eager to read alternatives. --Beamrider 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I only meant to be kind, but my words have been misunderstood. In order to avoid other misunderstanding, I edited my proposal. Best regards.--Semioli 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit. Thumbs up. --Beamrider 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I'll step away from the POV edit wars for the time being and remark that this page needs some serious copyediting work. I'm going to tag it as such and start working on cleaning up some of the English. Frackintoaster 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panairjdde - Re: Reverts

• The info you've added can all be found in the individual competions. This is an article on the Italian national team; you're adding superfluous information on the championships in question. If a user wants to know about the Netherlands failing to convert six penalties in a match, they're going to check the page of the match/tournament in question, not this one.
• The claim that the World Cup is the most prestigious competition in the world can either be established on the World Cup page or assumed. It does not need to be re-asserted here.
• Your section titles are POV (what constitutes a slump?) and a violation of accepted section title style.
• Claims such as "the most successful" and "the incredible semi-final" are superfluous and debatable.
• The English in your revisions is poor and contains many grammatical errors. You've reverted my attempts to fix them.

Look, you've contributed a lot of useful information, but I am apparently not the first person (I count two more on this page alone) to contest your inability to maintain NPOV on this topic. You've erased attempts to tag the article for a (I feel, necessary) POV-check as "vandalism". If you revert again I'm going to tag for a POV-check myself and ask for moderation from the administrators. It wouldn't be a problem for me if you were adding on to the things I feel I've fixed, but you seem unable to accept the editing of your work here. Frackintoaster 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. You keep on connecting the link http://www.figc.it/english/storia/storia_completa.htm#1913 with the wrong text. I'm reverting.
2. No one decided we are obliged to divide the history of a team into sections bearing the years. "Origins and first two World Cups (1910-1938)" is perfect an more clear than "Pre-World War II".
3. The performance of all the teams in World Cup are reported in the articles about each single edition of the WC. Are you going to remove any reference to WC that can be found elsewhere? I do not think so. Notice also that you added "(Italy)" to WC 1934. It is a duplicated info, since it "can either be established on the World Cup [1934] page or assumed [by the fact that the final is in Rome]. It does not need to be re-asserted here", to use your words.
4. Some of your reverts are not explained, for example the content of your "Post-World War II" section
5. "Incredible semi-final" is not POV; it is just a match in which one side missed five penalties on six. And the info is important, since it was the Italian goalkeeper who was on the other side of those six penalties. If the "most successful" that is "superfluous and debatable" is the reference to Inft performance, you deserve no answer.
6. You may (note: "may") be right only on my English. But this does not allow you to blank my edits.
7. You are free to criticize my edits, but please, choose better allies: SirEdgar is here to "disrupt an article to prove his point", which is a clear violation of WP policies.
8. As regards moderation, do what you think is better.--Panairjdde 11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is POV and it's primarily Panairjdde's fault. People have pointed this out to him, but he continues to engage in edit wars without reason or compromise.--Sir Edgar 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahah, funny that you mention POV. I've seen how you do the same thing with the Korean football page Sir Edgar. Hypocrisy is un-Wiki maybe? 192.45.72.26 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep on pointing on my POVs, but you (and others like you) failed to explain why reporting the performance of a team in its article is POV. Instead of keeping on reverting my edits, you (and others like you) could simply find a compromise that does not remove information.--Panairjdde 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Edgar, I don't understand why are you making all this mess for a simple thing: you have vandalized this page asking sources for the most stupid things (d'you remember azzurri?) and so on. so, please, stop it. =_=' this isn't a nursery (or maybe...it is) --necronudist 12:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Only the positive information seems to be included in this article. It lacks overall perspective. Italy has not won a World Cup in nearly 30 years. The previous two were in the 1930s, one when the Italians hosted. The teams is stricken by never-ending controversy and conspiracy theories. It's quite sad actually, but this is not really mentioned.--Sir Edgar 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite explain your attitude, however, what I will say is that both your edits and those of Panairjdde are (for the main part) POV and need to be toned down. The lead is misleading- in fact Italy's record since 1982 (3rd place 1990, 2nd place 1994, last 8 in 1998 and very narrowly beaten by the eventual winners on home turf, last 16 in 2002) makes them one of the most successful World Cup teams of recent times. They may not have 'performed so well lately', but no team can win the trophy every time. I do concede that their European Championship record is a shocka by contrast. If you can't see that edits like 'Italian fans cried foul yet again' and 'what Italian fans describe as controversy' (an opinion that happens to be shared by many, for example the BBC [1] [2] [3], world soccer news [4], The Guardian [5] etc etc etc). I would also like to know what 'unsportsmanship' is, and why he had a separate ban for that as well as the spitting incident, as your edit implies. The conspiracy theories should be mentioned, outlined and debunked using evidence in an encyclopaedic way (although I could almost believe they had a point in Korea!). I have reverted your edits once again. Please try and avoid POV, it really is completely unecessary. If you persist, then we ought to get an outside opinion. Badgerpatrol 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-iteration of Badgerpatrol's comments, he's on the money. It seems as if some of Edgar's edits were disruption to prove a point, which isn't good... but invalid techniques do not imply an invalid point. Reporting performance is okay, but you're not doing that. Reporting performance is telling people that they lost so many matches or won so many matches and letting the reader make their own conclusions about their performance during the era. You can say that "they won more championships in this time period than any other team" and that's much more preferable to saying "they were the best team in the world at this time". You can defend the former with facts but you cannot VERIFY and DEFEND the latter because it is a value judgment. It's the habit of attaching value to facts that is the main POV problem facing the article. This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial or fan page. Everything that cannot be supported through citation or direct defendable fact must go. Frackintoaster 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Now, could you please tell us what is not supported through citation?--Panairjdde 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Every time I visit this article, even the slightest negative information is deleted. What happened to the sentences about all the controversies Italy has been involved in? And what about its players who spit on other team's players? Italy hasn't won a World Cup in 30 years and yet this article makes it seem like they are the best team in the world.--Sir Edgar 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not my reading of the article. Can you point to specific instances of POV? It does rather seem to include adequate coverage of Italy's defeats and setbacks. I have added a note regarding the 2002 conspiracy theory; Totti#s sending off for spitting was already included, and in any case, a single player being sent off for bad conduct is hardly noteworthy in and of itself in international football these days. I do not see that 'the slightest negative information is deleted' - in fact, I see quite a few negatives in there right now. The article is hardly rose-tinted. If you think you can improve it without injecting your own POV (which seems to be somewhat lukewarm towards the Italian team) then of course do so, or point out any improvements here. Badgerpatrol 02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

re your latest edits [6]: You seem to be disrupting this article to make some kind of Point, although why you are doing so truly escapes me. Please don't. Your attitude seems to my reading to be bordering on racism; if you continue, the next step will be page protection and a RfC. It would be a much better use of our time and energy if we instead try to co-operate to improve the article. Badgerpatrol 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are any of my edits incorrect or falsified?--Sir Edgar 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this page. If you think that edits like "These reports were quickly dismissed by FIFA and the majority of the world's media, but Italian fans continued to whine and cry about it even though Italy has never won a World Cup match on penalties." conform to NPOV then I am surprised. (In addition, I don't actually understand that sentence grammatically or structurally- why is it relevent that Italy have never won a shoot-out?). Badgerpatrol 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge "whine and cry" as POV. It's true though that Italy has never won a WC match on penalties. It's relevant because if many Italian fans seem to believe that if Totti was not thrown out of the match, then Ahn would not have scored the golden goal and it would be 1-1. This would lead to a shootout.--Sir Edgar 05:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Italy not advancing at shootout (but notice that Italy already advanced during extra time) is your speculation, based on past events. SK never won a WC, so are you going to claim that it will never?--Panairjdde 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Following Edgar, Netherlands is one of the worst team ever (1 ec), like england (1 wc, hosted) or spain (0 wc, 0 ec) and greece is one of the best european team actually (won the last ec). Maybe truth is that Brazil, Argentina, England, Netherlands, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Spain, France, Germany are all very good teams and they can win the World Cup, even if some of them aren't in a good period (like France and Germany). You can't say if a team is a good team counting its trophies. There's something called tradition, teams with great football tradition can always win something. If you're into football, you know it. Nobody doubt about the strenght of teams like France or Germany, even if they're in a bad period. --necronudist 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edgar, I'm glad you acknowledge your bias. Please therefore try and avoid inserting POV in the future. As for the penalty situtation- I do not see what you are talking about at all. You seem to be saying that because it has never happened in the past it will never, ever happen- which is a bit silly. By a similar rationale, it is impossible for Spain or Portugal to win the current tournament, since they have never done so in the past. To reply to Necronudist- it is not for us to make value judgements as to who are the 'best' or 'strongest' teams; we should instead use terms like 'successful'- i.e. a descriptor that can actually be backed up by evidence. This is an encyclopaedia, after all. Badgerpatrol 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I only acknowledge "whine and cry" as POV. I did not say that I have a bias. Panairjdde seems to continue to polish this article and censor very relevant negative facts in this article while slamming other teams. My hope is that we can have equal application of positive and negative facts in each team's article and avoid accusations and opinon.--Sir Edgar 00:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What did I censor?--Panairjdde 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the tile of this section in Talk. It's about your reverts.--Sir Edgar 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The title may be restricted to his reverts. This discussion is not. No-one is entitled to insert their own POV into this or any other article, as you admit to doing above. Best thing here is for everyone to grow up and concentrate on producing a good balanced and fair article. Badgerpatrol 02:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edgar, don't play with me. You said I "censor[ed] very relevant negative facts in this article". I ask you, what did I censor?--Panairjdde 08:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole argument concerning POV is rather comical. POV is standard whenever anything is stated. It is impossible not to have a POV. The medium is the message, as they say. People who complain about POV have a POV of their own; people simply complain about other people's POVs because the latter's POVs do not correspond with the former's POVs. This article is no more biased than the criticisms levied against it by its detractors. It seems, however, that those who want to add negative things about Italy (diving, spitting, etc) simply want to do so as an attempt to tarnish the image of the Italian team rather than to add anything substantial to the article.

