Talk:United Kingdom national football team

Fielding of non-native players

However, a frequent humorous counter to this is that a significant number of players for Wales and Northern Ireland are not natives of those countries, but rather Englishmen who are not good enough to play for England but have ancestry that qualifies them for the other teams.

This statement is a bit weasel worded - are there any actual examples, preferably of current players, to back this up? Vinnie Jones comes to mind as a single example from the past, but I'd be willing to stake that most of the Welsh and Northern Irish teams are proper 'natives' and that the assertion that a 'significant number' of them are Englishmen is false. Qwghlm 12:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Basset:Football manager mentions it. Its a pretty widespread joke though it doesn't hold true very often these days, back in the 60s and 70s though people's grandparents had moved around the country as part of the industrial revolution so it happened quite often. --Josquius 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim that such tactics are only employed by the smaller nations of the UK: John Barnes, Graeme LeSaux and Matt LeTissier had no grounds other than residence by which to claim themselves as English. Kevin McE 09:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Position of the Home Nations' FAs

Currently, the football associations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in theory in favour of a British national team; however, the Scottish FA opposes it.

Nothing is given to back this up, while [1], [2] and [3] say otherwise - none of the home FAs want a UK team. Deleted this paragraph, and the above pointless jibe at Wales & Northern Ireland. Qwghlm 20:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is in theory, they don't actually support it its just they aren't vocally against it like the Scots are. Meh, it doesn't matter. I just wrote the base article in one sitting when bored.--Josquius 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Football Association of Wales, opposes a Great Britain team. BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4427504.stm Sulasgeir 13:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The meeting at which they declared their opposition to the plan was held since Qwghlm and Josquius made their statements. Changes in the build-up to, and at, the meeting in December 2005 have since been addressed in the article. Bastin 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

UK/GB

Lets discuss the naming - should this be United Kingdom national football team or Great Britain national football team? What are the arguments for each side? I think the latter is most appropriate, especially since that is used for the Olympics and is all over the news right now. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Until two days ago, this article had been sitting at United Kingdom - it was moved by User:Dangherous and after a bit of discussion on their talk page, I moved it back. To call it "Great Britain" implies that the team would only contain players from England, Scotland and Wales, when the proposed team is not the case. Also, the team discusses not just the Olympic team but the concept of a UK-wide team for all FIFA competitions; it would be inappropriate to rename it just for the sake of the Olympics, which is a minor international football competition compared to others like the World Cup or European Championship. Qwghlm 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with violet/riga. Qwghlm states "it would be inappropriate to rename it just for the sake of the Olympics, which is a minor international football competition compared to others like the World Cup or European Championship". I agree that it's a minor competition compared to the World Cup or Euro Championships (hell, even FIFA doesn't recognise games played in the Olympics to count towards "capping"), but the fact is this British team hasn't been affiliated with those competitions, but it has been connected to the Olympics, under the name "Great Britain and Northern Island", (GBR). I believe this is a question of whether Olympic naming conventions overrule our (Wikipedia's) naming convention. And these should be my final two cents on the matter. --Dangherous 13:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, they are two arguments. The first is whether you want a UK side for all competitions. This argument has been aired in the past by polticians such as Jack Straw and Tony Banks. The second is whether you want a UK side (named GBR) for the Olympic Games, particularly in 2012. So the Olympic argument should be a sub-section of the wider contention that there should be (or should not be) a UK team for all competitions.

Changes

Having just made a substantial edit, I'd like to explain two points:

• I entered the 2008 Beijing bit unaware of the previous deletion, but I firmly believe that it be included. Simply, it is because there is debate around the issue, with conflicting reports from the BOA and the FA, from the BBC and the Times. As far as I'm concerned, when those organisations disagree, it's time to put both points of view as equals, even if the odds of a team by 2008 are a million to one.
• SNP never supported the idea of a unified team. They made the opposite statement, supporting a separate Scottish Olympic team (in either all events or just football), and condemed Blatter for his arrogance.

