Template talk:International football

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles

USAGE NOTE: Please note that there is a Template:International women's football. This template should not replace Template:Women's football. It is recommended that you use both Template:International women's football and Template:Women's football on women's football articles.

Template:International women's football covers a specific sub-topic of Women's football (soccer). It does NOT cover:

   * local women's football
   * non-FIFA football
   * Club/Association teams
   * general/non-international women's football topics 
   * U-20 World Championship
   * U-17 World Championship   
   * Women's professional football (soccer)
   * Non-championship International Competitions & WWC qualifiers
   * List of football (soccer) players (beyond Player of the Year)

A discussion on the Template talk:Women's football page is an opportunity for all interested editors to give input about future use of these templates. It is suggested that you use both templates for international women's football articles. -Deebki 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Australia be striped pink and white seeing that it's in both the ofc and afc? The Person Who Is Strange 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it isn't. It used to be in the OFC, now it is a member of the AFC. Several other countries have also transferred from one conference to another, but AFAIK, none has simultaneously been a member of 2. Kevin McE 10:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great call on the new NF-Board section. At last, it's up there :)

For the sake of consistency across the list, it is better to keep the name short, using the term "North America". It has nothing to do with the name of the confederation, and has nothing to do with how North America is defined in some contexts. According to the article on the continent, only 3 of 39 member states are not part of North America, and I would say it is a fair call to have that name, and it is also a name that has been used on this template for a long time. Please do not change it again without discussing it here first. In the same spirit, the usage of simple terms "Europe" and "Asia" do not imply that Israel, all Russia and Australia are actually part of those continents. Following your thinking, I guess we should use more specific terms there as well? – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although UEFA and the AFC have members that lie beyond the normal geographical definitions of the continents that their name refers to, it is appropriate to refer to them as the confederations for Europe and Asia respectively, because that is what their own definition of their identity is. If CONCACAF considers itself to comprise of 3 regions, I do not see that Wikipedia can be right to restrict or re-define that, especially if for the sake of saving space in a layout. I was very surprized to see the definition given at North America: the article admits variety of definition of its scope, and the political map on that article omits many of the territories in question, and so this cannot be taken as an authoritative source.. I do not believe that most neutral observers, yet alone the residents of those countries, would consider Panama or Trinidad and Tobago to be in North America. I contend that North America correctly identifies 3, maybe 5, of the 39 nations in CONCACAF. Kevin McE 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used have, as said, nothing to do with how the confederations consider themselves to be comprised, it is just a term used as general guide to which continent the confederation's members generally belong to. For all my life, I've learnt that Earth has six (or seven, counting Antarctica) continents, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America—and that view seems to be supported by the article on Continents. I've never ever seen anyone define the Americas as being more than two continents. Regarding the CONCACAF seeing itself as being comprised of three regions, has nothing to do with it. If going by that, the various subdivisions of AFC should be written out in the template as well, but for the sake of keeping the listing consistent, my opinion is that only names of the continents should be used in the list. – Elisson • T • C • 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is justification in physical geography and plate tectonics for the generalisation that you make, but I do not believe that there is any intra-national correspondence between all 39 nations as one entity other than CONCACAF. My sister's Nicaraguan in-laws would in no way consider themselves North American, and the same can be said of the majority of nations that you wish to place under that label. Apart from brevity, you have presented no argument based on the constitution of CONCACAF nor on social and sporting realities to justify the label you prefer. I do not understand how you can assert that the labels in the template have "nothing to do with how the confederations consider themselves to be comprised", when the sole purpose of them is to describe the area in which those confederations have responsibility. If the geographical labels have nothing to do with the confederations, maybe we can simply delete them, and let the colour keys speak for themselves. Kevin McE 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary, I guess Israel would be offended by being called European, and Australia would be offended by being called Asian? Really, that was the most pointless argument I've ever read, especially as the articles on continents and North America use the same terms, for the same countries. Anyway, wouldn't Suriname be offended if the template would use the term "North/Central American and Carribean"? I don't get your point about lack of other intra-national correspondence, as we speak about continents here, and not cooperation. I don't think that Syria have much correspondence with for example Mongolia, but that doesn't prevent us from using the term "Asia". I believe it is pretty simple. We have six continents where football is played, and we have six confederations. Link them together and we see that the borders fit pretty well. Done. As for removing the continental names completely, I would'n oppose it if it wasn't for accessibility, "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information". Anyway, I've never said that the labels have nothing to do with the confederations (they surely have, covering approximately the same countries), I've only said that the labels have nothing to do with how the confederations consider themselves to be comprised. – Elisson • T • C • 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know from experience that Central Americans would consider it an insult to be referred to as North Americans, and this is something that CONCACAF avoids doing. You seem determined to do it for no reason beyond brevity. Suriname, and its neighbours in north-western South America have long associated more with the Caribbean nations than with other countries of mainland South America, presumably because they have a northern European, rather than Iberian, colonial history: Guyana is a key contributor to the West Indies Cricket team. I am concerned that an admin on Wikipedia adopts such an immoderate tone, and I think that if the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, then it should do so with as much accuracy as is possible, and that this is better acheived by using the more inclusive phraseology that I have proposed, and not the at best ambiguous term currently on the template. Kevin McE 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template, serving as help for navigation. For accuracy, we have the articles on the various confederations that explain how they are composed. If we would have wanted as much accuracy as is possible on the template, we would also have needed to mention that Israel, Cyprus, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Russia and Azerbaijan are wholly, or mostly located in Asia, but are members of UEFA, as well as Australia being part of Oceania but are members of AFC, as well as Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana being part of South America but are members of CONCACAF. I don't believe that we need that sort of detail in a template, as it is, as said, explained in the article of each confederation. It is true I do not know very much about the cultures of the countries in question, but as I've also mentioned, this is not about cooperation or culture, but about pure geography. My reasoning is based on, in no special order, (1) brevity, (2) geography, and (3) the way the labels were used when template was created (June 2004), and has been used ever since. – Elisson • T • C • 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is rendered inappropriate by my linkage of the definitions with the confederations' self-definition, which you seem determined to ignore and to declare, without rationale, to not be ad rem. You have also ignored my opinion that it is not about pure geography, but that it is about regional co-operation: on this matter again you assert without presenting reasoned argument. However, I suspect that we must agree to disagree, and see whether other editors are inclined to add to our collective wisdom. Kevin McE 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interresting that you attack the way I've argued above, when, IMHO, you gave done exactly the same, completely ignoring the fact that we have six continents that correspond to the six confederations. In the end, I'll have to agree that it is best if we get a few more users to comment on this. – Elisson • T • C • 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say tomato, I say tomato. We're all aware that physically everything north of the Panama Canal is North America, but that geopolitically there are several permutations. I can't see that it matters much either way, but if pressed I would choose the simpler title of North America, rather than juggling with North/Central America and Caribbean. Oldelpaso 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, I would just like to make a note that I posted a request for additional comments here. – Elisson • T • C • 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for U-23 teams