It is quite surprising to find that there are so many people refusing to admit that Italy is one of the best and most successful teams in the world. And this is not POV at all, it's a plain fact. This last victory in Germany 2006 World Cup makes Italy the second best team after Brazil, having won its fourth World Cup final out of six played so far. 212.162.108.198 12:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Marco from Roma, Italy

[edit] Traditional jersey color

Why is blue the traditional jersey color? Thanks. Jim 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

because it was the colour of the Royal House. It is used for all the Italian sporting teams/athletes, but in motor sports.--Panairjdde 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Better keep an eye on this page, there are some not very happy Aussies out there! -- Chuq 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's coming thick and fast from many different IPs. I hope people don't think I'm jumping the gun by semi-protecting. If so, feel free to un-protect (or get another admin to). I'm off to sleep (a depressing one) :( -- Chuq 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's vandalism if some posters point out that Italy has a long history and a reputation in international football for diving. I mean, they've maintained this reputation for decades, so it would be at least pertinent to mention that they are often looked at unfavourably by other fans and squads.

JaysCyYoung 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jays: SECONDED! This page is long overdue for a criticism section.

Aussie Jim 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just check out this discussion and I think you will find you are right. The opinion of most outsiders would suggest they have gained a terrible reputation worldwide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb606/F4441083?thread=3196044

Marto85 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add this wikinews link?  As far as the "diving" thing goes, Italy does have a reputation. But so does Germany and Netherlands. Are we going to make ammendments to those pages too? TBH you can say the same thing about England these days, too. To mention specific incidents is not POV. 172.188.228.169 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deciding to add a section about Italy's reputation for diving just after a defeat is not the smartest thing to do. Return when your head is cold.--Panairjdde 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If this article gets a criticisms section (which is a preposterous idea) then almost every other major team in the world is going to have to have one too- they all dive, they all cheat to gain advantage, that's the modern game., sadly. As for today- not a penalty, but what was Neill thinking? Bonkers. Badgerpatrol 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diving

Panairjdde, I think you are missing the point. Diving is a great strength of the italian team. It illustrates their sophistication and guile. The "aussies" are clearly naive fools with their notions of sportmanship and fair play. Serves them right to lose to the nation that brought us machiavelli. Italians should be proud of their world cup team, and I think it is a serious oversight of this article that it omits what is, after all, a key element of the game.

I have no idea why this page attracts this kind of trolling. It is totally unecessary and frankly to my mind borders on outright racism. Please stop it. Badgerpatrol 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Italian dives, Australians play football like rugby, Communists eat children. What else? Maradona cheated, English won a controversial World Cup, Argies corrupted Quiroga... but none of us cry for the robbery every time. Blame the referee for having seen a penalty like that, not Italians. Don't be so stupid, men. --necronudist 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How was his criticism of Italy bordering on racism? The Italian Football Federation themselves are racist, having refused to allow non-Serie A players on the national team (something NO other team in the world does) and have criticised the French for using "import" (aka BLACK) footballers on their team. I also don't see a non-white on the Azzuri. Does anyone sense a semblance of hypocrtisy here? JaysCyYoung 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This has to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on Wiki. There is no ban on non-Serie A players, and it only makes sense that there would be mostly or all Serie A players as it is one of the top, if not the top, national league in the World. There are no black players on the team, because Italy is a European country and immigration is a new phenomenon. This is not Canada or the USA. You think they should put some non-white/european player on the team for the sake of being politically correct? Why don't you go on the Ghana page and ask them why they have no non-black players. Man, dude, you need to get a brain. 192.45.72.26 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Saudi Arabia had all domestic league players and Italy nearly let Cassano on the squad (plays for Real Madrid) but didn't because of his bad recent form. What non serie A players are worthy of being on the team other than Cassano? I wouldn't complain about their selection, they've achieved the semis now, no non serie a players would have made any huge difference at this point. They may criticise the French because they have a different definition of national team. They may require that the player be of French heritage, (I'm not really sure who they would be talking about) or something. Mauro Camoranesi isn't exactly white, or even Italian, he's Argentinian, though probably of Italian origin like several Argentinians are. I don't know who would qualify as both black and of Italian heritage at the same time, but I'm willing to hear any suggestions. KingPenguin 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. JaysCyYoung, are you serious? Would you please point me to any reference to the non-Serie A player ban? Or, if you are able, the criticism against French black players? If not, you should be ashamed of yourself.

As regards non-Serie A or black players, simply none of them was found deserving to be part of the current roster. But this is not the result of a ban. Christian Panucci was part of the national footbal team when playing for Real Madrid, Matteo Ferrari was titular of the 2004 Olimpic team and member of the 2004 European championship roster.

Be more considerate when dealing with this sensible matter, or pleas go to some forum, and do not write here.--Panairjdde 22:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he might mean this sensitive matter btw... ;-). I'm not aware that there's any ban on non-Serie A players; I seem to recall Vieri was (I think?) in or around the squad whilst at Atletico, and possibly Bobby Dimatteo and Zola, Ravenelli et al. whilst in England (correct me if I'm wrong, and there may be others). If Serie B or foreign-based players are excluded it must I think be a recent ruling, and I can't think why they'd do that to be honest- but if it can be verified, then there's no reason to exclude that from the article. The French national team includes or has included numerous players who weren't born in France- as has the Italian squad over the years, including at least 1 or 2 in the current squad. I'm not qualified to state whether there are currently any black Italian players who should be in the squad, although I suppose it's fair to say there is an issue of racism in Italy to an extent- just as there is in many other parts of the world. Bottom line- in my experience, the Italian team does not have any worse a reputation for diving or gamesmanship than numerous other nations- let's not forget that we saw a virtual war break out on the pitch between Germany and Argentina the other day (and the situation between Portugal and Holland was not much better, notwithstanding the ref's attempts to make a bad situation much worse through his incompetence). I can certainly recall instances of diving, cheating and the occasional awful foul occurring in every football tournament in recent memory- from a variety of teams, not just Italy. Suggesting that some Italian players sometimes cheat is perfectly true- almost EVERY team includes players that cheat from time to time, it is a sad fact of the modern game. Suggesting however that there is something about the Italian national character ('the country that brought us Machiavelli' etc etc) that pre-disposes them towards cheating is, in my opinion, racist. Let's try and tone down the offensive language and POV statements and get on with adding to the article. Badgerpatrol 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Christian Vieri will soon return to the Italian national team once he is fully fit and he is currently playing at AS Monaco, JaysCyYoung please advise on any black Italian's who should be in the national team inplace of any existing players?? The majority of African national side's have only black players, it doesn't make them racist, and it sure doesn't make a European side having white players racist either.. ridiculous claim, which borders on trolling.

And as far as diving, it happens in every single football playing country on earth, why single Italy out?... its also very much down to POV as to whether certain incidents are "dives" anyway. - Deathrocker 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood. and never will understand, why some people, reporters, papers single out Italy for diving and play acting. These things are committed by every country I have seen play, and Italy is no more guilty then these other teams. Is this simply jealousy of Italy's success?