Otherwise, I think that, with a separation of the primary arguments from the introduction, I think that this article can be quite a good one, given that it's about something that doesn't exist. Bastin 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Woops, should have read the source more closely, sorry Robdurbar 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments

As I wrote above, I think that the arguments should be separated from the introduction. Presently, the introduction is too long in comparison to the article itself. Moreover, I can imagine the majority of Wikipedians, i.e. non-Britons, becoming very confused, either as to why the UK has separate national teams or as to why anyone would question having separate teams.

Being very much in favour of a United Kingdom national team, even away from the Olympics, I don't trust my impartiality (or what little there is of it). Consequently, I think it best if it undergoes review on this page before I commit an horrendous crime against the rules of Wikipedia by writing a propagandist tract.

A more pedestrian requirement is to work out how arguments would be arranged. I imagine that many of the arguments and rebuttals would be 'two-sides-of-the-same-coin' territory. Hence, keeping the arguments and corresponding counter-arguments together in a form of sorted rebuttal might make sense, e.g. under the section of arguments for:

Argument: A unified team would give Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish fans a better chance of seeing their national team compete at major tournements. Wales haven't qualified for the World Cup since 1958 and Northern Ireland since 1986, whilst Scotland have never got past the first round.

Rebuttal: A unified team would limit the number of British qualifiers to one. As it is, it is quite common for more than one team to qualify; in fact, all four Home Nations qualified for the 1958 World Cup, and three of them qualified in each of 1982 and 1986.

• I think most of the rest of the world would consider this an argument for unification of a UK team, on the grounds that other nations, which are much more federal in their governmental structure (USA, Germany, Spain among many others) only enter one side, and thus only have one, albeit larger, bite at the cherry. Kevin McE 09:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am A scotland fan and know that I could not live without the scottish national team and would strongly oppose a GB team and remember nobody is saying for one away from the olympics which rules this out plus the scottish football acossiation saved fifa in the past when it was going broke also I am in the tartan army and dont know a single scotland supporter who would support a GB team

Links to Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories

There should definitely not be a list of 'national' teams fielded by the Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories in the 'See also' section. They have no relevance to the matter at hand, since their statuses would not be changed by the creation of a United Kingdom national team, nor are their situations analogous or the study of their situations in any way useful to the understanding of a UK national team, whether in the past or in the future. Bastin 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The only justification that I could possible imagine for adding 'Herm national football team' and 'Pitcairn Islands national football team' is to make some sort of point. The United Kingdom has a population of sixty million. Herm has a population of sixty, whereas the Pitcairn Islands make Herm look like Tokyo. Who is suggesting that they have, or ought to have, football teams, when the Pitcairns don't have enough men to field a full squad? Certainly not Jack Straw, Sebastian Coe, or the late Tony Banks. Perhaps WP:POINT would make interesting reading for those that require persuasion otherwise. Bastin 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, its a needless list. --Robdurbar 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Query Re:GA nom (nom on hold for the moment)

I'm reviewing this article as a potential good article (it's looking very good by the way), and wondered about the image caption on the map. Am I right in thinking that the (English) FA is also the FA for certain territories outside the UK, such as Man and the Channel Islands? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article somewhere? It seems to me that the "UK national football team" would really be a "UK plus Crown Dependencies national football team"... which isn't quite the same thing, even if only hair-splitters would care!

Also, given that "Rest of UK" and "Great Britain" and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" have all played competitive football, the latter at the Olympics, would it be impossible to include their strips? TheGrappler 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that the Isle of Man, Gurnesy and Jersey FA's are all affiliated to the FA, so that they are independent but, in the event of a player from these islands being good enough (e.g. Graeme Le Saux), they would play for England.

Crown dependancy players have the option to choose to play for any of the 4 British teams, not just England.Jizz 13:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that doesn't make them British naitonals... so whether they would qualify for a UK team at an Olympics is an interesting quesiton. --Robdurbar 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain (1947)

Great Britain (1955)

The Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and Man) are affiliated as County FAs to the (English) Football Association (hence Le Saux and Le Tissier). Under the British Nationality Act 1981, citizens of the Crown Dependencies are to be treated as British citizens for all purposes, including sport. Thus, at the Olympics and other sports events, nationals of the Crown Dependencies take part in the Great Britain and Northern Ireland team (as Mark Cavendish will surely do at cycling in 2008).

