Talk:England national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Pending tasks for England national football team:

edit -history - watch - purge
  • Something about the reasons Venables resigned
  • Photos
  • Mention the press' treatment of Bobby Robson ("For the love of God, go" etc.)
  • Can someone remove the extra "Best Result" there is one for 1968 AND 1996, or change it too "Best Results"
  • Add real strips instead of line drawing representations.
  • Add some decent pictures
  • Add Supporters section
  • Adidas NEVER made England shirts


Oldest or joint-oldest?[edit]

The lede states they're the oldest national team, but they're later referred to as the joint-oldest. Any matches before the Scotland one? MisterVodka (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Joint oldest is most accurate - that was the first international match. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Amended the first paragraph to match that. MisterVodka (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014[edit]

The 'current squad' lists Jermaine Defoe as a current player. His name should be spelled without the letter 'e'. 152.3.68.83 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. So, you want me to change his name to Jrmain Dfo as that is what it would be "without the letter 'e'"? Seriously though, I have no idea who this dude is... Are you asking for "Jermaine Defo" or "Jermain Defoe" as either seem plausible to me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? Couldn't you have just used, you know, Google? Or Duck Duck Go if you don't like being stalked? Or the Wikipedia search engine to find out what his article is called? No wonder we're known for being unfriendly and are losing editors. Anyway, now done. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Failure to qualify for USA 94[edit]

Surprisingly, England failed to qualify for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, with crucial losses to Norway and the Netherlands, the latter of which eliminated them from the Finals tournament. Graham Taylor resigned at the conclusion of the England's unsuccessful campaign. The program Do I Not Like That is a documentary about England's last failure to qualify for a FIFA World Cup (which is to be this), containing 14 parts. 190.138.148.11 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2014 (CET)

The program Do I Not Like That is also know as An Impossible Job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.178.228 (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014[edit]

Phil Jones Birthday is 21st of Febuary, not the 121st of Febuary

Adianliusie (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - 97rob (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014[edit]

58.152.144.205 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, John Stones has 2 caps now not one, please amend it. Thank you.

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I tried looking for John Stones, in lowercase, but they appeared to be labelled "John Stones". —cyberpower ChatOnline 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Change already done since the request was made. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Date correction[edit]

The England friendly on 4th June 2014 did not happen on 4th July 2014. (Recent results) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.156.150 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nickname[edit]

Are England really nicknamed "The Three Lions"? You can't substitute the phrase "The Three Lions" for "England" in the same way you can, say, "The Indomitable Lions" for Cameroon, or "The All Blacks" for the New Zealand rugby team. No one would write "The Three Lions crashed out of the World Cup today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.245.61 (talk)

Yes they are. For example, this article refers to them as the Three Lions. - 97rob (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Lots of examples on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.245.61 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ELO Ranking[edit]

New lowest ELO Ranking of 15, after their 2 defeats in the 2014 World Cup. Lower than the previous lowest number of 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.160.23 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

13 was not the previous low. On June 11, 1995 the ranking is listed as 16 according to [1]. UrbanGrill (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Either way, it needs changing! With a reference to the date, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.165.141 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Playing style section[edit]

I think there is enough stuff evidence to support a suggest for section for a playing style. Has anyone got any ideas? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


England should stop trying to play football No, England Did NOT Invent Football (Soccer) As We Know It Football culture: Who are you? Warrior or tika taka technician? England has always provided a home for long ball football Will the Bulldog's Fall Give Rise to a New Breed of English Soccer? - The New York Times How We Play the Game

The 3 Lions motif[edit]

I always thought that the 3 Lions were in fact actually leopards if this is correct I am not totally sure but looking at the old formations in the finals maybe a spring forward would have been better than a stationary roar,but another day ,another time we will find a answer to English lethargy more concerned about what is in their boots,rather than their bank accounts,but the day may arrive when we hoist the cup and watch soccer players who are less beauty queens and wanting to maintain and improve their English National Pride,by grabbing the games played by the cojones,God bless Bobby and the other heroes,they may have liked a pint or 2,but they arrived for the matches expecting to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.82.38 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Star[edit]

Where is the star for winning 1966 World Cup? --2.245.88.139 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not part of the England team badge. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