Right, just look at the WC final and the penalty against Italy and you'll see that everybody dives. It's modern football, unfortunately. --necronudist 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the absence of black players in our national team, it's a statement that simply ignores a) demographics of Italy - one of the most homogeneous countries in Europe, and b) history, exemplified in the person of Fabio Liverani, adopted into an Italian family in infancy and first black player in our team. He came in with nothing but his good form to recommend him, played his games and, when his form declined, left, just like everyone.--Tridentinus 18:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coff Coff

-Sorry...who said Italy isn't a good team? Uh? --necronudist 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

-Does this mean italy must add a 4th star to the jersey/crest?

[edit] Article Title

Obviously, it's a little late, but for shouldn't the title of this article be "Italian national footbal team?" Yanksox 22:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the first post on this page. Have you got something more to say, or your position is summarized by that discussion?--Panairjdde 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

*Thunks head agaisnt a wall* Wow, I feel...like something...Thanks for kindly pointing it out. Yanksox 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, your first post on this page doesn't answer the question. You just said that this is the current situation, which doesn't mean it's right. Shouldn't the titles of ALL countries' football teams use the adjective of the country instead of the name? 218.103.142.199 05:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said it would answer. I just asked if there was something more, or if his position was somehow similar on one of those.--Panairjdde 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

well ithink itlat has played up to standers specilay canvaro has defended well. well done italia i wish my home country pakistan would have football team and win like the italian chapions.

[edit] Vandalism (as of 11 July)

Good morning,

Can an admin put a protection tag on this one? I've removed one instance of vandalism (which someone tried to overrule - resulting in an edit conflict) earlier and have also had to take down rumours about the Zidane incident. All of this occurred in the 2006 World Cup section.

Thanks. -----Fbelange

I'd be happy about this, too. One cannot help noticing that Italy are often regarded as playing foul and diving whenever they feel need to do so. Still, there appears to be quite a lot of bias there since even the television people commenting the games seem unable to comment fairly what they actually see but talk about "oh, the diver again" and stuff, if the person in question didn't dive actively in the actual game. So, in a nutshell: yes, there is controversy, but still, keep in mind: they have won the World Cup four times, even if the Azzuri often are not liked. But this should be a reference page, and no discussion page wether or not they are considered playing good soccer. Please, stay with the facts, not personal opinions, and fact is: four stars...82.207.214.45 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panairjdde

The user Panairjdde is consistently deleting other's contributions. He has a history of this all over Wiki. You can see so many times where he just firmly wants to keep his POV and just straight-out deletes anyone else's contribution. This user should be disciplined in my opinion. What is this behavior?? 192.45.72.26 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please add references? So that I can understand what contributions I am deleting.--Panairjdde 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the line describing the disallowed goal in the final match. This goes along with the sentences about disallowed goals in the 2002 WC. This was an important point in the game and a possible match decider. You don't have many goals in a game that are disallowed, and it was arguably a dubious call. 192.45.72.26 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a clear offside, just like the disallowed goal to US in Italy vs. US match. Both of them should stay out of the article, therefore, since are simple game calls. --Panairjdde 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, that it was a "clear offside". In the multiple broadcasts I watched of the Final, it was shown in slow-motion that it was not offsides. The commentators as well said they believed it was not offsides. It doesn'ts eem so clear as you believe by yourself. 192.45.72.26 17:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We can settle this matter in an easy way: show us a good reference for this offside, and we shall add it, if it is so important to you. I see your edit was missing a reference, maybe it will be sufficient.--Semioli 10:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's true. Stop trying to keep this page a fansite. This is supposed to be unbiased encyclopaedia. Ban this person please. Damn fanboys.

I think that Panairjdde, of course a genuine supporter of Italy, is just trying to keep this page clean and free from malicious interpretations. I just deleted a "contribution", pretending that the Italian victory was marred by Materazzi's racist comments about Zidane mother or sister, which is not at all proved at the moment. Whatever Materazzi said, Zidane headbutt against him cannot be justified in any way, and it was the worst way Zizou could end his great career. Speculations about Italian racism are completely meaningless, and only show the bad conscience of many French towards algerian immigrates. 212.162.105.251 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Marco from Roma, Italy

the issue with Panairjdde is he controls this page to his liking, as if he has self-proclaimed himself as chief editor. Anyway, I agree with the comments about racism. It is the journalists and French who instantly said Materazzi made racist comments, who should not be prosecuted for inciting racism. That would make them think twice before making such accusations so easily. Will it happen? No. 192.45.72.26 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Marco, you've insulted like others...and mister 192.45.72.26 below is only trying to Gaming the System. Never read wikitruth.info? "Keep his POV", he's gaming on the controversies regardind the absurd NPOV-rule, "he has a history of this" is another example... Just ignore him. --necronudist 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

and who the heck are you to go around saying who should be ignored? Panairjdde does have a history of blanking out other's contributions left and right. Are you his mother or something? I've had my changes consistently deleted and this happens to many others too. Panairjdde controls this page to his liking. 192.45.72.26 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I admit I've insulted and I'm sorry about that. My violent reaction was by the way directed to mr. 58.178.15.253, who, I discovered later, has really a history in breaking Wikipedia editing rules. I think it is an understandable reaction against stupidity and anti-italian discrimination. We always care about all kind of racism, and that's correct, but we often forget anti-italian racism, which, we are discovering in these days, is quite common among the fanatics all over the world. 212.162.96.81 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Marco

Well unfortunately the World Cup has shown us not just anti-Italian racism, but a lot of racism out of control everywhere. Alas, what can you do... 192.45.72.26 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think this should be said loud and clear. There are plenty of controversies surrounding the national team. JUST IN THIS ONE WORLD CUP, is the De Rossi elbow, Grosso diving, Materazzi's shameful actions. Why are the same editors who edit other national team's site based on this, do not insert the same controversies that dog this national team? Pathetic, stop your double standards. Either insert your controversies here or do not do that to other national team pages.

I believe the only people who claim Grosso dived are the Australians, after they couldn't score 1-up for half the game. Yeah, that sucked, didn't it? The rest of the World realize it was a clear foul. You don't slide tackle in front of someone in the penalty box. The Aussie player did a very dumb move, end of story. Materazzi's shameful actions? You mean talking trash on the field like every other player does a dozen times a game? Get a brain; the shameful actions were from Zidane. 192.45.72.26 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(above isn't me) Well, I'm Italian and I'm not feeling somehow discriminated. Panairjdde is simply keeping the article stupidity-free... And, however, Mr. 192.45.72.26 I'm just writing what I think. Sorry if this hurts you, I'll search for a lager where to spend my useless life. Regarding the controversies: there aren't controversies, you are talking from weeks about this or that episode, but no-one makes a war about other episodes like the Argentina-Germany riot and others. And, tell me something: where was Blatter when Italy received WC? He was talking to his friend Zidane, isn't this controverse? You aren't children, you are men. Or not? So, please, stop you all --necronudist 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

let just say, as an italian myself. i feel utmost ashamed that necronudist and panairwhatever are italians. they are not typical. these two are idiots.. maybe together?

doesn't hurt me in the least, just makes me believe you have some internal "issues". Sorry, just writing what I think. 192.45.72.26 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you think I'm an idiot. And, however, you're right, I'm not the typical Italian (= asshole) and you are the perfect reference for this :-) Stammi bene --necronudist 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how can i get a jersey?

i am an American named mark grosso. my grandpa came over here at the age of 13 by himself. we do not have much info on his past from italy except that he has/had a sister. his name was peter (pietro?) grosso. anyway, i am not a soccer fan, but i sure as heck am proud of my italian heritage and watched with great joy and interest that a member of azzurri that shares my last name would score the decisive goals in their last two games. i was bragging all week at work that fabio and i are related. the name grosso is very uncommon everywhere i have lived. (this possibility is quite remote but anything is possible) my question is this. i would like nothing more than to buy a azzurri grosso jersey and wear it with pride the rest of my life. can anyone tell me how i would get ahold of one of them. i haven't seen that on the site yet. any help would be appreciated. and last but not least GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ITALY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! congratuations AZZURRI!--Yardman171 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to your nearest Sports store?

You can try offical Puma's website, or just go to www.soccer.com which is Eurosport's store site.

[edit] Please stop the crazy Kangaroo!!!