It wouldn't be too hard to include representations of the strips (if, by your suggestion, you mean something like those given right and left). It may be possible to find photos of the shirts, too; unfortunately, I can't find any photos of the matches themselves, but I'm sure that delving through some of my large collection of football history books would provide something. Bastin 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the original nominator, and I did so because this article is interesting, well-written, well-referenced, and authoritatively answers a relevant question (why, in contrast to all other countries, does the UK compete as separate teams?). I haven't seen this isue dealt with better than here. It looks like the issues TheGrappler raises, if addressed, would make it even better, and I'm glad to see he agrees with me about the quality of the article.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the kits are on display at a museum somewhere? That might allow a free use photograph to be taken. I also wonder whether any of the early Olympic photographs might be public domain by now? At any rate, I think it would be a good idea to put the strips in, and include a brief statement about the Crown Dependencies; after that I'm satisfied that this is as comprehensive as WP:WIAGA requires. I suspect, in fact, that there's enough information available out there to bring this up to featured status, if anybody's up for it. TheGrappler 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to the National Football Museum last year and don't recall seeing the strips anywhere. --Robdurbar 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame! Would it be possible to get the template-kits put into the article at an appropriate location? I'd like to give the article a thorough review for its good article nomination, but at the moment it's "on hold" so the kits can go in... TheGrappler 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the kits. Since there are now strips for both 1947 and 1955, it might be sensible to expand upon the occasions, explaining the reasons for playing (the FAs' entry into FIFA and the IFA's 75th anniversary respectively) and maybe even the composition of the teams.

I've removed reference to the 1965 game. I had previously believed that it was a 'Great Britain v Rest of Europe' game, played as Sir Stanley Matthews' testimonial. However, having looked in his autobiography to find the strip in which the game was played, I noticed that Scottish players played for both sides (Jim Baxter and Willie Henderson played for the 'international' team, whilst Denis Law played for Stanley Matthews' British XI). Bastin 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A good spot, that. I've promoted this to GA now - a nice article. TheGrappler 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Never has there been a team representing Great Britain. In all cases, Northern Ireland participated, thus, the teams represented the United Kingdom. Bastin 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And the name they played under was? --Guinnog 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

'That which we call a rose' and all that. Bastin 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Scottish antagonists

Just a thought here and I'm not trying to be anti-Scottish, I'm looking at things objectivly but really a point should be made about how the Scots are the main opponent of this idea due to the rather nasty nationalism with regards to football they developed in the 60s--Josquius 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current balance is fine (and not just because I wrote most of it). The article makes it clear the the SFA is the roadblock to the formation of a team in 2012, being alone in their opposition in principle. One could make some conjecture about the roots of their opposition, but it's never been identified or chronicled in any way that could make such an entry encyclopaedic and adhere to a NPOV. Personally, I think that you're right (see how few Crosses of St George were waved at Wembley on 15 April 1967, yet how many Saltires there were), but that's really neither here nor there. Bastin 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be "nasty nationalism" for the FA to oppose a European Union football team? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

United Kingdom national football team → Great Britain national football team – Rationale: "Great Britain" was the name of the team before it was abandonned in 1972, and "Great Britain" will be the name of the team if it ever does take to the park again. --Mais oui! 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support --Mais oui! 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Four reasons for it given below. Bastin 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons below. This is a hypothetical team, and the article explains why the unusual situation exists that a sovereign country (the UK) does not have a national football team. Great Britain is only part of the UK, even if it is sometimes used as a term to refer to the whole.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 10:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons below; though I agree the whole name thing is very hard. Seems there is a lot of crystal-balling involved in this already! --Guinnog 11:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In practice it probally will be a Great Britain national football team (hell it'll probally be England and one or two Scotsmen if it was simply going off the best players) but to imply someone from Northern Ireland can never play for it is just wrong.--Josquius 15:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per objections. UK seems "less wrong". --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose. GBFT doesn't sound quite right to me either, I think best to keep as is for now. Just a thought how about British national football team — that sounds so much better — and I know it goes against convention with regards to all of the other national soccer team names. – Axman (☏) 10:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry but I don't see any reason why this should be moved. On a side note I hope that this becomes a real team sometime in the future, that way the UK can be united and win the World Cup :) -- UKPhoenix79 03:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Four reasons for keeping the article where it is:

1. Excepting the two friendly games, the name was never 'Great Britain'; until 1924, the Olympic name was 'Great Britain and Ireland', and since 1928, it has been 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. In any future competition, the name would be 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', as that is the name in all other sports at the Olympics.
2. The teams that played the friendlies against Wales were deliberately known by the name of 'Rest of the United Kingdom', not 'Rest of Great Britain'.
3. Of the two FAs interested in fielding a team at the Olympics, one is Northern Ireland. If there are as many non-'Great Britain' FAs as there are 'Great Britain' FAs, to describe it as a 'Great Britain' team is misleading. Furthermore, it is an offence to the IFA's position.
4. As a hypothetical team, the name of any future side should not be second-guessed; the hypothetical name ventured ought to rely on the logical and uncontroversial. In most cases, the logical and uncontroversial is the name of the country: United Kingdom. Bastin 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction changes

I just reverted an edit made by Mais_oui!. The changes to the introduction were manifold, so I'll explain each in turn:

• Addition of {{fact}}: citations are not required in the introduction if the statements are substantiated upon and supported (by proper citations) further down the page. This is the case with both of the statements.
• Addition of {{future sport}}: it's not a future sporting event. It's not even a future sporting team.
• Use of 'constituent country': in a sporting context, 'Home Nation' is always the preferred term.
• Bolded 'Great Britain': 'Great Britain' is not part of the title, nor is it a synonym for the title, so it shouldn't be in bold. See the discussion above; since it has been decided (or soon will be) that the article ought to remain here, there is no need to assert that the two are the same.
• Re-ordering the international teams: the Home Nations are ordered by alphabet. Scotland does not come before Northern Ireland. The fact that the editor did make that change suggests the motive behind the recent edits. Bastin 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong: I moved NI to before Scotland, per the alphabet (read WP:AGF); and alternative names should always be in bold. --Mais oui! 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for that point, which I have now removed. However, it's hard to assume good faith when there are still criticisms of your edit that you have failed to answer, and even harder when it's in the wake of the above attempt to change the name (not that I resent your return: only that you haven't exactly let the dust settle before moving back to naming conventions). More importantly, you still haven't removed {{fact}}, which was the most illogical of your changes. Bastin 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE is perhaps the most important Wikipedia policy of them all, and there is absolutely nothing there to support your assertion: "citations are not required in the introduction if the statements are substantiated upon and supported (by proper citations) further down the page". I restored Home Nations, and moved the {{future sport}} template to further down the page, hence I did not address them in my previous comment. Stop being so defensive and aggresive. I really am trying to contribute positively to this article, and I do not care one jot for our previous encounters, which were a long time ago. --Mais oui! 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree; you need to justify "a perennial point of discussion". Perennial seems an odd word to use here anyway. Let's take that down or at least change the wording, if we can't find a decent citation for it. --Guinnog 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anticipation is one thing....

Is it really necessary to have a box for most capped player, blank kit colours and FIFA code?

This is ridiculous, isn't this wasting space?

No, because the team has played games before. It's just that we're all too lazy to go through the records and work out just who is the most capped player and top goalscorer. I will do it some time, if only to prove a point. Bastin 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Team GB.png

Image:Team GB.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just about the Olympics

The article, which I selected as a GA a while ago, is about the UK national football team, and did a fine job why such a team has and hasn't existed and its relationship to the teams of the Home Countries. It is not solely about the Olympic Games; indeed, any national FA-sanctioned football team would theoretically be on the same footing as, say, the Argentina national football team, even if it did not play in any FIFA matches. (Indeed, in its bursts of existence, the team has played non-Olympic matches.) However, the focus seems to have shifted to something more like "United Kingdom Olympic football team" rather to the unique position of the UK in international football. While the Olympics are obviously very important in this context, and are in all likelihood the only reason such a team would be reconstituted, the Olympics are not the only story here. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the focus on the Olympics is because that is the only way that a UK football team is likely to exist in future - and even then it will just be an 'English' team for reasons discussed in the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