How is it not part of the team badge if it's on the kit? It's the same with Spain; the association crest and the national team crest is different; their association crest doesn't have the star, but the team crest does. Hence I think the picture the needs the star above the crest as per the picture in this article England to wear all white kit at 2014 World Cup in Brazil | Football | The Guardian Kupek (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's on the kit, yes, above the badge. In the same way that the Nike kit is to the right of the badge. Look on the England team on the FA website - the badge is there, without the star. The star is a feature on the kit only. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm rather inclined to say that the star should be there. The image on The FA's website shows the badge, but it is there as a kind of banner that is at the top of every page in the England section, including the women's team. As this article is about the men's team only, and the star has been present on every kit that they have worn for some time now, I feel that the picture used should reflect that. RedvBlue 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Back Home (England album)[edit]

This album has book sources, but I'm surprised couldn't find an LP cover or tracklist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

England's performance at euro 2016 was absolutely abysmal. We lacked skill, passion and determination. If we are to succeed as a nation we need someone that can contribute much than what Roy Hodgson can. Although England dominate and control the field, we are lacking in the final third. Alan shearer has the charisma and quite clearly shown attitude to succeed as England boss. he's someone that the players will clearly respect and be proud to play for!! Louisshotton (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015[edit]

All-time scorer's wrong

Jermain Defoe now plays for Sunderland FC

Not a massive point but Woodward and Lampard should be joint-9th highest scorers not 8th which would see everyone below them drop a place too. Couldn't do it myself but thought I'd point it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.94.85 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why has the 'All-Time Team Record' been removed from this page? Can anyone give an answer?

10/01/14 OGBC1992 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Crown Dependencies[edit]

It seems that people are not aware that the England team also represents Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man in 'international football'. To make this clearer, I've added "FIFA-recognised" to the introduction.

The Guernsey Football Association, Jersey Football Association and Isle of Man Football Association are all county members of the Football Association but there are 'national' teams in those areas that play in non-FIFA recognised football (Island Games and CONIFA) and it causes some confusion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the wording of that sentence correct? I thought that players from the Crown Dependencies (e.g. Le Saux, Le Tissier) were eligible to represent all of the home nations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Top Goal Scorer 14/04/15[edit]

As of 14th April 2015 the top goal scorer is listed as Wayne Rooney with 50 goals. This is incorrect, he is still on 47. See: englandstats.com | Wayne Rooney Yellowman94TalkContribs 17:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial badge in the infobox[edit]

The badge with the star in the infobox is unofficial. The badge of the national team officially [2] [3] [4] [5] has not the star. The star used only in the shirt. --IM-yb (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rooney's goals in squad list[edit]

Rooney has 52 goals not 53 as shown in the current squad list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.6.118 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit for 27 June 2016[edit]

Someone remove Roy Hodgson from the head coach action because he has resigned after they lost to Iceland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.146.141 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Medical Staff[edit]

Please seek to remove Ian Beasley & Gary Lewin from the medical staff. Here is the source Gary Lewin & Dr Ian Beasley to leave The FA this summer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.171.185 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Managers - table[edit]

I think the page would benefit from a table of managers, showing years of service etc. pmailkeey 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.2.250 (talk)

Years?! Not for Big Sam... But here's a source for the six managers who served for the shortest periods – and for Walter Winterbottom's (unbelievable) 18 years in the job: Sam Allardyce: England manager leaves after one match in charge JezGrove (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Top scorers list too long[edit]

@PJNWUK: continues to insist on lengthening the list of goalscorers to include the top 38 scorers for England (although he has numbered the list wrong). This is far too many for this list, Wikipedia is not a factbook, and it places undue weight on players who have not had illustrious careers for England, including some who have played fewer than 10 games for the side. I agree with @OZOO: that the previous list of 20 was possibly larger than is merited, and many other national side pages have a top 10, or no mention of top scorers at all. My intention here is to try and build consensus on what the right balance is for this article, is 20 the right number? Should the list be shortened to only 10 (and presumably the top capped players list would be shortened to match)? Does anyone know of other discussions on this topic that may have come to a more general conclusion about the appropriate length of such sections (perhaps I will ask over at Wikiproject Football)? Thanks in advance for your input. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I searched the archives of WT:FOOTBALL and can't see anything. I feel we should have the same format on all national team articles, and the vast majority that I've checked have top 10 for both; this may need discussion on WT:FOOTBALL to gain a general consensus. I also think we need to sort out which players should be bolded – at present on this article it is all active players (i.e. Rooney, Cole); but most articles would, I think, unbold those players as not active internationally. OZOO (t) (c) 12:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