Beware!!! The vandal is back!!! 58.178.91.113 (or whatever) keeps adding his nonsense comments to this page, although it's clear that nobody agrees with him. He's already been banned yesterday under another IP, but he's not satisfied, he goes on with his own personal war against Italy team and the editors of this page. I understand that it's been a hard time, loosing the match with Italy by a penalty in 94th minute, but that's life... 212.162.97.127 09:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Marco from Roma, Italy

Sorry Marco, it's only because your editors keep vandalising other National Association pages. I have no interest in vandalising this page, I simply want to maintain the same conditions your Italian editors wish to produce on other Association pages. When this is stopped, and both Association pages kept under the same conditions, I will have no need to edit in order to keep both pages neutral and under the same guidelines.

This is hypocrisy on your side. You clearly vandalized this article, and now you claim to act to counter vandalism (with other vandalism)? At least you should not hide yourself behind an anonymous account.--Panairjdde 10:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When somebody can't admit a defeat in Roma we say: e nun ce vonno sta'... (and they can't bear with it) 212.162.97.127 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Marco

When in Rome....

When in Rome what? And please could you somehow sign your comments or am I asking too much? 212.162.97.127 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Marco

[edit] Jersey

In the first two games of their history (1910 vs France and Hungary), Italy played with the white jersey. On 6th January 1911, Italy played in Milan vs Hungary and for the first time Italian players wore the blue jersey.

References? --151.47.76.121 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (Panarjedde)

If you can understand Italian

http://www.figc.it/speciale_world_cup_2002/html/storia.htm

This is the official site of FIGC (Federazione Italiana Gioco Calcio). And these are other sites (in Italian where you can read the history of the blue jersey).

http://www.anaai.it/maglia.asp

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazionale_di_calcio_italiana

Confirm all. --Jollyroger (italian)

me too, it is widely known in Italy. P.S.: Panarjedde?? Your nick was Panairjdde...am I wrong?? --necronudist 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can add that white jersey were used because they were cheaper, and the young federation had to cut down costs --Jollyroger 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You could also provide a reference, for this ;-) --Semioli 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The above links are enough. --Jollyroger 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not. Anaai page says the white jerseys were used because they followed the rules of the upper classes; and infact also Hungary had white jerseys, and Italy was forced to find another color for its match against them. Figc link says nothing, as Italian Wikipedia one, which has the further problem that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references.--Semioli 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will find something for that then. --Jollyroger 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi Riva

This page has it has 35 (42), but Luigi Riva has it has 42 (35) - which one is correct? Chaldean 02:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

35 scores in 42 matches. This record for goal/matches is still unbeaten in Italy. --Jollyroger 12:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was never a record. Silvio Piola recorded his 30 goals in 34 matches before Riva's 35 in 42.--Semioli 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I messed up with calculator :-D --Jollyroger 08:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current players

This section is meaningless. Who says Di Vaio, Cassano, Adani, Bovo, Montolivo, Pazzini or Ferrari are "current players"? The previous section, the roster for WC 2006, was more meaningful by far.--Semioli 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No answer? Is anyone interested in this section?--Semioli 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get some of the players on this "current players" list either. Pazzini was playing for the U21's two months ago, how did he get bumped up to being considered a current player for the national squad? I think it should be only the 2006 WC squad for now, until a new squad is named for the next friendly or Euro 2008 qualifying match. --Bigdottawa 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the players (apart from those in the World Cup squad) could be simply deleted, at least until Donadoni would select others. Marcocasta 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, why do we have a current squad with old clubs? (Zambrotta, Cannavaro) --Bigdottawa 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is the "2006 World Cup squad", not the current squad.--Semioli 12:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it IS the current squad. --Bigdottawa 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, yes. But when/if Donadoni calls other players, this section won't be updated.--Semioli 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean it won't be updated? Planning on leaving the WC squad there forever, and then adding a new current squad section? Bigdottawa 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just like in Korea Republic for 2002 team. Note also that if you were to update according to the last convocations, you should remove all the WC winners but Amelia: Donadoni has called none of them for the friendly against Croatia.--Kwame Nkrumah 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semioli: 1966 North Korea reference

The references provided (and there are many others in Italian) don't say exactly the same but prove that these are concepts that are commonly accepted. Either you are too young to remember these things, or you didn't read carefully. "They played Italy in their final group game, and absolutely incredibly - the Italians were fancied to win the tournament - North Korea won, 1-0." "The Italian manager Edmondo Fabbri, who had sensationally left out of the squad some of Italy’s leading players, from that day forth was met with chants of “Ko-re-a” at every Italian stadium he visited..." I don't see why you need to delete those two phrases I wrote, you could rewrite them more literally like "the Italians were fancied to win the tournament" or anything like that. No big deal anyway. Marcocasta 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of remembering, but of providing sources. And your claim that 1966 team was one of the best Italy ever had is not supported, just like the claim that since then Korea is a synonim for unexpected defeat.--Semioli 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opiniont it is supported, since the team was fancied to win the tournament. I personally remember articles by Gianni Brera or other famous journalists, saying that it was a great squad. I also remember that in the 1970s, when the team was not performing well, was met with chants of “Ko-re-a”. Then the matter of providing sources for me doesn't exist in this case. Those where just two sources I could find in English in ten minutes to comply your (odd, in my opinion) request. Anyway I was just trying to improve this section, that is very poor. Why don't you try to add something more meaningful, invece di fare il pignolo? Marcocasta 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"In my opiniont", "I personally remember", "I also remember", "the matter of providing sources for me doesn't exist".

Please, read WP:VERIFY.--Semioli 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VERIFY in a nutshell: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." The matter is that those viewpoints are commonly accepted, and they were already published somewhere else, although finding an exact reference would be very difficult and take a long time, notably in English. Then, if you want me to say you're right, I also can, I don't mind. Please basta! Marcocasta 13:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italy Squads at the World Cups

In the discussions, I have written how numbers were given to each player in the World Cups (from 1978 to 1998).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1978_FIFA_World_Cup_squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1982_FIFA_World_Cup_squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1986_FIFA_World_Cup_squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1990_FIFA_World_Cup_squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1994_FIFA_World_Cup_squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1998_FIFA_World_Cup_squads

[edit] Upcoming Matches

There should be a table to point out the upcoming matches, such as friendlies and qualifiers and the dates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.167.225 (talk • contribs).

I do not agree, this is an encyclopedia, not an almanac.--Semioli 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See 2006-07 in Italian football for upoming matches. --Bigdottawa 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV, again

I've added the dispute tags at the top of the article and the history sections. The POV issues have been mentioned before, but the article still reads like a fan's account than an encyclopedia, and still contains too much commentary from editors. There's almost zero citation, even for more controversial claims. Particularly, with more recent competitions, it shouldn't be that hard to find decent English language sources from experts, no?

I've also removed some excessive wiki-linking. You don't need a Wikilink every time you write a player's name, just the first mention. Ytny 07:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with most of your tagging, specially with the main issue at the top of the page. This is an article on a football team, and it tries to tell the history of this team, also recording the feelings of the fans or what was said in the press at that time. See for example your article about the Agony of Doha. When it is said: "team members from this match are still known as "Class of Doha"" or ""Remember Doha" remains a rallying cry for fans" you are just giving account of generally accepted viewpoints, or at least viewpoints accepted among the fans, without giving any specific source. In the same way, you can't tag "The Italian team, where Alessandro Del Piero and Roberto Baggio renewed the controversial staffetta (relay) between Mazzola and Rivera from 1970,[citation needed]" or "After the defeat, coach Dino Zoff resigned after being criticized by then Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.[citation needed]", because these were facts that were on the first page of every newspaper in those days. Then, when you tag "referee Byron Moreno gave Francesco Totti a second yellow card in extra time for an alleged dive, and disallowed an Italian goal.[citation needed] Replays seemed to indicate both that the card was unfounded and the goal was legal,[original research?]" then it's different. You're probably right that the article enphatizes the Italian fans POV, although the fact that those decisions were at least controversial was recognised by the press all over the world. Personally, I don't like when so much importance is given to Moreno. After all, South Korea played better and deserved to win. Then you tagged almost the entire paragraph "It's generally recognised [please name specific person] that Italy victory was obtained thanks to traditional Italian team compactness and outstanding defense play.[original research?] Captain Fabio Cannavaro, along with Fabio Grosso and Gianluca Zambrotta, were considered [please name specific person] among the best players of the tournament. Other key players were midfielders Andrea Pirlo and Gennaro Gattuso.[original research?] Goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon also performed very well, ... [citation needed] As a result, Buffon was awarded the coveted Lev Yashin Award, given to the best goalkeeper at the FIFA World Cup finals." This is really too much!! What citation do you need when Buffon was awarded as best goalkeeper in the tournament? Please have a look at the 2006 FIFA World Cup#Awards and 2006 FIFA World Cup#All Star Team. See also Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Also, I don't understand why you should remove multiple linking. Of course it's not needed, but it's practical. If somebody wants to go to a player's page, why should he go back to find where the link is? In conclusion, I will restore yesterday's version, which is quite neutral, if compared with later edits. Marcocasta 09:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that overlinking is a bad habit, imho.--Semioli 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think that it's practical. I prefer multiple linking to lack of linking. I also hate links to informations that are not relevant with the context, as dates or David and Goliath in this page. I'm keeping an eye on your edits, Semioli, don't provoke me. Just kidding :-). I appreciate your efforts in keeping this page more neutral and unbiased, but please don't exaggerate. Another important thing, Roberto Baggio is not to be confused with Dino Baggio. Marcocasta 11:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you insist, I removed the trivia about "The Mexicans", but please read this article [7]. It says something also about the Korea nightmare (remember?). No doubt that 1982 Italy-Brazil is one of all-times great games, I added a link, but see also 1982 FIFA World Cup. Actually I just copied most parts from there. I wouldn't have removed the trivia about the "notti magiche" in 1990, it is something that is usually remembered. See for example Salvatore Schillaci. About the last World Cup "it's generally recognised that Italy victory was obtained thanks to traditional Italian team compactness and outstanding defense play [citations needed]" For me it's clear like water, since ten different players scored, and most of the defenders were awarded in All Stars Team. Anyway, I'm going on holiday, from this page too. Marcocasta 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcocasta, please excuse me if I forget to address any of your point.

