Talk:List of men's national association football teams

message: Ŕ I seriously doubt Vatican City has a national football team!24.201.40.80 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Vatican City national football team article, there is such a team and they only played one game so far in their history. Siva1979Talk to me 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{fb|VAT}} 

message: I remember once reading in an issue of When Saturday Comes about an alternative World Cup for nations that don't exist as such (Northen Cyprus & Åland, for example) and so aren't recognised by FIFA. It would be nice to expand on this, and probably have a new page for whatever the tournament is called. Dancarney 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should have a new article about this. But are you able to get the necessary information? Credible references need to be cited for this as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teams not affiliated to FIFA

message: What happened to the list? it even includes Antartica which for the best of my knowledge has NO PERMANENT INHABITANTS! Heard and Mcdonald Islands have no inhabitants, French Polynesia is Tahiti, French Antartic Territories? Do i even have to say anything? Ross dependancy ounce again is part of antartica (oh my god) Chatham islands is a possibility if it's proven toi have any team at all. I'm not gonna comment on britain till later when i do some resaerch on it, THERE'S A TEAM THAT IS BRITISH AND USA VIRGIN ISLANDS TOGATHER! i'm gonna do some research but isn't sardinia a province of italy? SAAR DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE! Crete is part of greece, Rhodes there because they participate in the island games where Crete does not, Nagorno-Karabakh... not even gonna say anything, wake island is.. uninhabited, only people there are American military, A team for both east and west timor.. i didn't even look at africa yet... but i think there's gonna be alot more... --Amazingferret36
Calm down.. You know that anyone can write what they want without read the discussion.. instead of whilling why don't you remove the non-sense "teams"?
I've removed all the teams based in an unknown source--Calapez 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It happened again 

message: I suspect that this list is being edited to reflect changes of names of nations.  However, this is a list of national football teams, not a list of nations, and so any instances of name change on this list should reflect a change of the name under which the national team played.  Kevin McE 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree --Calapez 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: i agree to but the problem with this is that if you click on ceylon, it goes to sri lanka, as with many other of those nations. this requires major searching on google or another search engine. I strongly don't believe that the african teams were playing that long ago since that most of them didn't start playing to the 80's and 90's (correct me if i'm wrong) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.249.178 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  umm you do know what Antarctica is right? Also there's a difference beetwin regional and national team where those teams might be regional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.122.180.120 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New names 

message: This tiny island one mile off the coast of Guam is not represented by a soccer team. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team represents the Cocos Islands (also only 628 Inhabitants; between Australia and Sumatra) and has already been on this list. 
also deleted, because they do not have a soccer-team representing them, nor do they have a soccer-association (yet):
* Svalbard, Norway
* Lord Howe Island.
--Rheinländer 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted [[Cocos Island (Guam)]] from this list 

message: I have found some sources saying that there is a team Representing the Zulu people, Someone look into this.
Will do!  ¢нαzα93  16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Zulu Team?

message: I suggest adding a new section to this list, about affiliation switches. Turkey and Kazakhstan have moved from Asia to Europe, Australia has moved from Oceania to Asia, Israel has moved from Asia to Oceania to Europe. I believe there are a few more. AecisBrievenbus 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for new section 