England players

Well, since Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales aren't supporting. In think the Squad is going to be full of English players. For example, lets say that the coach wants to take a Northern Irish player. Like David Healy. But since Northern Ireland is against it, then the Coach will have to take a squad of English players. Like Michael Owen. I now the players I said are overaged, but the teams are allowed to take 3 Over aged players. Plus, there only examples. But lets face it, even if there was going to be a UK team in the olympics, then they would have to be English.--Villa88 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First game/Olympic Problem

Why was the first game played in 1908 if UK won the 1900 Olympics? --VovanA (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'Yookay' (sic) did not win the 1900 event. Nobody did: no medals were awarded as it was a demonstration event. The "winners" were Upton Park FC.

Please note that there has never been a "UK" team in any sport whatsoever at any Olympics whatsoever. Any teams from the UK (eg field hockey) have been branded "Great Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain" (except at the 1908 field hockey tournament when the teams played in their respective national strips as England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales).--Mais oui! (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the first point you make Mais Oui is not entirely true. Whilst no medals were given out in 1900 and it seems the players at the time did not consider themselves part of the olympics proper, it was retrospectively registered as an official event by the IOC and in medal counts the UK/GB are awarded the gold for this event.

Your second point really is semantics. It does not really matter what the team is called, it is a team representing the UK (or, if we're being really pedantic, the BOC which is the Olympic committee of the UK)) That it is referred to as Great Britain (or Great Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is fairly irrelevant; it is the UK, whether or not it is called that.

The third issue, then, with the Olympic history part of this is that a variety of different teams have represented Great Britain in football at the Olympics. The problem is that early olympic games were fairly disorganised and did not run to a coherent programme as they do now - so attempts to explain early C20th and C19th olympics in modern day terms come into difficulties. Even now there are issues - supposing an entirely English team organised by the FA enters the 2012 Olympics wearing the shirts of 'Team GB', what do we call them? The scoreboards will say 'Great Britain' and it is Great Britain that will win the gold medal in glory ;), yet an England team who achieved it. Do we grant that gold to England? I think not, but I can sympathise with both viewpoints.

The issue for me, then, is that we need to explain clearly the complex history that results in questions such as VovanA's result from, rather than worrying too much about what teams have been labelled. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One further issue - I've done something which removes the url from the FA source on the display, but it is there on the wiki-markup - I'm not sure how that's happened! Pretty Green (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this adds another problem. The 'record defeat' granted by the Bulgarians was against the England national amateur team against Great Britain. Do we then remove this from the UKNT's infobox. If not, then we probably ought to add back the Olympic appearanes that I removed from the box. But then it would seem logical to grant the 1912 gold to this team! I'm minded to change the record defeat in the infobox - thoughts?Pretty Green (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the teams at the Olympics were only Clubs. So, these games may be unoffical. If its a Club, then it does not represent the whole United Kingdom national football team. But if it was the United Kingdom in whole and under that name United Kingdom, then the first match is offical. But if they are a club, then its not offical. So, it is not the first United Kingdom game. The offical game was when the United Kingdom were a whole team in 1908. Not a club. So, really. The first game was not in 1900. It was in 1908. Case closed.--Villa88 (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just not true, if we're emboldening everything. Its official if the International Olympic Committee declares that its official. Its their Olympics, they can say if its official or not. In this case, they say the clubs represented the United Kingdom, therefore, the clubs represented the United Kingdom. Now we can agree that this decision by the IOC is a bit strange, wrong even, but it doesn't change that its true. The question that seems tricky for this article is whether a club team representing the United Kingdom at the Olympics can be said to be a United Kingdom national football team. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Logic Behind Current Description