• re: Agony of Doha, I concede that the sourcing on it isn't perfect and it could use some peer review, since I've done most of the editing myself.
• You say that those facts were on newspaper headlines everyday. In that case, it would be easy to cite sources, wouldn't it? Remember that Wikipedia articles aren't written for fans or experts, but for people who are looking for encyclopedic information. You can't assume they share the same level of knowledge as you do.

Now, the paragraph that you thought I tagged "too much"

• "It's generally recognised..." - If it's generally recognized, then quote someone. See: WP:WEASEL
• "Captain Fabio Cannavaro, along with Fabio Grosso and Gianluca Zambrotta, were considered [please name specific person] among the best players of the tournament." - Again, who considered them the best players of the tournament and why should we care about their opinion?
• "Other key players were midfielders Andrea Pirlo and Gennaro Gattuso..." - At this point, you've (not you personally, but editors in general) named half the starting lineup as "key players". Besides the contradiction in terms, the issue is the subjective appointing of "Key players". Instead of stating an opinion, either quote an expert or someone otherwise reputable, or put in objective terms, like being named to the Best XI, etc.
• Likewise, instead of writing "Ginanluigi Buffon also performed very well", it would be more encyclopedic to quote an expert and just say that he won the Yashin Award. If winning the award makes it obvious, why do you have to say it? Keep it to the inarguable facts and let the reader judge for themselves. Why not just say, "Gianluigi Buffon received the Lev Yashin Award, given to the best goalkeeper in the tournament." That says the same thing without introducing any opinion.

My problems wasn't so much that it's biased towards Italy, but that it just wasn't very encyclopedic and introduced opinions without attributing them to anyone. Ytny 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I wish you hadn't removed the tags and the section/article messages. The article does contain significant amount of original research and the tags were there to point out where specifically the article could be improved. I'm not sure why you decided to be so defensive about it.

And a lot of the article reads looks like it was written by non-native English writers. That's something that I could help edit. Still, if you don't agree with my suggestion, you could have the article peer reviewed and see if other editors share my opinions. Ytny 12:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-add the tags as you see fit.--217.26.87.7 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ytny, your answer makes much more sense than the tags themselves. I could almost agree with you, but I think that the section/article messages are really too much and somehow devaluate all the work that has been done. Try to re-edit the controversial parts from a neutral point of view and let's see what happens. I agree that the article contains a lot of original research, notably the parts I've written myself. Personally, I think that adding some interesting information comes first. Also I like some comments on the matches or some trivia about what happened out of the field, otherwise it's just a list of scores. For the same reason, all the important players should be cited. About the past, all the facts and viewpoints I cited were published on main (Italian) newspapers, although it's not easy to find exact sources on the web today. I also agree that the article reads like it was written by non-native English writers, which I think is actually true. If you could help, that would be ok for me. Then if you want to request other editors comments I wouldn't object either. Marcocasta 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italy second most successful team in World Cup history (or not?)

The article states, based solely on the number of first place finishes, that Italy is the second most successful team in World Cup history. Now a more refined analysis proves this wrong. We want to quantify the overrepresentation of the Italian team, at the highest reaches of the tournament. Were all teams of the same strength, we should expect a fair distribution (albeit that is impossible, since there are more participating teams than there have been World Cups, but you get my point) but the overrepresentation of Italian gold medals indicate that their team is "rather better than average".

We want to be more precise than that, however, and the question is how to weight the importance of the first, second, third place finishes etc. Would you not agree that a team that finishes second five times, is more successful than a team which finishes first once, and is knocked-out in the group game every other time? In football, since two teams compete per match, the tournament is structured binomially and we are justified, in quantifying the 'unlikeliness' of outcomes, to assign to each n:th place finish, the point value x/n where x is a conveniently chosen number and then add up these points, where the higher number, the more unlikely performance.

I have done this procedure, with x=12, taking into account first, second, third and forth place finishes (the contribution falls off rapidly with increasing n, so the approximation is good). By this analysis, the three top scoring national teams are

Brazil 83 Germany (including West Germany) 75 Italy 67

That is, Italy is the third most statistically overrepresented country in the World Cup, not the second.

You're quite right, Italy is the third most statistically overrepresented country in the World Cup, not the second. And this is true choosing any combination of scores: 12-6-4-3 as you proposed, but also 24-12-8-6, or for example 32-16-8-4 or 64-32-16-8. Actually you should consider also when the teams reached quarter-finals, or round of 16 or didn't qualify at all, but I'm sure the result wouldn't change.

But usually, for example in the Olympic Games, the standing of countries is done not on the basis of such a score but only on gold medals. When the number of gold medals is the same, silver medals are taken into account and so on.

So, that is, Italy is of course the second most successful team in World Cup history, even if only the third most statistically overrepresented.

Then, if we consider direct matches between Italy and Germany (including West Germany), there's no comparison. Marcocasta 09:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What would you bet that if this argument was "against" France or Germany there won't be any doubt: they are successful. when it's talking about italy suddenly if you win 4 times you are a pretty stupid asshole without any ability in football and if you finish second 11 times you're better. What a stupid debate. Italy won 4 times and placed second a couple of times, it's enough. Few nations done better, unfortunately for us all Italy is one of the most successful team in the world. And you can say that havin' a dick doesn't make you a man, because blah and blah, but you're wrong, and you're blinding yourself. --necronudist 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point system assumes that two second places are worth a world cup. I do not think England would trade its World Cup for the two second places obtained by Netherlands, would you? If not, two second places are worth less than a single WC.

Furthemore, it is common to order teams by first places, then by second, and so on.--BlaiseMuhaddib 08:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Jersey

^ Sky blue was the color of the Royal House of the Kingdom of Italy. In its first match, the Italian national team wore white shirts with shorts from the club of each player; the sky blue shirts were introduced in the following match.

This note is wrong. Italy wore the blue jersey for the first time against Hungary on 6th January 1911.

http://www.figc.it/speciale_world_cup_2002/html/storia.htm

Con la maglia azzurra l'Italia debutta otto mesi dopo, il 6 gennaio 1911, sempre a Milano, contro l'Ungheria.

If you don't understand Italian, this is a translation.

With the blue jersey, Italy made the debut 8 months later, on January 6th 1911, always in Milan vs Hungary. That match vs Hungary was the 3rd in Italy's history

http://www.anaai.it/maglia.asp

In queste due partite la rappresentativa Italiana aveva indossato “maglione bianco con collo e polsini inamidati, pantaloni neri al ginocchio” secondo le regole della buona società di allora. In vista del terzo incontro, quello di ritorno con l’Ungheria in programma a Milano appunto il 6 gennaio 1911 e considerando che i Magiari indossavano anch’essi una tenuta bianca, che nell’incontro di Budapest avevano sostituito con una di diverso colore per “dovere di ospitalità”, la Federazione dovette predisporre un maglia di altro colore.

