Template talk:Infobox national football team

message: 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  template instead of the  parameter
*Highlight World Cup and European Championship (regional cup) for easier understanding.
Here's an example -->
England national football team
{| style="width:100%; text-align:center;"|	
{| style="width:100%; text-align:center;"|	
{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style="background:#FFFFFF; width:90px; margin:0 auto;"	:Image:England crest.png	:Image:England crest.png
Keep up the good work! - DragonFire 19:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

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

message: 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(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)
thread_title: Italics on nickname

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

text: Done. Dale Arnett 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweak for women's teams 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion - Add a section for Confederations Cup appearances, best results 

message: 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)
thread_title:  added changble badge size 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling of colour/color 

message: Since  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2nd Region for Australia 

message: *Delete - near-meaningless, I think, since FIFA rankings have only been around a few years. -- Wantok 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair call, my apologies for being hasty. -- Wantok 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: delete or keep 1st FIFA ranking date

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vote: delete or keep FIFA rank min/max (with dates)

message: *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)
thread_title: Vote: delete or keep Elo rank min/max (with dates) (Elo rank itself is staying)

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

text: I'll make this change now then. -- Wantok 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coach/manager terminology 

message: I noticed an anon added "Home Stadium" .  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)
replies: text: I've updated the label to "Home stadium". // Laughing Man 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  home stadium terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I like your suggestion -- largest win/largest defeat are more straightforward and consistent. // Laughing Man 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or just go with the template variable name, even more straight forward -- Largest win / Largest loss? // Laughing Man 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Largest win, Worst defeating 

message: "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)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that was true.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Home Kit and Away Kit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Chandlertalk 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to add, they might have to be a bit smaller, if something like Argentines 14 Copa America wins should be added? :) Chandlertalk 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours 

message: Are a countries ranking at the current time WP:Notable, maybe their highest and lowest? This seems to be WP:RecentismGnevin (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Their infoboxes should be updated with the current ranking. If you're talking about something like a list of every rank that would be pretty unnecessary. But I think if you're for example writing in the history section I think nothing their highest ranking would be notable enough, "Xs good position in the X Cup led them to tenth on the FIFA World Ranking, the highest to date" or something. — CHANDLER#10 — 13:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FIFA World Rankings

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

message: Seeing the increase of u-20 national teams, there should be parameters for u-20 rankings, tournaments (like the u-20 WC), etc.
Digirami (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree strongly.  To my mind, the only mention of U20, U17 or Olympic teams should be listing in the See Also section of the article.  If we are talking about a team of which Capello is the manager, Terry the Captain and Shilton the player with highest number of appearances, then we are talking about the full England team, not the U20s.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you get Digirami's point. This template is currently used for both senior and U-21 teams - it has special fields to accommodate U-21 competitions. This means we don't need to maintain two separate templates for senior and U-21 teams when they differ only by a few fields. Now we could create an entirely new template for the U-20s, but it should be pretty trivial to add a few optional fields to this one which would allow for the use of this infobox for such a purpose. I'm happy to accommodate this if a list of required fields is provided. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only field that would need accommodating or adding for a U-20 national team is for the U-20 World Cup. The rest of the fields work just find. I can't think of any other examples at the moment. Digirami (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   - , , . Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  u-20 teams 

message: I'd like to suggest a new parameter to indicate which regional body the team is affiliated with. For example, Kenya football team is affiliated to CECAFA, Algeria are affiliated to UNAF etc.
This is what I'm proposing:
| label2     = Association
| data2      = 
| label3     = Subregion Association
| data3      = 
| label3     = Confederation
| data3      = 
Currently there is no way to display this in the template.TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really that notable, that it's worth putting in the infobox.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, yes. ;) It's important for African nations, less so for other continents.TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't some national teams play in sub-confederational tournaments? For example, South-East Asian nations play in the ASEAN Football Championship, run by the ASEAN Football Federation. In Asia, there's also the West Asian, South Asian and East Asian Football Federation, so I'm sure this isn't exclusive to those two continents. – PeeJay 11:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Turns out I was right. CONCACAF has NAFU, UNCAF and CFU. – PeeJay 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Peejay are you agreeing with my suggestion? TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I support the addition of this parameter to the infobox. – PeeJay 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter for regional body 

message: There has been a recent rash of editors changing the contents of the name field from Fooland to , with the result of adding a flag above the infobox.  Numerous reversions both ways have ensued, but that is not a way forward.  Personally, I'm against, but what is the intention and consensus here? Kevin McE (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits should definitely be reverted. Those icons seem to be being used purely for decoration, which is contrary to the spirit of WP:MOSICON. – PeeJay 00:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm starting to see this more frequently. Should we create docs and state that it should not be done? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "create docs": what we should do is enable discussion to establish a clear consensus, and then apply it.  What discussion there has been in the past has been against, but it has been so scant that it does not seem to justify being held to be the clear collective will of the community.  Kevin McE (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I definitely disagree with any use of flags in the title of the infobox. They are completely unnecessary and sometimes unreflective of the nation(s) actually represented by the team in question (e.g. the England national team may also include players from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but those are not part of England). – PeeJay 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