message: Maybe this is a weakening from the stance I have been taking (but at least now we have a small list and the chance to consider the merits of each new/resubmitted entry individually), but...  Editors had replaced several non-sovereign states, on which I have acted for the following reasons:
Channel Islands and Isle of Man:  The teams clearly exist (I have some reticence over Alderney, who exist only to play against other CI teams) and the territories are not covered by any other entity on this list.  I am happy to leave them on the list.
Aland Islands: article provides clear evidence that team exists: territory has unique political and ethnic status in Finland, and more autonomy than any other part of that country.  My inclination is that this does not really amount to nationhood, so I am deleting, but I would consider this a close call.
Juan Fernandez Islands  No special status in Chile: in fact, they are not even a separate province.  No evidence provided that a football team exists.  Removed.
Abkhazia, Norfolk Island, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Tokelau No evidence of existence of a football team, so deleted.
Falkland Islands  Reference to FIOGA in edit notes led me to a link: team exists, territory is not covered by any other entity in this list, so I am happy for it to stay.
Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Territories of Australia, with no status different from the mainland: no evidence that they ever play matches except against each other, which does not imply that they consider themselves to be part of the international football community.
I am not claiming any personal authority over this page: I simply want whatever happens on this (or any other page of Wikipedia) to happen for sound encyclopedic reasons.  Kevin McE 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I essentially agree with you on your stance here, though I'm a little uncertain over your retention of the Isle of Man team. It seems to have a very...interesting...status - some of its matches it contests as a regional select - a select not of players from the region, but of players currently playing in the region. It also plays in quite a few competitions which require the team to be semi-professional or amateur - while they may well qualify for this because there are no Isle of Man players who play at professional level, I don't know, but it has something of an impact on the status of the team, IMO. Also, it contests the Island Games, which has been a sticking point for us for a while. Personally, I can see why you might want to keep it, but it just doesn't seem right, given our agreed position on teams, especially when you removed the Aland Islands team when it exists on almost the same level as the Isle of Man team. I can't help thinking that if we are to be true to our policy, then the Isle of Man team should go - either that, or I would agree with retaining it and reintroducing the Alands team. Thoughts? Falastur2 14:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, the key difference is that the Aland Islands are a part of Finland, the Isle of Man is not a part of England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, or any other entity.  There is a Manx parliament, Manx language, it is not a member of the EU: Aland has greater autonomy than other Finnish provinces, but not as much as Man.  However, I acknowledge that the language is different, and maybe there are claims for nationhood there that I don't know about (that's why we need verification).  In practice, a Manx player of sufficient standard would no doubt get called up for one of the 4 UK constituent countries, but the would be as a non UK born UK passport holder, not as a native English- (or Scots- or Welsh- or Northern Irish-) man.  Matt Le Tissier and Graeme Le Saux, Channel Islanders both, could have elected to play for any one of the "home nations".  Island Games participation is not a disqualification, but is not of itself a qualification for this list. Kevin McE 15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and I guess I can't argue with it too much, at least on the aspect of the Alands team. It would seem to me that if that is the aspect you are taking, then Alderney becomes a more questionable choice, however, since it, unlike the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, is not a technically-independent country, but is a part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Falastur2 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah: I hadn't realised that: I always thought of all 4 Channel Islands as equal in status.  Excuse me being lazy (it's late!), but what is Sark's status?  Kevin McE 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sark is also part of Guernsey. Alderney and Sark have their own local Government - they have their own States (read: Parliaments), Alderney has a Lieutenant-Governor and Sark has its own feudal Lord, but at the end of the day though they are essentially self-governing, they aren't independent states like Guernsey and Jersey. In a rather small-scale imitation of the mainland situation, Alderney sends representatives to the States of Guernsey, too, while maintaining its own Parliament, though I think Sark misses out on this arrangement by being too small for representation - its population is 1/100th that of Guernsey, after all, and the States of Guernsey has only 47 members, including Alderney's. Falastur2 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going back onto the list 

message: I have been following the dicussion here, and don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about a team's inclusion on this list, but I want to point out that the list also needs to be consistent with other parts of Wikipedia.  For example, an editor might be tempted to include all the teams on Template:Non-FIFA teams here, or all the teams in the subcategories of :Category:National and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA.  My suggestion would be to perhaps enumerate them on a different list than here, if we want to adhere to a stricter definition of "national team", or perhaps rename this page to something like that category name.  In any case, we need to have some internal consistency so that edit-warring does not ensue.  Andrwsc 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: I'm aware of the mess that is the template that you mention.  I hope that by placing the onus on verification, that edit warring is made less likely. Kevin McE 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a plan to trim back that template considerably, and WP:PROD or WP:AFD for many of those articles....  Andrwsc 01:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just this article needs updating.... 