Here everything is explained:

In the first two games (vs France and in Hungary), Italy had worn a white sweater, black trousers, because of the rules of the upper classes. The third match was scheduled in Milan vs Hungary. Also the Hungarian players worn a white jersey. During the match in Budapest, Hungarian players let the Italians keep the white jersey. So, for the upcoming match, the Italians should return the favor. So, the Federation had to arrange for a new color.

You don't need other reference.

• • • I don't understand why people keep saying it's "sky" blue. It must be some translation issue. In English (which this page is in), sky blue is the color Argentina wears on their shirt. Or the color of the University of North Carolina. Italy's is much, much darker. The colors are nowhere near the same. Italy wears royal blue. Please stop calling it "sky". You're just wrong.

Maybe you are right. Let's see. From the pages royal blue and sky blue, as well as from this page, we have:

Colour	R	G	B
Sky blue	100	149	237
Italian azzurro	51	102	153
Royal blue	65	105	225

...and it looks like you are right, that royal blue is closer to Italian "azzurro". But that shade of "azzurro" was chosen in rather arbitrary way. So, if you take as a reference the blue in the FIGC emblem, you shall see that it is #006bb0. Among all of the shades of blue in Template:Shades of blue, the shad that has the minimum "distance" from "azzurro" is cerulean #007BA7(here the minimum distance is the sum of the absolute values of the difference between each primary colour component in "azzurro" and the chosen shade of blue).

Comparison:

Colour
Cerulean
Italian azzurro

So I am going to change royal blue into cerulean, and 3366CC into 006bb0. --Kwame Nkrumah 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the 1950s, Italy's jersey was sky blue. If you see some old pics, you see that that blue was really light (very similar to Argentina's). Now it is darker. Azzurro means sky blue. And there is always the same error. The blue jerseys were not introduced in the second match.

I appreciate the discussion but in my opinion there's no doubt that the word "azure" is much more correct and intuitive to define Italy's jersey color. So I just corrected the article and hope that nobody would object. Marcocasta 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I object. For the time being, cerulean seems to be the closest colour. And it is meaningless turning "cerulean" into "azure", and then leaving the kits in cerulean, don't you think?--BaldClarke 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no coded color for the jerseys. Look it:Nazionale_di_calcio_italiana. The last had two colors, with a darker shade. Older ones were sky blue, later were cerulean or royal blue, or maybe IKB... So don't fight over this color, it could change in a year or so --Jollyroger 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but no they are cerulean, so why removing the correct colour?--BaldClarke 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jollyroger. The color can vary depending on the styling of the kit. For example the last kit has blue shorts, while you can see that Tardelli in 1982 had white shorts and a lighter shade of blue. To make a long story short, I changed the color in the kit, according to the color used as background in the Italian Federation web site. That should be the closest color. I used the same color for the shorts. The fact that the color code is near to what you define "cerulean blue" doesn't mean that this term should be used in the text. The word "azure" is much more intuitive, since it's the literal translation of "azzurro". Trying to measure the color code and using the correspondent word makes no sense to me. Marcocasta 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"For example the last kit has blue shorts" since when? The white shorts are officially named "Home" [8]

"I changed the color in the kit, according to the color used as background in the Italian Federation web site. That should be the closest color". Why the background of the website, which has been chosen also according to visual issues, is more authoritative that the colour of the logo?

Ok, measuring does not make sense. So:

Colour
Cerulean
Italian azzurro
Azure

Which is the closest to azzurro, between Cerulean and Azure?--BaldClarke 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. "Azure" is literally the same word as the italian "Azzurro", so this term should be preferably used, even if the shade in the color table can be different. Please visit the Italian Federation web site, and you will see that the background color is very similar to that of the jersey.

Code 0047BB looks much closer to the original than the one used before.

You will also see from the pictures that the current shorts are blue, even if I must admit that Italy played with white shorts against Ukraine. Marcocasta 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What "original" are you talking about? Please provide a reference, otherwise it is impossible to say it is true or not.

As regards the shorts, Italy used both blue and white shorts, recently, so, how you decide what is "official" and what is not? Take a look at the link I gave you, and you will see that the "official" ones are the white. If you keep the blue ones, at leas give a good reason.--BaldClarke 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One more answer, although all this matter seems quite silly to me. I might agree that the official kit has white short, as reported in FIFA web site. The Italian Football Federation web site gives no specific indication. The reference you gave doesn't seem very authoritative, since it's just a merchandising web site. Then it must be noted that Italy played most matches in 2006 World Cup (except against Australia and Ukraine) in blue shorts. I prefer the traditional kit with white shorts anyway, no matter if it's "official". The "original" color of the jersey is the one taken from the pictures. See for example, again, the intro in Italian Federation web site[9], and you will see that the jersey color is more or less identical to the web site background color. The logo color is actually a little different.

Jersey azzurro
Logo azzurro

Regarding the text, I still think that the term "azure" works better, although it might be inappropriate from a colorimetric point of view. Is this enough? Marcocasta 10:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some years ago, the U21 Italian team went to play a friendly in some eastern country. They brought white jerseys with them, since the home team was to play in blue. But when the Italian players had already changed into their kits, they discovered that the home team had white kits. In order to play the match, therefore, Italian players used the jerseys of the local team, which were red. This means that in an official friendly game, U21 Italy played with a red jersey. According to your interpretation of the kit-section meaning within the template, the U21 page should have sported a red shirt in the time between the this friendly and the following match. Since this event would have been ridiculous, it is clear you should change the way you propose to determine the colours of the kits. As far as I know, Puma is the official supplier of Italian team, and they mark the white shorts as "Home", and the blue shorts as "Away". To date, this is the most authoritative source on the colour of the shorts: if you want to put blue shorts because you saw the team wearing them in some matches in WC, it is like you wanted the red jerseys for U21 team.

As regards the shade of blue I have some remarks

• if you think this is stupid, why don't you accept my POV, since according to me this is not stupid?
• if a colour shade is "cerulean", the fact that "azure" is closer to "azzurro" is not a good reason to call that shade "azure"
• your way to choose the "official" colour is too empirical, since it is based on picking a colour taken from a photography, and thus on actually two random choices. Selecting the colour from the logo published by FIGC, on the other side, is more uncontroversial. If you don't like the shade chosen by FIGC for the logo, call and have them change it, but up until then, this is the shade closest to reality we can have.

--BaldClarke 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of your remarks. I already discussed them more than enough, so I won't go on. I agree on white shorts anyway. Marcocasta 13:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Since I do not agree with your points, I reverted to the colour used before all these started.--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian jersey is in 3 colors. I a measuring that on my original Puma shirt, with Pantone solid coated scale (but non-pure white light). Check the colors here (1,5 MB. These are RGB approximations, I used the real paper tabs) Note that the shirt has a slight gradient all over it:

• upper part: PANTONE 2728
• lower part: PANTONE 2738
• darkest parts: PANTONE 276
• compare them with PANTONE 3005 cerulean

They are totally different. Cerulean has a strong yellow component, not present in the jersey. I think this closes the question. --Jollyroger 14:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw you changed the colors in the article. Nice, but they are still WRONG. The real color is much, much darker (see the *#$%&£ pantones up here). And remember, that a screen color could never, never be exactly the same of a canvas color. Expecially if you use a totally different color :-) --Jollyroger 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1) they are web safe, which is never a bad thing. 2) i respect you, but you are not authoritative, as I and Marcocasta are not. So this should be settled according to the most authoritative source we can find. For me, it is the logo used by the federation.

As a side note, I would be willing to this compromise: since it is not important (for me, at least) to give the exact shade of colour of the current kit, but rather the "typical" shade of Azzurro, we could agree to the status quo ante, restoring the colour that was there before Marcocasta change, and choose the word of the shade of blue that is "closer" to that one. What do you all think?--BaldClarke 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just use THESE? I don't know how the template works, but is far more accurate than the Baldclarke colors... and has stripes too --Jollyroger 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. For two reasons: the first i that Wikipedia is not a good reference for WP; the second is that the current agreement is to avoid decorations (such as those horrible stripes).--BaldClarke 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to oppose those jerseys, is that, well, they're completely wrong. :) Why does the Italian wiki have Italy jerseys done in what looks, to me, like a grey colour? Those don't come close to representing what Italy's shirt looks like. Also looks like those stripes are two random semi-circles in the middle of the jersey which is completely off as well. 67.46.0.13 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG! I definitely need some explainations.

1) ok, wrong but web safe. I feel better. Phewww! Shouldn't we change the US flag to yellow-purple-black? They should be web safe too...