England national football team did a Nazi salute May 1938[edit]

Football, fascism and England's Nazi salute Per in Sweden (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay...? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Star / no star[edit]

I've removed the gold star from the England crest file because (a) the star isn't used by the FA as part of the men's team badge in any context outside the shirt itself (e.g. FA men's seniors website, men's team's official Twitter profile, Facebook profile); and (b) the same file is used across all men's and women's England football teams (senior and u21 etc), and the women's team doesn't use a star at all.

Personally, I don't think the star is part of the team's badge. At present it's used more as a decoration on the shirt, like a Scudetto. However, if consensus is against me and editors want to re-add it, I think it should be as a separate file, keeping the solo shield for use by other England football teams. It should also probably be silver, not gold. Charlie A. (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

removed honours[edit]

Davefelmer removed honours without any real explanation or questioning them on the talk page;

Winners: 2004
Winners: 1997
Winners: 1991

Should these be restored? Govvy (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't; these were friendly tournaments, with no real status. They could be relabeled as 'Exhbition tournaments' or some such perhaps as:
  • Exhibition Tournaments
Winners: '2004 FA Summer Tournament, 1997 Tournoi de France, 1991 England Challenge Cup

Rename page: England men's national football team[edit]

I would like to seek other editors' opinion about whether it would be correct to rename the page to reflect that the article is about the men's team. Since this is the accepted format for the women's team, why not for the men's? --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the silence answers this question. Perhaps in the future this may indeed be the case, but the decision at this stage would be most likely to be ideologically driven. Calling them the England male non-disability national football team would be correct but unnecessarily specific. Wikipedia does not have a duty to challenge perceived manifestations of patriarchy. 188.30.36.1 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say we should be in line with whatever the FA describes the football team as. At the moment if you look at a fixture list on the FA website, it uses the description "England Women" for women's games, but simply "England" for men's games. If you wish something to be renamed it should be backed up with being in line with the naming the organisation running it uses, otherwise there will just be ideological arguments. Jopal22 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
On the FA website, both sides are now referred to with a gender prefix: "Men's senior";[1] "women's senior"[2]. In the fixture list (for each specific side), the names of the participating countries are listed without any gender qualifier for either team.[3][4] I think this shows that the FA at least consider both to be 'England', with no specific gender being able to lay claim as being the default (as is currently the case on Wikipedia). It is also increasingly common that the England women's national football team is referred to solely as 'England' by major broadcasters. Match reports from the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News all refer to the side as 'England', not 'England Women' (or something similar).[5][6][7][8] It makes sense either to have "England national football team" as a disambiguation page, with links to the men's side, the women's side, and potentially junior sides – just as the page for the United States national soccer team currently functions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Domeditrix. Yeah I do think this will eventually move that way. I'm not sure the naming convention is in common usage yet though. The isn't a England National team specific discussion, and you should bear in mind WP:CRITERIA, especially "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". As such I think this is a discussion that should be had on WP:FOOTBALL so we have consistency across all articles. My inclination is that most people will push back that we aren't at a point that we refer to the team as "men's" in common usage yet. Your welcome to argue your case though. Jopal22 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The England Men's Senior Football Team".
  2. ^ "The England Women's Senior Football Team".
  3. ^ "The England men's senior team fixtures and results".
  4. ^ "England Women's football team fixtures and results".
  5. ^ "Women's World Cup: England finish fourth after Sweden defeat".
  6. ^ Nice, Louise Taylor at the Stade de (July 6, 2019). "Sweden beat England to Women's World Cup bronze with help from VAR" – via www.theguardian.com.
  7. ^ "England lose to Sweden as World Cup ends in disappointment". The Independent. July 6, 2019.
  8. ^ "Women's World Cup: England lose third place play-off to Sweden after more VAR drama". Sky News.