OK, I've not really been able to come up with a reasonable approach to this problem. Beyond creating a separate article entitled British Olympic football team (I recognise there are naming issues there, but put that aside for a moment), the only other approach that seems reasonable is to attribute both the 1908 and 1912 victories to this team but to leave a note explaining that it's a lot more complicated than that. In the body of the text, there is then room for a full discussion of the issues. Where sources differ from each other, its better to explain that and the reasoning for difference, rather than to go with just one. Whilst the FA, as the current organising body of English football and the body which organised the team on the behalf of the BOC back in the day, should be given priority as a source, I don't see a reason to grant their description as complete authority on the matter, particularly when it seems somewhat contradictory (why is the 1908 team 'Great Britain' and the 1912 team 'England'?). If the 1912 team is 'England', then what about the various other Olympic teams which didn't win medals? Would we then have to change the 'record defeat' for the team? I'd welcome other suggestions but I think that simply removing mention of all but the 1908 medal one based upon one FA document, without considering the implications for the text and for other aspects of the article, is confusing and misleading. Pretty Green (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Please see items today, 30 January 2009:

• Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put Team GB opposition in writing; Daily Telegraph
• Gordon Brown's British Olympic football team dream is killed off; Daily Telegraph
• Football chiefs against GB team, BBC Sport
• Ferguson dismisses Olympic role, BBC Sport

--Mais oui! (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United Kingdom national football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is an un-addressed citation needed tag from November 2009 in the Other results section  Done

   I tagged four dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for referencing to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   OK the citations issue has been addressed. I am happy for this to keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mis-named

The article ought to fail GA for one very simple reason (among others): it is mis-named! The name of the past team (and the likely 2012 team) was "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Ireland" (prior to Irish independence), not "United Kingdom". No Olympic team (of any sport) from the UK has ever been called "United Kingdom". For complex reasons (mostly to do with NI), British teams at the Olympics are always called GB, not UK. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They're actually called 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in the Olympics. The article concerns teams that represent the United Kingdom under a variety of names (Great Britain & Northern Ireland, Great Britain & Ireland, Great Britain, as well as 'Rest of the United Kingdom'). Bastin 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and rejected. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example (as if more were needed) that "voting" is a daft way of ensuring NPOV and Verifiability. Can anyone provide a reliable external reference that there has ever been a football team called the "United Kingdom national football team"? Nope? You do surprise me. If there never has been a "United Kingdom national football team", nor ever will be a "United Kingdom national football team", and no reliable ext ref (official Wikipedia policy) can be found to back the article's title, then the case is closed: the article MUST be moved to the correct title. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have an edit war, go ahead and I will delist the article. If you want it to maintain its GA status, fix the dead links. The choice is yours. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already replaced the dead links. Mais oui! is just using this as a soapbox. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that some folk prefer to play the man, and not the ball? Plus ça change.

I really don't care what you do with this silly article. Ironically enough, it is actually a classic example of a "Soapbox Article": a see-through propaganda piece to try to pretend to the world that there has ever been a British football team. There never has been, and probably never will be. Wikipedia is both being duped, and trying to dupe its readers. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How on earth is the article "duping" the readers? Read the first line of the article - "No UK football team exists". How could it be any clearer??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then, tell me this: if "No UK football team exists", then why on earth does Wikipedia have an article about a non-existent football team? It really is beyond parody that we have a GA article on a non-existent sports team.