message: Greetings, the map is wrong, French Guiana ia a CONCACAF member, it is showed as part of the UEFA, I hope someone can fix the map. Thank you. JC 19:15 26 Jul 2007 (PST).
:: i already said that in the image talk Calapez 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederations map 

message: According to NF-Board  this two FA's are new provisional members of the organization. so i'll add them Calapez 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yap and Wallonia

message: I propose to create a new page (article), where we can list all the regions and islands that really played international matches against FIFA/NF-Board teams, like Catalonya, Basque County, Tobago..and so on .. what do youCalapez 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having already advocated this idea, I'm certainly in support. Falastur2 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. --necronudist 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree, and hope that it cuts down on inappropriate additions here, I wish you luck in avoiding it being overpopulated with spurious claims ("Gillingham played United Arab Emirates in a pre-season friendly a few years ago, so they should be included", and so on...) Kevin McE 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sufficed to say it'll be on my watchlist, though I agree that that will only help me remove the junk, not discourage it. Falastur2 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional and Island selection-teams

message: OK WTF?More people are adding teams that don't exsit.More of them are being added.And a bigger problem,According to fedefutbol,they have antarcitica as a team.Just check out ,Check the "NF-Board teams,Then look on south america and see what i mean.Remember,"Antártida" means antarcitica in spanish.--Cokepepsi 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Fedefutbol has to do with Wiki? I don't see any Antartica here..Calapez 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fedefutbolo, and particularly its list of potential NF board members, cannot be taken as evidence for inclusion here.  It is no more than a list that an individual, with no accountability, considers might possibly one day consider application to the NF board.  Kevin McE 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look in that list, Antarctica has no link! The only teams that really has a link are the one that exists. It's one of the clauses we decided to had some country in the list, to have played at least one match in their history. i don't see in any place of Fedefutbol saying they have played. In South America in Fedefutbol only Easter Island and Falklands have a link to a pageCalapez 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many claimed potential NFB members on that list have a link, but no meaningful information, and no reason why they should be considered to be national rather than regional teams.  Kevin McE 08:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't said that they are national teams. Neither in Fedefutbol they say that.. NFB is a football union, like CONCACAF, OFC (the difference is that CONCACAF are part of FIFA, and NFB not, but this article is not about FIFA national teams)... Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana, Anguilla and so on.. are not national teams, they are not nations, but they belongs to CONCACAF and/or FIFA.. so an organization says that a team are a member of them, we can't do nothing about it.Calapez 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But fedefutbol is not an organisation: it is a website with no accountability or acknowledged reliability.  I agree that if the NF Board has a team as  a member, they should be included here (although I do not think that their criteria exactly meet the description of this article): I am simply saying, (and judging by your comments on Antarctica, I think you agree) that inclusion in fedefutbols "potential NFB members list" is not grounds for inclusion here.  Kevin McE 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, for sure. potential teams should not be in this article. There are already another article about non-national teams, where that teams (with reliable sources like Catalonia, Falkland, Isle of Man and so on) can be placed in. About Artarctida i don't see what's the question..there is no federation, there is no matches played..so there is no teamCalapez 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It happend AGAIN 

message: Evidence has now been provided that a match was played against Belize in 1999, so this is a big step towards inclusion here.  A single match does not necessarily establish an international team.   Other issues that would be relevant:
Does St P & M enjoy a political status that suggests greater authority than other parts of France?
Does the LFSPM act as an independent entity, or is it a sub-division of the French (or even Canadian) FA?  
Is the LFSPM a football association, or is it purely the organising body of a league competition? 
What were the circumstances of the match against Belize?  Were international caps awarded to the Belizean players? Was the St P & M team drawn from a number of club sides?
If the team is to be listed as active and current, what evidence is there that further fixtures are being sought?  
I am neutral about the inclusion of this team: I am not neutral about the need for verifiability of any entry on the list.  Kevin McE 08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the evidence of that match against Belize?Calapez 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Pierre & Miquelon 