Missing Subjects on Page[edit]

It has come to my notice that the article is missing substantial parts to which I hope it is reverted to its former state as soon as possible. Fadidos (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing Subjects on Page[edit]

It has come to my notice that the article is missing substantial parts to which I hope it is reverted to its former state as soon as possible. Fadidos (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why isn’t this titled the English men’s national football team?[edit]

If the women’s team is English women’s national football team, why doesn’t this article explicitly identify as the men’s rather than forcing you to read the next sentence on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.53.153 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

England men's national football team?[edit]

Should this not be called the "England men's national football team"? Dotvicky (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. Reliable sources don't refer to them as this, and WP:COMMONNAME suggests this isn't the case right now. Maybe soon. Consistency in naming is trumped by what sources say. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of gender of team within title and article[edit]

This page explicitly discusses the England Men's football team, and should not assume male without clarification. Title and subject should be updated accordingly. Jessac (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As per consensus above in multiple threads, wikipedia applies WP:COMMONNAME. Almost all sources call it the English national team - so must we Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Many sources refer to the women's side as the English national team.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Why is the default gender male? Domeditrix (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The men's team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There have been quite a few comments above about this topic, but it needs to be discussed at a more general level (at WP:FOOTY / WP:SPORTS / somewhere else?) than at an individual article. Spike 'em (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)See #Rename page: England men's national football team, but a better location for this conversation would be at WP:FOOTY. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've made a move request here, but have added a topic on WP:FOOTY notifying people of the move request. Domeditrix (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Lucy Bronze: humble, relentless and now the best player in Europe | Suzanne Wrack". August 30, 2019.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Lucy Bronze becomes first Englishwoman to win Uefa's player of the year". ITV News.
  6. ^ "Phil Neville: Karen Carney is an England great | London Evening Standard".

Requested move 2 September 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)



England national football teamEngland men's national football team – It has long been Wikipedia policy to use WP:COMMONNAMEs as article titles. However, this is not currently the case of England women's national football team. It has become commonplace across a broad range of reliable sources (BBC Sport;[1] The Guardian;[2] The Independent;[3] Sky News;[4] ITV News;[5] Evening Standard;[6] The Telegraph;[7] Radio Times;[8] ESPN;[9] The Football Association[10]) to primarily refer to the team as 'England', not as 'England women'. Having established that there are two senior football sides commonly referred to as 'England', it's necessary to look to WP:DISAMBIG. The question is whether one can be deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

"While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:

A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

I would argue that there is no primary topic here, with neither of the above aspects being fulfilled. A page for the men's team clearly does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the women's team. Neither is it "much more likely" that readers are necessarily searching for the men's team when looking for information on the English football team. As evidence for this, I note that traffic for the England women's national football team was higher than for England national football team in June and July of this year.[11].