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

message: Just a random thought after seeing the US-Ecuador game and wondering about Ecuador's kits: what about a line indicating a team's kit manufacturer? Obviously we can't put the logos in the kit images (and someone really needs to go on the Commons and get rid of the logos on the images there, I've seen quite a few of them) it could be useful to include. Any thoughts? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it is a totally incidental bit of info which tells us nothing about the team.  It might be important to Umbro the company that they provide the kit for the England football team: there is no great importance to the England football team that their kit is provided by Umbro.  Purely commercial arrangement, so sporting significant, so relevant in the article about the commercial entity, but not the sporting one.  Not our job to do the promotional job of kit manufacturers for them.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. As I said, it was just a random thought I had. Nothing particularly vital. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kit manufacturer 

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

message: Years ago, after discussion, Home/Away Colours was changed to First/Second Kit.  Then someone changed it back without discussion.  It was restored to First/Second Kit, and then was changed back one more time, again without discussion.  There seems to be agreement here that Home/Away is less accurate than First/Second. That being the case, why does it keep being changed back? And would someone please restore it to First/Second? 70.54.89.245 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This should settle it:  Read page 32, point 3 (or page 44, point 5).  According to FIFA regulations, a team wears its "official team kit" unless there is a conflict.  Then the visiting team (or team B in the tournament) changes to its "reserve team kit." 70.54.89.245 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Colours vs. First Kit -- Again 

message: Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't find any way to change NT's kit into svg version (there is no png of what I wanted to do). There is such a possibility in Template:Football kit but |filetype doesn't work here. Arvedui89 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: will fix. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG kit template 

message: There is currently a discussion at the WP:FOOTY talk page regarding the length of this infobox and whether all the parameters, specifically those parameters related to Elo ranking and biggest wins and defeat. Please discuss this there. — Jkudlick tcs 04:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also look above for some more opinions.-Koppapa (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

text: These sections of the infobox have now been removed. See the other talk thread for the discussion. —Sygmoral (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elo Ratings and Biggest Win/Defeat Parameters 

message: Hi, I am a fan of recent change to remove biggest wins and losses from the infobox for the already mentioned reasons. Nice one.
I do have a request. Could you please extend the width of this infobox as some of the nations with long names will have their flags sitting on second line as a result of the long country name. See example here: Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team. As you see Bosnian (Republic) flag is moved (under FIFA international). Would appreciate the change. Thank you BiHVolim (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think there's any need for those flags anyway, so this request is moot. – PeeJay 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I vote for the flags to be removed. Cheers BiHVolim (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not fair for you to only modify Bosnia page removing the flags and not do any other page. You say there are over 200 pages to do. That is an easy excuse. How about you change Wales for starters or leave Bosnia the way it was originally. I gave it a good fix. Why not leave the way it is, why be so stubborn and keep modifying only Bosnia page. Does not seem fair. Please consider our feelings. THANK YOU VERY MUCH sir! BiHVolim (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is easily fixed using the  template, as demonstrated here. Number 57 10:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Pls also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football BiHVolim (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox width change request 

message: In Bahamas national beach soccer team, this template is calling FIFA World Cup instead of FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup, and the DAB page 2017 World Cup instead of 2017 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup. Can someone who knows their way around this template fix these problems? Narky Blert (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This template accepts  and could benefit from also accepting  with a similar treatment.  I'll have a go at this unless any of the regular template editors step in soon to oppose the idea or do the job themselves. Certes (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certes (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: A bad link and a link to a DAB page

message: Add parameter "Last game", for defunct national teams such as Mandatory Palestine national football team and Soviet Union national football team. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done S.A. Julio (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 March 2020 

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

message: Should we accept the first game ever of a national team in this section even if it is an amateur one or should we accept only matches recognised by FIFA?
Brayan Jaimes (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally only use FIFA-listed matches. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding First game section 

message: Can we add the division that UEFA and CONCACAF teams are on their respective confederation's Nations League? Say, stating "League = A" for Spain and Mexico, and so on.
--AndSalx95 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nations league divisions 

message: How come we're not showing confederation (e.g. UEFA) ranking, only FIFA? Wolfmartyn (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is UEFA the only confederation to have its own ranking? – PeeJay 09:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA rankings 

message: 'Manager' needs to be a template option.
'Coach' may be used commonly in American English to describe the person in charge of coaching a professional sports team.
In British English, however, the person in charge of coaching the men's England association football (soccer) team and the person in charge of coaching the women's England team is known formally as the manager — is not known as the coach, nor even as the head coach.
See the relevant webpages on the England Football website at https://www.englandfootball.com
eg https://www.englandfootball.com/england/womens-senior-team/squad Humanity Dick (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manager