Template talk:Infobox National football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Association football Portal

The article on Template Infobox National football team is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association 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.

Template

This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.

This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Syntax

{{Infobox National football team 
| Name               = England
| Badge              = England 030206b.GIF
| Badge_size         = 125px
| FIFA Trigramme     = ENG
| Nickname           = The Three Lions
| Association        = [[The Football Association]]<br>(The FA)
| Coach              = {{flagicon|England}} [[Steve McClaren]]
| Assistant Manager  = {{flagicon|England}} [[Terry Venables]]
| Captain            = {{flagicon|England}} [[John Terry]]
| Most caps          = [[Peter Shilton]] (125)
| Top scorer         = [[Sir Bobby Charlton|Bobby Charlton]] (49)
| FIFA Rank = 5
| FIFA max = 4
| FIFA max date = December 1997
| FIFA min = 27
| FIFA min date = February 1996
| Elo Rank = 5
| pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=|pattern_ra1= 
| leftarm1=FFFFFF|body1=FFFFFF|rightarm1=FFFFFF|shorts1=323265|socks1=FFFFFF
| pattern_la2=|pattern_b2=|pattern_ra2=
| leftarm2=d92a31|body2=d92a31|rightarm2=d92a31|shorts2=FFFFFF|socks2=d92a31
| First game         = {{flagicon|Scotland}} [[Scottish national football team|Scotland]] 0 - 0 England {{flagicon|England}}<br/>([[Partick]], [[Scotland]]; [[30 November]] [[1872]]) 
| Largest win        = {{flagicon|Ireland-1753}} [[Northern Ireland national football team|Ireland]] 0 - 13 England {{flagicon|England}}<br/>([[Belfast]], [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]]; [[18 February]] [[1882]]) 
| Largest loss       = {{flagicon|Hungary 49-56}} [[Hungary national football team|Hungary]] 7 - 1 England {{flagicon|England}}<br/>([[Budapest]], [[Hungary]]; [[23 May]] [[1954]])
| Most Recent match  = {{flagicon|Portugal}} [[Potuguese national football team|Portugal]] 0 - 0 England {{flagicon|England}}}
([[Gelsenkirchen]], [[Germany]]; [[1 July]] [[2006]]|
| World cup apps     = 12 
| World cup first    = 1950 
| World cup best     = Winners, [[Football World Cup 1966|1966]] 
| Regional name      = [[European Football Championship|European Championship]] 
| Regional cup apps  = 7 
| Regional cup first = [[1968 European Football Championship|1968]] 
| Regional cup best  = [[1968 European Football Championship|1968]]: Third, [[1996 European Football Championship|1996]] Semi-finals
}}

For football kit template instructions, see Template talk:Football kit.

Optional fields are: Captain, Asst Manager, FIFA Rank, FIFA max, FIFA max date, FIFA min, FIFA min date, Elo Rank, World cup apps, World cup first, World cup best, Regional name, Regional cup apps, Regional cup first and Regional cup best.

[edit] Suggestions

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

I have a few suggestions to improve the infobox:

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

Here's an example -->

England national football team

Image:England crest.png

Nickname

The Lions

Association

The FA

Coach

Sven-Göran Eriksson, 2001-

Captain

David Beckham

Most caps

Peter Shilton (125)

Top scorer

Bobby Charlton (49)





Home colours





Away colours

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

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

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

World Cup

Appearances

11 (First in 1950)

Best result

Winners, 1966

European Championship

Appearances

7 (First in 1968)

Best result

Third, 1968, Semi-finals, 1996

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

With regards to your points:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Small problem

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

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

[edit] Italics on nickname

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

[edit] Tweak for women's teams

I have a suggestion regarding women's teams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] added changble badge size

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

[edit] Trigramme

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

[edit] Spelling of colour/color

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

[edit] 2nd Region for Australia

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

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

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

[edit] Survey

Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean like these?

or like these?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] History of FIFA rankings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - A lot of people want Elo ratings gone because the Elo rankings aren't even an official ranking system, but having a min/max seems quite superfluous, especially with Fifa min/max staying. --Palffy 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that FIFA ranking starts in 1993, and Elo in 1872?--Kwame Nkrumah 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - if we keep this, we should include other bollocks like the Unofficial World Championship. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

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

Well spotted - that list of max Elo dates for Brazil was crazy. I've just contracted it to one line. Also, I note that the "max FIFA date" there says Sept 1993, when it should say something like "multiple times 1993-2006" as well. I suggest we take that approach for both Elo and FIFA dates. -- Wantok 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] coach/manager terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] home stadium terminology

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

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

[edit] Largest win, Worst defeating

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Home Kit and Away Kit

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

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

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

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

[edit] Honours

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

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

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

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

[edit] FIFA World Rankings

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