On the FA website, both sides are disambiguated with use of a gender prefix: "Men's senior";[12] "women's senior"[13]. In the fixture list (for each specific side), the names of the participating countries are listed without any gender qualifier for either team.[14][15] I believe that this approach would be the best within Wikipedia: Article titles differentiated by gender; references within the article referring only to 'England' – just as is done within the United States men's national soccer team and United States women's national soccer team pages, with 'England national football team' becoming a disambiguation page (as currently operates the United States national soccer team page). Domeditrix (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The men's national team is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even if it's just for longevity. Whilst I appreciate trying to "reduce the gender gap" or similar verbiage, the women's team is not on the same level, and hasn't got the same history. Internet traffic isn't important here, and the women's team has only been relevant for around 8-10 years (before such it wasn't really a thing). In comparrison, the men's team is one of the oldest federations in the world.
In comparison, if it were a simple case of making both federations consistent, perhaps a move of England women's national football team to England national football team (women) would be more pertinent Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The men's team is not the federation, merely a team that are part of that federation. What you perceive as the 'level' of play isn't really relevant (though for what it's worth, the women's team consistently outranks and outperforms the men's team). Neither is history all too relevant if the conflict exists now. Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) clearly has more history than Anne Hathaway (the actress), and the United States men's national soccer team has been running for far longer than the United States women's national soccer team, for example. Domeditrix (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Also, the men's team isn't "one of the oldest federations", the FA are. The men's team, like the women's are part of that federation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Aside of the obvious PRIMARYTOPIC argument, COMMONNAME indicates that this is the primary football representative side of England and even the media when talking about the ladies say "women's" while it is generally understood that national football team means the men's team so no need to distinguish. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
My submission actually shows that multiple outlets explicitly do not do as you say they do. They refer to 'England' and not 'England women'. Domeditrix (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - clear PRIMARYTOPIC, as clearly stated by Lee above. GiantSnowman 08:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose primary topic etc. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments presented above, the men's side is still the primary topic. The time may come for this, but I don't think it's right now. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CRITERIA (Consistency) : there are 55 teams in Category:European national association football teams all of which are Country national fooball team and refer to the men's team. A more general discussion would be needed to change all of these rather than use the precedence quoted of the US teams. Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have evidence of news sources from 54 other European nations not using the qualifer "women's" or "female" with the national team name, and that is an unreasonably high bar to clear. Per WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Domeditrix (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That would be an abuse of IAR if you cannot find any evidence for the other UEFA members (or even all of the FIFA members too). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. Domeditrix (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
using IAR in this way would suggest that the rules and guidelines being presented against the move are somehow making wikipedia a worse place, and this would improve things. The argument for and against is simply about common name and primary topic, which isn't something that is fixed or replaced by IAR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:IAR can be applied when the existence of a rule, strictly applied (as WP:CRITERIA), prevents good changes being made to Wikipedia. Other national teams in Europe not being disambiguated is, to my mind, not sufficient reason to prevent any European national teams being disambiguated. WP:IAR is not a means of re-writing the rulebook, but a means of ensuring that bureaucracy does not win out. Domeditrix (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
And as to the page view statistics, I note you start in August 2018, which is handily cuts out the last men's World Cup, where the men's team got over 1 million views in 2 consecutive months. The months of June and July were the Women's World Cup, where the women's article got 300k views in the 2 months combined.[16] Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No conspiracy, 12 months is just the default for monthly pageviews when using that tool. Of course there are spikes around certain tournaments – however if for 2 of the past 12 months the women's article has more pageviews than this page, it's tough to argue that this is "much more likely than any other" the topic people coming to Wikipedia are looking for. Domeditrix (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Using the one year time period, the men's article has 2.5 times the page views of the women's, even though it took part in no major tournaments in the period. Including the last men's WC, there is a factor of 6 difference between the page views. Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I question your maths. 10/12 is a high level of confidence. When it's 22/24 and 34/36, and 46/48 and 57/60 it's somewhat selective. When taken month by month quantities are approx a 5:1 ratio in favour of "England" over "England Womens". I don't question your reasons, but I do suggest your defence is rubbish. Now if you had said many of the "England" results were actually false positives due to people seeking out the womens page, but even then I would suggest that the proportion would be remarkably low at present. Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should just be focusing on the England national team and not all UEFA or FIFA national teams. In certain cases, the "men's national team" title is appropriate - the United States men's national soccer team is generally referred to as such, or as the USMNT, so in that case putting "men's" in the title is appropriate. In this case, the England men's team is generally referred to as simply the England national team, so that's what we should use in the title. Smartyllama (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all reasons above. Football is still generally differentiated by the core national team, and then the womens (be that "England Ladies" or "England Womens Senior football"). I would suggest that, actually, the Womens team is more commonly referred to as the "Lionesses" a lot of the time to specifically differentiate. I have no issue with an argument that there should be a "England Mens Senior Football" which should at present default to main "England national football team" just as "England Womens Senior Football" should default to the "England womens national football" as part of a general shift towards having disambiguation pages and links that reflect some of the common terminology being used in the media, but currently it remains very much an assumed "England = Men", "England Women = Women". Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - If you look at the navigation bar at the top of this page on the FA website, they refer to the "Men's Senior" and "Women's Senior" teams. There may never be true parity between the two sides, but I see little reason not to add "men's" to the England national football team article. In my experience, field hockey has long been considered predominantly a women's sport in the UK, but we still have England men's national field hockey team and England women's national field hockey team. If there were only one notable national team, e.g. England national netball team, then it makes sense to drop the gender from the title as it can be inferred from the context of the article, but this is not the case in football. – PeeJay 11:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The example for The Guardian is misleading. It is an article about Lucy Bronze so it is already established that it refers to women's football and that references to national teams (England, Scotland, etc) in the text refer to the women's teams. However, the article is categorized under "England women's football team",[2] whereas articles about the men's team are categorized under "England" (e.g. [17][18]). In addition if you look at club football competitons in their listing they have Premier League, Championship, etc. and the only one prefixed is Women's Super League. Similarly for Champions League and Woman's Champions League.   Jts1882 | talk  11:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Women's Super League and Women's Champions League are both the official competition names, which explains their usage there. As for your first point, you're making your own inference, and the exact same argument could be used to justify adding "men's" to this page: The Guardian only omits the prefix of "men's" in [article] because it is about Harry Kane, so it is already established that references within the body are to men's football. Domeditrix (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
as another counterpoint to the use of The Guardian, some of their WC reports use "Women" in the team names / lineups, such as the semi-final report[19] and minute-by-minute[20] and separate their indexes into men (England, no qualifier)[21] and women (England women's football team) [22] Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Edit conflict - I don't think that is necessarily true. For instance in the top left of each mens article it only refers to "England". In the top left of the womens article it is described as "England Women". When the story is about an individual league then your point appears to be relevant, but not for the International. Koncorde (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 11:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply on the grounds of primary topic, people don't think "England's football team? Which one, men's or women's?". People searcing for the women's team will preemptively disambiguate the search term themselves. Of course, I think this is the case at the present and may change. So it's potentially WP:TOOSOON. Lazz_R 12:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per (most of the) reasons above. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many excellent arguments above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator, GiantSnowman, and PeeJay2K3. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure GiantSnowman didn't support this nomination. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I think he means that he supports the nominator’s, GiantSnowmans’ and your arguments. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
        • That doesn't make sense, but okay. – PeeJay 17:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but suggest an alternative. The WP:COMMONNAME for all the teams is the England Football Team. The gender / age group is usually assumed in the premise (i.e. watching the Euro U21, its a given they are talking about the England U21 team). Also I don't like the name including "national" - and prefer the England cricket team style (its generally isn't said and is unnecessary - its a given). Therefore I suggest we call the pages "England football team" in all cases, with clarification in parenthesis. i.e.
- England football team (Men's Senior)
- England football team (Women's Senior)
- England football team (Men's Under 21)
- England football team (Women's Under 21)
- etc etc