What next? Wikipedia's Featured Article: Top flight badminton clubs of Saturn? Coming soon to a parallel universe near you. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well its not true to state that it has never existed - there are friendly matches that have been played. Secondly, many non-exsitent proposed entities have articles: none of the articles in this category, for example, are about things which exist. But the UK NT passes all the tests of notability - importantly, that it has been discussed in numerous independent serious sources. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As things stand, this article should stick to its current location. What I would potentially support would be split. As I don't quite note but do hint at at Talk:United Kingdom national football team#First game/Olympic Problem, this article is really trying to do two jobs at once: explain why there is no such team as the United Kingdom (or at least, why the UK has only ever played a half dozen friednlies); and give a history of British participation at the Olympic Games. If someone wanted to split an article to Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team then I'd probably support this (though this would mean moving most of the content and the 'Good Article' status there!). Actually, as I think this through, it would probably be a good idea - this article is going to receive further scrutiny and editing over the next two years, so tackling this problem now might be a good thing - it would also remove any dangers of recentism come the inevitable flurry of edits during the 2012 Olympics. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The predominant usage of a UK representative team has been in the Olympics. Splitting is unnecessary, as all the issues are covered here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that - splitting would leave United Kingdom national football team as a very short article, but then as it is something which doesn't exist that is perhaps unsurprising. But I can see some benefit, particularly as the article develops in the context of the 2012 Olympics, in splitting in the same way we split Brazil national football team and Brazil Olympic football team. At the moment, the article just about works but it is talking about two slightly different entities - the (largely hypothetical) UK full national team and the team representing Britain at the Olympics. I should point out that I don't think this split is definitely necessary, but it might be considered, particularly as the article develops towards the 2012 Olympics. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all theoretical. With the agreement for a "British" team to be entered with English players only, it remains to be seen how it will be covered by the media closer to the time. Obviously the team will be officially known as Great Britain (as with the rest of the Olympic team), but I doubt that there will be any pretence of it being a unified team (ie the union flag will be a flag of convenience in this case). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not all theoretical at all - it's taken some complex editing and decision to make the article currently make sense when talking about these two entities. I'm not saying we should definitely split it; I'm just commenting that I wouldn't support a move but I probably would support a well written split. I just predict that there may well be confusion and editing headaches in the future if we don't. Pretty Green (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. We do not simply make up names for subjects. The best fit for the name is "Great Britain national football team" because that's primarily what it's been known as. It has almost never been known as the "United Kingdom national football team". That through quirks of history and politics the United Kingdom completes as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" does not mean that we refer to team GB as "UK" for other events. The arguments made for the current article title either fail to address that or are of absolutely no substance whatsoever (such as the childish brinkmanship and personal attacks directed at the proposer). I'd move this myself were I not convinced someone would plomp it right back without a second thought. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to the points made above by User:Bastin during the first discussion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, it's very easy to point to something someone else said more than three years ago. If I'm forced to provide a rebuttal then so be it:

1. That choice A nor choice B may not be the best options does not mean that choice C (make a name up arbitrarily) should be chosen. WP:COMMONNAME would still suggest that "Great Britain" is the most common name for the team in question.
2. While it is possible to infer titles from the negation of other subjects, it should not be our first choice.
3. The IFA's position is irrelevant. We do not choose article titles so as to not offend the supposed nationalist sentiments of third parties. Regardless, "Great Britain" is almost universally used as a synonymn for the United Kingdom as a whole, hence the adjective "British" to mean "of the United Kingdom".
4. It is absolutely correct that we should not be second-guessing the name of future sides. Quite why this was used as an argument in support of a contrived title when it fact it is a good argument against it is beyond me. We are not discussing the name for a hypothetical UK team; we are discussing how to name the article on the existing UK team which primarily went by names starting with "Great Britain".

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea behind a Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team split

Put simply, I think this article is trying to do too much. Essentially, it's talking about two teams

• The United Kingdom national football team, which almost uniquely exists as a largely hypothetical entity, though it has competed (under the name of 'Great Britain') on two occasions in unofficial friendly matches. It is closely analogous to the Nauru national soccer team.
• The Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team. This is the team which represents the UK in the Olympics. It first appeared at the 1908 games, was last seen at the 1972 games, and will be seen at the 2012 games. It has, for most of its existence, been made up largely of English players and controlled by the (English) FA. Nevertheless, it is a distinct team. Other national Olympic teams have their own separate article away from the main team (though admittedly only three others ). I think the benefit for this article would be that the concept and make up of a British team at the Olympics is distinct from the UK national team.

I've no problem with the current naming, I just think that these two entities might be better served by separate articles. In the long term too that will prevent United Kingdom national football team from drowning in recentism when the 2012 Olympics come about. I've got the two versions of the article, as I would propose them, User talk:Pretty Green/sandbox/Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team and User talk:Pretty Green/sandbox/United Kingdom national football team. Please a. take an open mind towards these (in that this isn't anything to do with petty naming squabbles over bits of the islands that make up the UK and Ireland) and b. give me feedback. If you see the proposals and don't like it; well I guess that's Wikipedia (though I'll continue to belive that you're wrong ;) ) --Pretty Green (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this to see if there are any further comments from people with page on their watchlist!--Pretty Green (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge...

Many arguments have gone on, but I don't think this has thus far been suggested:

How about we merge this article into Great Britain Olympic football team, and, actually, rename THAT article to "GB NATIONAL football team". We can reduce much of the info in THIS article to a couple of paragraphs in the History section of THAT article, merge the only 5 or so friendly matches that THIS "UK team" has ever had (under the name "GB"!?) into the results section of that one (we can add a separate "friendlies" section, to distinguish them from the official Olympics results), and be done with it...