message: Presumably in an attempt to grow, The NF Board seems to be lowering somewhat the bar for its inclusion criteria.  Until now, recognition by the NF Board has been seen as sufficient qualification inclusion in this list, BUT, it seems to me that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no meaningful requirement on the part of the NFB (and even less so from CSNAF) that its members are national, whether that be interpreted as ethnically or politicly defined.  Can anyone provide a reference for NFB's membership criteria?  It looks like they are being very literal about the "new federation" of their name: anyone who wants to set up a body and declare it a federation is in.  Could I found the Football Federation of North East Colchester and affiliate?  It would have as much political independence as Isla Margarita, and more football clubs within its territory that Sealand.  Has the time come to drop the assumption that any affiliate of the NFB can be said to merit a place on this list?  Kevin McE 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFB and its subsiduary CSNAF 

message: I noticed that on this page, the flag representing Saint-Martin is the French Tricolore, while on SM's national football team page (and any other time the team is mentioned), the local flag is used.  Since the team uses the local flag as representation, can we change this on the LOMNFT page?  --Paploo (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a little more investigating, and this is true for most of the French territories.  We should go to a one team per flag philosophy (except when there is not a local flag).  --Paploo (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CONCACAF uses the French flag for Saint-Martin (see here), so it would be original research for Wikipedia to disregard that and use something else.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, all local flags should be disregarded as the official flag for the French overseas entities is the French one. Only Tahiti has a recognized flag of its own. Ohnder) 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency of flags

message: okay, couldn't find any place but here to discuss this, but I would like to know why the various articles have to go overboard. I mean a "Tobago" national team? From an island which could never send a representative to FIFA much less CONCACAF? On the article page there is mention of an "international" between "Tobago" and "Trinidad and Tobago" and between "Tobago" and "Finland". Did anyone ever stop to think that national teams can play against non-national teams? It's called "touring" and simply means that a national team will play against a domestic team as a warm-up or for practice. Much as how when the Indian (national) cricket team plays against the Victoria (state) criket team, it is not considered an international cricket match. The same thing happens in Rugby. Why just the other the day I think the Jamaican football team went on some kind of tour in Brazil and played against club sides (not even state sides), but this doesn't mean that those clubs played international football nor did it turn the clubs into national football teams. I would like to propose that the term "national" be removed from all the articles and if not then it should at least be removed from the articles about truly domestic teams (like Tobago). The "national" term is rather redundant (since, for example, "the Italian football team" that plays in FIFA competitions is by definition a national side anyway and readers shouldn't necessarily have to be told in the article name what with the article itself describing the team and the team being listed under national teams in templates and lists) and only serves to cause confusion when being used without abandon by users seemingly eager to put the word "national" in the name of every football team. In fact I think the term "national" should be removed from every name of every article detailing a sports team (association football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, baseball, hockey, etc.)72.27.72.211 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobago "National" football team

message: Kosovo remained included in thi list for several weeks after its declaration of independence without challenge.  In recent days, 2 anonymous editors, neither of whom has made any other edits or given any reasoning for their actions in edit notes, hve sought to undo this.  My arguments fo9r including Kosovo is that although it has far from universal recognition, it is plainly not true to describe it as unrecognised; that the number of countries recognising Kosovo's independence is considerably higher than that acknowledging Taiwan, whose inclusion is unchallenged, and that more countries recognise Kosovo than have declared a determination to  not do so.  If the anonymous editors, or others opposed to including Kosovo in the list, wish to challenge the inclusion, please do so here rather than by edit warring.  11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo 

message: A drive-by tag, claiming excessive use of icons on this article, has been reinserted noting "Flagcruft#Do_not_use_icons_in_general_article_prose" in the edit summary. That guideline notes at the top of the page to "Use common sense in applying it" and "it will have occasional exceptions". This article is not a "general article" - it is a list (clue is in the article title: "List of men's national association football teams". The WP:MOS guideline referred to relates to general articles. In the same guideline MOS:ICON#Appropriate_use states "Icons may be helpful in certain situations:
They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." If there are specific instances of icons used inappropriately on this article (clearly. it would not improve the article for them all to be removed), such instances should be noted here. Tagging should be a last, not a first, resort. Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically , you don't like this guideline so you will ignore it? Flagcruft#Do_not_use_icons_in_general_article_prose is a near universally accepted section of WP:MOSICON and  List_of_men%27s_national_association_football_teams#Former_national_football_teams is in breach but what ever 86.42.83.202 Gnevin (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not have a police and it does not have editing laws we cannot breach. As it goes I think the section could do with the removal of the flags. But justify this and respond to the questions raised; I am also against such petty tagging with no comments on the talk page, particularly in reference to a guideline. --Pretty Green (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons 