The England football team could provide a link to all options. Jopal22 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose – Already long established gender equality in our societies would favour the move, however, while in society, generally speaking, woman and man share equal status, that is not the case in football. Woman are still very far from archiving equality when the issue is quality, popularity and coverage in football. When we talk football, we are still refering to man football overwelmingly. The disambiguation factor is vastly used only to specify woman´s football in opposition to man´s. What I would like is to call the attention to the fact that this RfM is one of those with potential domino effect, so it should include a much wider range of editors than just the ones involved with the article in qiestion. For instance, I am sure England nt article is already so well edited and watched by a number of good senior editors, that my contributions are much more needed elsewhere. Even having the article in my watchlist would not be beneficial because would only contribute to the pile of articles I am currently not involved in, so will just distract from the ones I need to watch. In this case it was crucial the mention of the discussion at FOOTY talk-page, otherwise it would have passed unoticed. Although English nt article surelly gathers much valiuable editors, the result may effect the other nt articles, so, in my opinion, this would be a discussion that would rather be about moving all nt articles according to a gender, or not. The acknolledgment of the importance of the move does validate the call for attention of a much wider group of editors, at least all from WP:FOOTY. FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Update - I mean, wouldn´t be better to ask this RfM generally for all national teams rather then just an English one and espect a domino effect? FkpCascais (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current name is the primary topic. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose of this as the national team is usually the main thing that people search up when they are looking for the national team. Other than that most of my thoughts have already been said earlier on. HawkAussie (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. England national football team pageviews (last 30 days): 139 438, England women's national football team (last 30 days): 17 806. Corwin of Amber (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Although I strongly support a move, for the reasons outlined in the proposal, I also agree that most football editors here won't yet be amenable to such a bold change. As can be seen by some of the more backward comments above, the delineation between "football" and "women's football" is still very jealously guarded. Perhaps in another 5–10 years some wider increases in editor education/maturity levels might allow for these sorts of moves. Here's hoping! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Daz, if you don't mind casting aspersions is unwarranted. All reasons given by every user above as I can see is couched in Wikipedia policy. And while WP:BOLD or WP:IAR might be invoked by some, WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
The two criteria given for the change by the nominator (his interpretation of PrimaryTopic) were patently false and all evidence presented by all those in opposition verified it.
Now if there is some better argument, policy, or even just a proactive push to disambiguate every single subject such as "West Ham Utd F.C. Men" and "West Ham United F.C. Women" ignoring all COMMONNAME and PRIMARY policies then you might have some kind of case. However I really don't forsee any significant change until the sport and all reliable sources change, of which Wikipedia is a reflection rather than independent. Koncorde (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Note, that when we say "World Cup", we overwhelming mean the FIFA World Cup, but the page is not set up that way (World Cup), so in some ways a precedent has already been set. Jopal22 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Bare in mind there are over 50 different world cups. If you believe that the FIFA World Cup is the primary topic, put in a move requests there. Other things may exist, but they shouldn't change unrelated discussions Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Whyatt, Katie (August 28, 2019). "England manager Phil Neville ready to hand record-holder Fara Williams international recall for friendlies" – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
  8. ^ "Belgium v England: How to watch the Lionesses on TV and live stream". Radio Times.
  9. ^ "Belgium vs. England - Football Match Report - August 29, 2019 - ESPN".
  10. ^ "Norway v England travel guide".
  11. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". tools.wmflabs.org.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". tools.wmflabs.org.
  17. ^ "Gareth Southgate opts for youth with Kyle Walker omitted from England squad". August 29, 2019.
  18. ^ "Ross Barkley says future is bright for England's 'frightening' young talent | Football | The Guardian".
  19. ^ Lyon, Louise Taylor at the Stade de (July 2, 2019). "Alex Morgan heads USA past England into Women's World Cup final" – via www.theguardian.com.
  20. ^ "England 1-2 USA: Women's World Cup 2019 semi-final – as it happened | Football | The Guardian".
  21. ^ "England | Football | The Guardian".
  22. ^ "England women's football team | Football | The Guardian". the Guardian.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kits[edit]