• Olympics
• Asian Games
• All-Africa Games
• Pan American Games|
• South Pacific Games
• Jeux de la Francophonie
• UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship

---

for U-20 teams

• U-20 World Cup
• UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship
• Mediterranean Games
• Lusophony Games
• AFC Youth Championship
• African Youth Championship

---

for U-17 teams

• U-17 World Cup
• AFC U-17 Championship
• African Under-17 Championship
• UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship

Should youth have another Template? I the past Olympics is a senior event, but became youth football in recent years. These "Games" may contain inter-regional events. Matthew_hk tc 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating such a template, which I think is a good idea, it would probably be good to have an article on youth football (soccer) as well. That article should describe not only near-senior football (including the competitions above) but also the various forms of organized football that is played on even lower levels, for example (as in Sweden) 7 player teams on smaller pitches for ages up to and including 12, after which regular 11 player teams on large pitches are introduced. – Elisson • T • C • 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediterranean Games
• South Pacific Games
• Lusophony Games
• Island Games
• Jeux de la Francophonie

I have questions about the addition of 5 competitions above to this football template. The main is when i press the link, there serve about the Games information and not related to football competitions. That is awful link, all need is create the related information and add into this tenplate. Why serve with unrelated information? --Aleenf1 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those should be removed (except the Island Games link which actually links to a pure football related page) until a specific article on the football competition of each Game has been created. – Elisson • T • C • 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the validity of including the Island Games, on the basis that the majority of the teams taking part do not represent nations, but islands. It is not, therefore, by a true definition, an international tournament. Kevin McE 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind removing the Island Games (as well as most other tournaments as well, actually). But I disagree about the international part. Surely, they're not national teams in the stricter meaning of the word "national" (and then neither is England, for that part), but generally, a football tournament is international at the moment teams from different countries compete. The UEFA Champions League is an international club tournament, even though neither Chelsea F.C. not Bayern Munich are nations themselves. The Island Games is an international tournament as it does not only feature teams from one nation. But as initially said, I'm not opposed to removing the links to most of the more sub-continental type. – Elisson • T • C • 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an essential difference between international in its literal/proper sense (between nation) and multi-national (involving several nations). I would suggest that "international club competition" is an oxymoron. If my football team has a short tour of Holland playing clubs there, it does not make me an international footballer. If the Champions' League is, by your definition, an international competition, then it and the UEFA Cup have more right (in terms of notability, financial impact and geographical scope) than most of the competitions under discussion to be included in this infobox, but I do not think either of us would consider that appropriate. Although England is obviously not an independent nation-state , I would have to strongly challenge your definition of "nation" if you seek to deny it that status:. Kevin McE 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Template talk:International club football. Regarding adding club football to this template, no I agree with you. This one is for international tournaments played between national teams. For international tournaments played between club teams, the other template should be used. – Elisson • T • C • 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the decision, delete above five or four unrelated? --Aleenf1 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All youth football should have their own place, i think.

Olympics football (by OIC) and other held by regional Olympics Committe should have their own TPs,

and one more for youth football (held by FIFA, AFC, UEFA, CAF, etc.): African Youth Championship, AFC Youth Championship, UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship, FIFA U-20 World Cup, UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship. - Matthew_hk tc 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this single event be on the template? Most of the other events listed are recurring events. -- Chuq (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have updated the template's colors and also changed the image from png to svg. I see the page is semi-protected, which I believe will not let the changes to be shown immediately. If someone could allow the changes would be great since I would like to update all the pages that use Image:World Map FIFA2.png. Cheers EOZyo (мѕğ) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a link for Non-Fifa because I think this category needs more explaination: NFBoard don't represent the whole non-Fifa scene, as for example UEFA represents the European one. Stanza13 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

193.254.155.48 (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because "football" without qualification means "men's football" in most cases right now. This isn't true of all sports, but it is of football. The common name may not be entirely politically correct, but that isn't really our concern. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anyway, I did add a "See also International men's football" in the far corner of this template and the viceverse in the men template--Feroang (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Base on the Template:International athletics, Template:International baseball and Template:International basketball (Women) we can split in some way the long list of links in the top of the Template:International football, maybe split in Defunct, "minor" and "mayor" world event, show some descrition of its, show that they are not all the same and everything means something diferent, also add Football at the Summer Universiade maybe in the minor events list? we already have a "non-FIFA" which is weird in someway but always more info is better that less --Feroang (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Feroang (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]