message: On CAF's site there is no mention to Zanzibar as a member - and they list all members. including Reunion, which would be in the same situation as Zanzibar. Should we delete it from CAF?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.123.93 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it. john k (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the Zanzibar team says that it was an associate CAF member from 2007-2009, but is no longer such.  Perhaps we should list it in the same way we list Gibraltar? john k (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed in listing it like Gibraltar. And it will be also in the NF-Board Associate Members.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.123.93 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zanzibar 

message: Their section here is a little of a mess. I've removed all teams and replaced with only currently ranked teams, as per their last release in April 2010. I can find no other source for a list of current members. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NF board

message: in this article is dificult find the number/quantity of members by confederation, is UEFA 50 members or 55? is that data in this article? it should--Feroang (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number/quantity of members by confederation 

message: Greenland is a constituent country of Denmark, just as England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maartenand the Faroe Islands, has special status and rights within Denmark, is further from Denmark than the Faroe Islands, officially self-governed, has it own association and team, plays semi-regularly, have a FIFA recognized field. Why isn't it in the list? 113.187.0.192 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly enough to exclude it! What's important here is footballing recognition: it isn't recognized by UEFA, CONCACAF or FIFA. In a footballing context, a 'nation' is only a nation if recongized by at least a confederation, but this has no necessary relationship to wider recognition of national sovereignty. There is a List of non-national representative teams in men's football, where Greenland is currently placed.  Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, "nation" is a purely geo-political term and regardless of what FIFA do, Greenland is a nation. 116.12.232.212 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland 

message: Hello,
Just a comment - I don't really see any value in the 'geographical notes' attached to countries such as Sunriname, Guyana, explaining that they are in a different continent: I don't think it adds anything, and unless we do it for all transcontinental or 'shifted' nations then it's misleading. I do think we should go into having too many footnotes! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical Notes

message: No veo que se hable de la selección de Wallis y Futuna en este artículo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.116.50 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse my poor Spanish: la selección de Wallis y Futuna no representan a un país soberano y no es un miembro de una confederación. Por lo tanto no está incluido. Wallis and Futuna national football team does not represent a sovereign nation, and it is not a member of a FIFA confederation. Therefore it is not included here. See List of non-national representative teams in men's football. The team's page in Spanish: . --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallis and Futuna national football team 

message: and have added a 'list of active regional teams' to the page. I've removed it on the grounds that there's a fairly long-standing consensus that this list will include only teams competing in FIFA-recongised football or teams representing fully or partially-recognised sovereign states. I'm happy to open up for disucssion to change this if editors are interested. Either way, 'active regional teams' is vague - any additional parts of this list would need referencing, and clearer permeteres. My suggestion would be that this list could be incorporated in some form into the article Non-FIFA international football. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: List of active regional football teams