There seems to be a big wide white-space between the Kit Supplier table and the kit deals, I couldn't work out a way to limit the white-space, maybe someone else can fix it. Govvy (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: I recently made a change to that section. Did that fix what you were intending to do? Ben5218 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Different, I thought those two tables could be next to each other. It is better than before know. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Erm, User:Siliconred, why have you renamed this page when there was a clear consensus not to on this talk page? Jopal22 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the move based off the September move request. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I hadn’t seen this conversation. Thanks for the tag here. Not entirely sure I agree with the characterization of that thread as clear consensus, though, considering many Support arguments and the thread closed after just a week. It is closed, though, so this will by my last comment on this. SiliconRed (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was quite clear, as I summarised above in response to Daz Simpson: 1. Nobody presented any policy based arguments to make the change that wasn't either utterly fabricated or misrepresented in the initial loaded move request. Or 2. Was based upon the concept of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Basic foundations of COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC swept the discussion and unless something happens to significantly change those basic principles we will not see an immediate change. Koncorde (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with an argument, it doesn't automatically make it "utterly fabricated", nor was the move request no more "loaded" than any other move request. Indeed, the guidance which I followed, as it was my first move request, states: "Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic".
Make your point freely, but there's no need to belittle other editors just because you disagree with them over something. Domeditrix (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If the argument had been fabricated and I agreed with it, I would have said the same thing. Check my edit history - I do not stand on ceremony when it comes to criticising inaccuracy regardless of my personal stance or preference. You can read my replies in context in the previous section rather than getting into it again here as to why I am being generous in my assessment of "fabrication". Koncorde (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't look very hard. WP:RMUM says undiscussed moves are ok if: There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. The second of these is somewhat subjective, but you can't have checked the first at all. Whether the consensus was clear or not, there was a discussion, which precludes any undiscussed move. Spike 'em (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)