Because, even for people familiar with football history, the existence of TWO separate articles on this issue is way confusing. And, most importantly, the two are essentially the same representative team - the only difference is that THAT article discusses official Olympic games and THIS one lists only exhibition friendlies. Any thoughts...? BigSteve (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You're talking about different teams and different concepts. A (theroetical) UK national team would pick the best players available (irrespective of age / professionalism) and compete in World Cups and Euros. A GB Olympic team is restricted to whatever criteria the Olympics are imposing at any given time. To give another example, there are separate articles for the (primary) Brazil national football team and the (Olympics) Brazil national under-23 football team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking up through the talk page. There were regular debates about the purpose of the article, its name, and its content. Since the GB Olympic and UK national football team articles were split over two years ago, this debate has died off as the combined article has been split into two clearer and more succinct articles. I'd suggest keeping it that way. Pretty Green (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine - but what about the fact that we also have articles for England national amateur football team (in which it says that "There is a difference of opinion as to whether the England amateur team was effectively the Great Britain Olympic football team at the 1908 and 1912 Olympic football tournaments") as well as for England C national football team. All this is way confusing... BigSteve (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United Kingdom national football team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am starting a reassessment of this article because it has substantially changed since it was reviewed in February 2010. Soon after this last review, much of the content was split out into the Great Britain Olympic football team article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable: the first main section (background/history) is not that well referenced; the discussion about the greater prospects (theoretically) of a UK team would be OR in my opinion, unless it is sourced. The Universiade section is unreferenced.
3. Broad
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated: The only image in the article is an illustration of kit colours used in two matches.

I think it is well-written, neutral and stable, but this is in part because there is very little to talk about in this article now. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582, you never completed this individual GA reassessment, which you opened nearly two years ago. As you pointed out at the time, there were issues with verifiability (all of which seem to be true today, and I would add to your points that two of the four Olympics paragraphs are unsourced as well), and it may not be sufficiently broad in its coverage (I don't know the subject matter well enough to render an opinion).

If you didn't contact the various WikiProjects at the time, or the active editors, we could do so now to see whether anyone is interested in addressing the issues you've raised. If no one is willing or able to fix them in a reasonable period of time, say a week or two, then the thing to do, regretfully, is to delist the article. If editors do start working on the article, then we keep this open while they work, and the article will hopefully be restored to the point that it fulfills the GA criteria. Thanks for your response. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Resuming reassessment

I am resuming this reassessment with Jmorrison230582's concurrence, and have notified the relevant WikiProjects. The article needs to be improved in the areas listed above to the point that it meets the standards given in the GA criteria. A major issue is verifiability: the lack of inline source citations for a significant proportion of the article.

The typical "hold" time while waiting for such improvements is seven days; if work is underway at that time, I will naturally extend that time so long as the article is actively being worked on. I hope someone takes this on. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing reassessment

It has been over seven days, and there have been no edits to the article; neither has there been any expression of interest in working on the article to address issues raised in this reassessment. I am therefore closing is as "delisted" as a Good Article. Should this issues be addressed in future, and the article improved so it meets the GA criteria as they currently stand, it can always be nominated again. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Kingdom national football team. 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/20120331142403/http://www.andwaddlestepsup.com/questions/read.asp?ID=130&curPage=6&search= to http://www.andwaddlestepsup.com/questions/read.asp?ID=130&curPage=6&search=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029190633/http://www.footballzone.co.uk/Football-Testimonial-Benefit-Match-Game/Alan-Mullery-Testimonial-Fullham-1976-10557.html to http://www.footballzone.co.uk/Football-Testimonial-Benefit-Match-Game/Alan-Mullery-Testimonial-Fullham-1976-10557.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218101729/http://www.olympics.org.uk:80/contentpage.aspx?page=127 to http://www.olympics.org.uk/contentpage.aspx?page=127
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060623225216/http://www.rsssf.com:80/tableso/ol1908f.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/ol1908f.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)