message: Emanating from a previous thread. Here is what I propose:
Rationale. This is a list of national teams, not of national football federations. However, the list currently looks much more like the latter. In my view, the fact that a national association has been awarded "associate" or "provisional" status by a continental confederation is not reason enough to list its national team in the confederation's entry. Quite a few of the associate confederations only participate in non-FIFA tournaments (such as the Indian Ocean Games and the Pacific Games), so including them alongside all the more established football teams may be misleading to the reader.
So here are the organization criteria I propose:
1. If a national team has participated in qualification for the continental confederation's championship, it should be listed alongside all the full member teams of the confederation.
2. If a national team has participated in a confederation-wide tournament organized by the confederation (such as the AFC Challenge Cup), it should be listed alongside all the full member teams of the confederation.
3. If a national team has participated in at least one subregional tournament (such as the Caribbean Cup or the CECAFA Cup), , it should be listed alongside all the full member teams of the confederation. Note that "subregional tournament" refers to tournaments organized by a recognized regional union (such as the Caribbean Football Union). Friendly tournaments between groups of countries do not count.
4. If the team does not meet the above conditions, it should be listed in a separate section which would contain all the national teams that belong to associations that are registered with their local confederations but are not active in competition with members of said confederation.
So here is how the "associate" teams would be split:
Listed under the AFC section with all the other teams:
Northern Mariana Islands (participates in the AFC Challenge Cup)
Listed under the CAF section with all the other teams:
Zanzibar (participates in the CECAFA Cup)
New section containing other teams that are not active in actual confederation tournaments
'''
CAF
Reunion (has only participated in the Olympic-level Indian Ocean Games)
OFC
Kiribati (has only participated in the Olympic-level South Pacific Games) 
Niue (has only participated in the Olympic-level South Pacific Games) 
Tuvalu (has only participated in the Olympic-level South Pacific Games) 
Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd prefer either an inclusion of all of them in the main entry or none. If we start adding criterion after criterion for how we list then we over-complicate the matter and move closer towards original research. Equally, if you're highly motivated to do this then I don't see a huge issue with it, and I do appreciate the point being made. So a lukewarm response from me - I think on the balance of things I wouldn't do it but if others wanted to then I'd trust their better judgement. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the changes, that you've made I'd say that I'm more against it. The point that you're making - that 4 teams haven't competed in federation level events - could easily be made in a footnote, rather than relying on wholesale changes to the page. The headings are clunky and unclear. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also more strongly against the extensive footnoting and annotation of this list. All that detail is not needed here; it's a list and it's over-complicating matters. I've undone the changes and ask you to reconisder them, but if you really want to go ahead with it all then I won't undo again. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to go with the general thrust of your counterproposal, but I've made some fixes I think were needed. Ladril (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff - I like the new version. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Recently, an entry for Manchuria was removed from the page because the team was allegedly (and in all likelihood) never recognized by FIFA. Not to be a dick, but I have seen no evidence that North Vietnam was recognized by FIFA or the AFC (South Vietnam, on the other hand, definitely was). Also, the current Vietnam team is apparently seen as a successor to South Vietnam, not to North Vietnam. I would argue that using the same logic, North Vietnam should be removed from the list. Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken from the following source:  "North Vietnam... [N]or did it become a member of FIFA, and it played only 24 soccer internationals, almost all of which were part of the GANEFO festival or against Communist-bloc allies." (Source: Routledge Companion to Sports History, by Pope and Nauright, 2009). Since the current consensus is to include only former FIFA members in the last table, I will remove North Vietnam from it. If consensus changes or anyone finds strong evidence of FIFA membership by North Vietnam, it can be reinstated. Ladril (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Vietnam 

message: I have deleted Tanganyika and North Vietnam, since there is no evidence to show that they were ever FIFA members. Tanzania only joined FIFA in 1964, which is the same year Tanganyika was united with Zanzibar. Even if Tanganyika played any matches before this time, it would still be ineligible for the table. For North Vietnam, see the discussion above. For Tanganyika, see . Ladril (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former teams 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on List of men's national association football teams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140607100019/http://worldfootballcup.org:80/team/nagorno-karabakh-fa/ to http://worldfootballcup.org/team/nagorno-karabakh-fa/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Malaya link points to the Malaysia team rather than Malaya_national_football_team. Not sure how the fb template works, so hoping someone who knows can fix.
Flamefew (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaya incorrect link 

message: I propose to rename all 'national football team' pages to 'men's national football team' following the same pattern as for 'women's national football team'.
In short you would all agree the it is not fair to assume that we are talking about the mens football teams. ziMBRicchio (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for pages renaming 

message: Only one federation can inherit the results of former countries. In the case of Czechoslovakia its Czechia, similarly to Russia for U.S.S.R., Serbia for Yugoslavia, etc. User who changed this in February, please fix it back. 2.36.49.117 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia does not inherit the results of Czechoslovakia; Czechia does 

message: the Football Games is pes efootball and fc 24 for long phones 46.99.42.146 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football games