Maybe you do not know what "web-safe colour" means. If you don't, try asking nicely, instead of erupting sarcasm.--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2) I have an original jersey (Materazzi's), a Pantone scale, and a decent quasi-white lamp. You are using the wrong color system, since RGB is NOT a material system, but a light one. Define "authoritative"...

"You" are not authoritative, since nobody else can reproduce "your" measure.--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3) Ok for me, but Cerulean is very, very, very very different. Write "Blue", "royal blue", "navy blue" "IKB", "pink with green dots" or the hell you want, but that color is not "cerulean". It lacks at least 40% yellow to be cerulean. MAYBE it was cerulean in the '30s-'40s. Maybe.

If we end up with cerulean jersey we will call it cerulean. If we end up with azure kits, we will call it azure. Can you see the pattern, here?--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4) Stripes are on the jersey. Do you want to keep a WRONG jersey because you do not like them O_o ? Oh, WP is not a good reference for WP, but

4.1)Is the damn italian jersey, maybe italians know how it is done. We can see that every day (and probably we will for the next 4 years). Half of us have one of them. The other half have two.

Già, ma quegli stessi italiani, fino a qualche tempo fa, se ne sono fregati altamente, del fatto che la loro bandiera avesse una striscia azzurrino-grigia invece che bianca [10]. Chi ti garantisce che abbiano imbroccato la tonalità giusta di azzurro?--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4.2)If you do not agree that the jersey has under-arm stripes, you probably have never seen a FIFA football match in the last year

My text: "the second is that the current agreement is to avoid decorations (such as those horrible stripes)", your reading "[I] do not agree that the jersey has under-arm stripes". Are you serious???--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4.3)Look one of the billions of photos around, discover that the jersey actually has stripes and then tell me why we don't have to put that on the drawing.

Not reading what the other are writing is not a good behaviour. I never said the jersey has no ("horrible") stripes. I said they should not be showed in the page, as per current policy.--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4.4)Look at the small "featured" star on the italian article. What does it means??

That is has been recognized as a really good article. So why don't you ask them what is their reference for the shade of blue, instead of complaining here?--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4.5)If you feel that "no decorations policy" is needed, please remove stripes from here too.

Do you really think a "decoration" by Puma is "the" Italian jersey? Stripes are both a current feature of the US team jersey, and an historical recurrence (see Image:Joe Gaetjens.jpg). I'll remove the US stripe after you write that the Italian team nickname is Neroazzurri, just because a lousy Puma designer decided a blue jersey was not appealing enough for buyers.--BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

--Jollyroger, astounded.

You missed the compromise proposal to fill these weak points. --BaldClarke 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, I can't believe what I am reading:

1) I know what a WSC is. But it does not make that colour right.

2) ANYBODY can reproduce measure with a pantone tag kit and a jersey. Please, buy a jersey, buy a pantone scale and do that!

3) No, I can't. Dimply because there is no cerulean in the jersey, as I wrote.

4.1) Are you kidding? What's the point in the "grey" (remember 0,05% black) stripe? Colors I gave are MATTER color. Color you gave is MATTER color. That problem came from a very bad translation from CMYK to RGB. Different problems.

4.2; 4.3; 4.5) Jersey has the stripe. It was made by Neil Barrett, designer of the jersey for the FIGC, not by puma designers. So it is a current feature of the jersey. Just like the USA ones.

4.4) I don't ask them because they do not pretend to be the one-and-only-truth-holder about colors. Actually, the color isn't even cited (except for azzurro, that is the official color name), and I doubt the shate used is the right one. But at least they don't say "that's the real color: cerulean", and is by far more accurate. The questions of the anonimous are right (except for the color, maybe your screen settings are just messed up), and they could be considered.

In the compromise proposals, i can see only a quick step back to a previous state, still wrong. --Jollyroger 08:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (irony was just a mean of expression, don't feel hurt... just kidding a little bit)

1. Never said that colour is right. Just that among the shades that have been proposed until now, none has been received unanymous consensus, but at least this is web-safe.
2. Do you read what I write? I wrote that neither you nor "I" are authoritative. And what if I buy a pantone scale and come out with different colours? Who is right? Moreover, what is the official conversion table between pantone and rgb?
3. Do you read what I write? I shall copy it here: "If we end up with cerulean jersey we will call it cerulean. If we end up with azure kits, we will call it azure." The condition is "If we end up with cerulean", not "it is cerulean" (apart the fact that the shade used in the logo is cerulean)
4. Ma leggi quello che scrivo? Ti ho chiesto se le stesse persone che non hanno mostrato alcun interesse per una cosa così lampante come il colore errato della loro bandiera potrebbero aver cercato il colore giusto per una maglia di calcio.
5. Yes, the jersey has ugly stripes. But here on WP they are to be removed, according to current policy. Is it clear now?
6. You say "I doubt the shdte used is the right one", and want that shade used here? If the shade used is not referenced, it is probably a guess. That article probably would not be a featured article here on English WP.

All the shades are wrong, since you support some that I do not, and vice-versa. A compromise is an intermediate position in a situation where not everybody can win. However, you rejected it. Fine with me.--BaldClarke 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1) ok then.

2) Maybe you do not know what pantone is. It is a system for color measurement, and its purpose is to give a verifiable measure of a tint. If you buy a scale and use the right kind of lamp, you cannot find another color. maybe there could be a +-1 delta on the color scale, due to normal differences in the cloth working processes, but it is absolutely impossible that results are so different.

3) Shade of the logo IS cerulean?? OMG, why?? Who says that?. On FIGC website is R=15, G=75, B=170; According to Pantone, Cerulean is R=155, G=196, B=226. Quite different, isn't it? (please note that pantone scale used in that page is a different coating system than mine, so serial number is in different format)

4) Please write in english. I am not saying the color on it.wiki is right, but is by far more accurate.

5) No. Other jerseys has stripes. Italian has stripes. Why do they have to be removed? Or why others are not removed? What about Germany_national_football_team, Ukraine_national_football_team, Slovakia_national_football_team, Scotland_national_football_team, Netherlands_national_football_team, Portugal_national_football_team? All of them have decorations, not part of the traditional color scheme. Please link that "policy".

6) It is at least SIMILAR. FIGC is not giving away factory settings for color schemes, so it have to be a guess (but done with the best method we have, industrial pantone color cards). Cerulean of english WP is not even the same "family" of tint! (is a 30xx serie, not a 27xx, and this data came from actual measurement).

7) Ok, all blue shades are wrong then. Please, turn the jersey in red, or green. At least we will know it is wrong. But still I don't understand why you don't want to turn colors to the ones measured (a measure you can do too, with the same result).--Jollyroger 10:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Jollyroger. You must read what I wrote, not what you want me to write.

2) I know what is pantone. Nowhere I said Pantone is not authoritative. I said you are not authoritative. I can't write in the references for this article "The colour of the jersey depicted has been determined by Jollyroger", in the same sense I can write "Cannavaro has 100 caps, according to FIFA website".

3)you did not understand. read again.

4) and you still fail to tell why it "is by far more accurate"

5) you must distinguish between peculiarities of the jerseys and decorations. Netherlands away diagonal stipe, US stripes, Argentina stripes, Paraguay stripes and the likes are peculiarities of those jerseys and will stay. Germany swirls, Italy ugly spirals, Ukraine spikes, and so on, are decorations, and will be deleted, if the consensus is kept, according to Template_talk:Football_kit#Detail_level_in_kit_reproduction.

6) "FIGC is not giving away factory settings for color schemes, so it have to be a guess": I agree. "but done with the best method we have, industrial pantone color cards": don't agree. The best way to find a RGB code is to start form the most authoritative RGB code, since no official codes are given. The most authoritative RGB code we have until now is the federation logo. Doing a non-authoritative detection of Pantone codes, than doing a non-authoritative Pantone->RGB conversion is not "the best method we have".

7) for the same reason you don't accept to change the "colors to the ones measured (a measure you can do too, with the same result)": the rgb of the logo.

--BaldClarke 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Right, but we have this data. I don't say it is "official". But we can

• use a generic blue, not detailed
• use a measured blue, not detailed
• use "cerulean", a codified color (i.e. the name is enough to give a precise description of that color)

I think 3d is the worst option.

3) the shade used in the logo is cerulean (cit.)

4) because it looks closer to the real tint. The argentina-like cerulean is visibly different

5) this is not a policy. This is a talk.

6) Back to basics: RGB is not a color used in cloth tint, and you can't measure a matter tint in RGB. Pantone provides RGB conversion only for some of their colors. In other cases, there are conversion tables (not official, but somewhat functional)

7) I repeat, the logo RGB is NOT cerulean, see above, and is a different tint than the jerseys (refers to an older tint of the jersey) --Jollyroger 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2) The problem is that you can't simply put the colour in the kit, but you need (at least with the current text) call it somehow, since you are refferring to azzurro and want to translate it. Infact, it is currently written that "yhe traditional colour of the national team (as well as of all Italian teams and athletes, except in motor sports) is azure", and it would be quite strange to write "... is #0046BB" or whatever. So we need to find a name for the colour.

3) Jolly, reread the text. It is written "If we end up with cerulean jersey we will call it cerulean. If we end up with azure kits, we will call it azure." and then, in a subsequent post, I copyied the same text, writing also "If we end up with cerulean", not "it is cerulean" (apart the fact that the shade used in the logo is cerulean). And what you did? You drop everithing and take into consideration only the part in parenthesis?

4) No. You used the word "accurate". This means that you have a reference and a way to measure the "difference" between the shades proposed and that original. If you write "it looks closer" you are still giving an opinion, and not an authoritative one. Again. why that is more "accurate"?

5) A talkpage backed by consensus is a policy. That is the talkpage of the template we are discussing here. You can't ignore it simply because you don't like it. If you think that an exception should be provided for this ugly black stripes, please give a reason.

6) I know what pantone and RGB are. But, again, to use your method we need to have an authoritative way to measure the Pantone code of the jersey (and we have not), and an authoritative way to convert the pantone codes into RGB (and we have not). With my method we need to take the "official" logo of the FIGC and measure the RGB code of the blue part. I think your method is more error-prone of mine, and not authoritative as well.

7) What RGB code are you measuring from the logo?

--BaldClarke 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bald, it is quite easy yo get the RGB code of the logo on the website. Open Gimp, photoshop or so, and measure it with the selector. You could find minor variations due to JPG compression. Unfortunately, what you do not understand is that the logo IS NOT the same color of the jersey. It's lighter, 'cause it is related to an old tint no more used.

Anyway, a talk page is not a policy. It needs to be made official, and up to now is not even applied (look the links i provided), except here, where YOU are imposing your POV writing ugly black stripes (and I am not saying they are nice).

If you know what pantone is, you know that the usual method for measure is comparation between pantone cards and the object. So I wrote "looks closer", because the color matching is made by eye.

I end up with a quote. If we end up with azure kits, we will call it azure." The condition is "If we end up with cerulean", not "it is cerulean" (apart the fact that the shade used in the logo is cerulean). It really sounds as you are are saying me that the logo is cerulean! Weird, isn't it? --Jollyroger 07:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think that 0047BB blue describes the current jersey color better than any other shade proposed till now, even if it's not "web safe". I don't understand what this would mean, since today most browsers and computers support 16 million colors. The jersey blue is different from the logo blue, and none of them is cerulean, but both of them are "azzurro", to be translated "azure" or, more simply and maybe more exactly, "blue" in english. I'm sure this doesn't close the question. Marcocasta 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the matter is not closed. I still think that 0047BB is not authoritative enought to be accepted.--BaldClarke 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At present, the article says light blue, which is neither precise nor accurate. If we cannot agree on what is absolutely precise, can we not simply be accurate and say blue? I know that other languages do not have one word that covers all shades of blue, but English does! Kevin McE 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you remove "light blue", claiming it is "neither precise nor accurate", and insert blue, which is clearly "neither precise nor accurate"? According to what you are removing "light"? Do you think that the color of Italy and France national football teams is the same?--RedMC 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current squad

On England national football team they kept players for last 12 months. I think kept players for last 6 months is ok. Just start from World Cup 2006.

???--217.26.87.7 12:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goalkeepers

No. Pos. Player DoB/Age Caps Goals Club GK Christian Abbiati 8 July 1977 4 0 Torino (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) GK Marco Amelia 2 April 1982 2 0 Livorno (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) GK Gianluigi Buffon 28 January 1978 67 0 Juventus (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) GK Angelo Peruzzi 16 February 1970 31 0 Lazio (2006 World Cup) GK Flavio Roma 21 June 1974 3 0 Monaco (friendly, 16 August)

[edit] Defenders

No. Pos. Player DoB/Age Caps Goals Club DF Andrea Barzagli 8 May 1981 10 0 Palermo (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Fabio Cannavaro 13 September 1973 100 1 Real Madrid (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Dario Dainelli 9 June 1979 1 0 Fiorentina (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Fabio Grosso 28 November 1977 23 2 Internazionale (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Massimo Oddo 14 June 1976 21 0 Lazio (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Manuel Pasqual 13 March 1982 1 0 Fiorentina (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Cristian Zaccardo 21 December 1981 15 1 Palermo (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Gianluca Zambrotta 19 February 1977 58 2 Barcelona (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) DF Daniele Bonera (injured) 31 May 1981 11 0 Milan (friendly, 16 August) DF Giorgio Chiellini 14 August 1984 6 0 Juventus (friendly, 16 August) DF Giulio Falcone 31 May 1974 1 0 Sampdoria (friendly, 16 August) DF Alessandro Gamberini 27 August 1981 0 0 Fiorentina (friendly, 16 August) DF Marco Materazzi (suspended) 19 August 1973 32 2 Internazionale (2006 World Cup) DF Alessandro Nesta (injured) 19 March 1976 77 0 Milan (2006 World Cup) DF Christian Terlizzi 22 November 1979 1 0 Sampdoria (friendly, 16 August) DF Luciano Zauri 20 January 1978 5 0 Lazio (friendly, 16 August) DF Cristian Zenoni 23 April 1977 2 0 Sampdoria (friendly, 16 August)

[edit] Midfielders

No. Pos. Player DoB/Age Caps Goals Club MF Massimo Ambrosini 29 May 1977 23 0 Milan (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Daniele De Rossi 24 July 1983 20 3 Roma (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Gennaro Gattuso 9 January 1978 47 1 Milan (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Marco Marchionni 22 July 1980 2 0 Juventus (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Simone Perrotta 17 September 1977 31 1 Roma (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Andrea Pirlo 19 May 1979 31 5 Milan (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Franco Semioli 20 June 1980 1 0 Chievo (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) MF Simone Barone 30 April 1978 15 1 Torino (2006 World Cup) MF Mauro Camoranesi 4 October 1976 26 1 Juventus (2006 World Cup) MF Gennaro Del Vecchio 25 March 1978 1 0 Sampdoria (friendly, 16 August) MF Massimo Gobbi 31 January 1980 1 0 Fiorentina (friendly, 16 August) MF Fabio Liverani 29 April 1976 3 0 Fiorentina (friendly, 16 August) MF Stefano Morrone 0 0 Livorno (friendly, 16 August) MF Angelo Palombo 25 September 1981 1 0 Sampdoria (friendly, 16 August) MF Francesco Totti 27 September 1976 58 9 Roma (2006 World Cup)

[edit] Strikers

No. Pos. Player DoB/Age Caps Goals Club FW Emiliano Bonazzoli 20 January 1979 0 0 Sampdoria (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) FW Antonio Cassano 12 July 1982 8 3 Real Madrid (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) FW David Di Michele 6 January 1976 4 0 Palermo (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) FW Alberto Gilardino 5 July 1982 20 8 Milan (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) FW Filippo Inzaghi 9 August 1973 50 22 Milan (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) FW Tommaso Rocchi 19 September 1977 1 0 Lazio (Euro 08 qual., 2 September) FW Andrea Caracciolo 18 September 1981 2 0 Palermo (friendly, 16 August) FW Alessandro Del Piero 9 November 1974 79 27 Juventus (2006 World Cup) FW Antonio Di Natale 13 October 1977 5 1 Udinese (friendly, 16 August) FW Mauro Esposito 13 June 1979 6 0 Cagliari (friendly, 16 August) FW Vincenzo Iaquinta (injured) 21 November 1979 17 1 Udinese (2006 World Cup) FW Cristiano Lucarelli 4 October 1975 3 1 Livorno (friendly, 16 August) FW Luca Toni 26 May 1977 24 9 Fiorentina (2006 World Cup)

Matt86hk talk 11:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] logo

the new logo is unveiled

http://www.figc.it/italiano/primo_piano_05/img/foto_primo_piano_02_large.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.165.2 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 August 2006.

I tried uploading it, but wiki keeps telling me the file name I put in is empty. Someone can try later with better luck I'm sure.Bigdottawa 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatter's apologies

See Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team#Blatter's "apologies".--Panarjedde 14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)