Template talk:Football squad player

New template: {{cc3}}

I guess this can be used here. –Howard the Duck 05:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, seeing a South African footballer being listed as "(RSA) Player Name" seems quite pointless to me, average readers hardly know RSA actually means South Africa, flags are definitely more recognizable in that case. --Angelo (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth column

Can somebody add a date of birth column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs)

Change as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Just_to_be_clear

{{editprotect}} Copy code from User:Gnevin/sandbox5 Gnevin (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin). To be clear, what does the code in that sandbox do? It's difficult to tell. WFCforLife (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please could you clarify, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It add a field called ref beside the flag as per the discussion, this change needs to be carried out at the same time as the change to Template:Football squad start which add a note about the flag field and makes some spacing changes Gnevin (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, have wrong code in the sandbox. That was a rejected idea to hide the flag when ref wasn't there. I've fixed this now to just add a ref tag beside the flag Gnevin (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Change to Template:Football squad player/sandbox to fix issue caused by changed fs start Gnevin (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind pointless user can just add a ref Gnevin (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please revert this change as it relied on a change to fs start which has been removed Gnevin (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)  Done changed to same as Template:Football squad player/sandbox  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Country names

I think that the name of the country need to be placed next to the flag of the players' nationalities, i.e. use the {{flag}} template instead of {{flagicon}}. Using just the flag without the name of the country assumes the reader has the knowledge and the ability to recognise the flag, which may not necessarily be the case, and even if a reader does know their flags they can be difficult to distinguish at the size they are displayed here. The various blue ensigns in use around the world can cause particular difficulty, not to mention pairs of countries like Indonesia/Monaco which have identical flags, or the various combinations of the pan-african colours.

There needs to be some sort of clever wizardry to make sure that the output is Central African Republic, rather than CAF, when the three-letter ISO code has been used with the 'nat=' parameter instead of the full country name. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed adress an abuse of WP:FLAG perpetuated in this template, but there are many other issues about the inclusion of flags that are not well resolved at present, like why are they considered relevant at all, especially for the vast majority of players who are nowhere near consideration for a national team; the false impression given about players who have played under what is not much more than a flag of convenience; presentation of incomplete information about players of multiple nationality or otherwise eligible for more than one team; and lack of verification. I would suggest holding fire until some or all of those have been resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@Gasheadsteve: No clever wizardry required; use {{flagcountry|CAF}} to get Central African Republic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Per above and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names, {{editprotect}}

For {{fs player}}, change

| style="text-align: right;" |{{flagicon|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}}

to

| style="text-align: left;" |{{#if: {{{icononly|}}} | {{#ifeq: {{{icononly|}}} | yes | {{flagicon|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}} | {{flagcountry|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}} }} | {{flagcountry|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}} }}

(Per discussion below) also change for {{fs start}}

!width=1%|No.

!width=1%|

!width=1%|Position

to

!width=1%|No.

!width=22%|Nationality

!width=1%|Position

This incoporates a new parameter—"icononly". If "icononly" is empty (default) or not "yes", the country name will be shown. To show only the flag icon, simply add the parameter "icononly=yes". The default case complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names, and having lists with names besides all the flags is still compliant with the guidelines. Any other sort of scheme as default goes against MOSFLAG. Jappalang (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) :I request that this is declined until discussion has taken place at WT:FOOTY. Regards, --WFC (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood what is being requested. Could you expand on what this would do? --WFC (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. MOS is clear on one thing; when you first use a flag, put the name next to it.
2. This change will make it such that the use of {{fs player}} will have the country name displayed next to the flag on default.
3. To disable the name (for subsequent repetition of the flag), just use "icononly=yes".

The change will make display of a country name next to the flag a default. A new parameter is added to allow users to turn off the display of a country name next to the flag. The flags are always there in either case. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against following MOS:ICON in this regard. It's long overdue. But I think mandating a key would be a better solution. Otherwise all we are doing is taking an aspect of football squad lists that has consensus but is controversial (a player's nationality), and emphasising it further. By mandating a key (perhaps even encoding one into {{Fs start}} or {{Fs end}}) we could communicate the information without it dominating the table itself. Regards--WFC (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain putting the name is further emphasis when the graphic draws attention to itself like a candle in the dark (somewhat like "Ooo, a pretty flag... not sure which country it is? There is no name... do I click it to find out? Here goes.") A key (legend) is indeed an alternative, but it does not need to be implemented in the templates (it can be implemented as a separate table before the other lists and such). No article, however, has taken the initiative to (or perhaps is prohibited from) do so. Jappalang (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to removing flags altogether, it's been tried, failed, and I doubt the outcome of any future attempt would be any different. is against the MoS, I accept that. But England is more prominent. Similarly, the large spaces left by only expanding a country on first use would also be more prominent than a uniform width.

In my defence, I did try to take the initiative with Watford (and another article, can't remember where but it will be in my contribution history). Neither stood the test of time. --WFC (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about keeping a format very similar to the current style; having columns "Number", "Nationality", "Position", "Player", "Notes". Instead of a flag for nationality, have a flag and the full country name. And to amend for the obvious extended width this would create, have the list run in just one column, rather than the two it currently uses. 91.106.96.171 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a column is needed. Beyond a slight preference for a key on whitespace grounds (USA vs Democratic Republic of Congo) I'd be happy with either solution. If the second method were used, a bot would need to remove {{Football squad mid}} from every article before the change were implemented. --WFC (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I hear ye, WFCforLife; my point is what you experienced: you were "prohibited from" doing so. You had implemented your key on 21 December 2009, but was later undone a month later by a User:JoeA2580, who removed the key without even an edit summary.[1] There is a faction that insists on having "pretty" layouts without care for others with visual disabilities (colour-blindness or such) or unfamiliarity with flags. Regardless, to make it clear, this proposal has naught to do with removal of flags.

User:91.106.96.171, this proposal does what you ask, it will place a country name next to the flag (by default). So can I take it that you and WFCforLife are agreeable to my suggested change to this template? Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If accompanied by an edit to {{Football squad start}} to add a nationality column, I'm happy with that. We can always consider the possibility of changing to a key later, if desired. Thanks for your patience. --WFC-- 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems. The Nationality column has always been there; it just does not have a column title. If this change goes through, I will proceed to {{fs start}} to ask for the title to be implemented and the column's width extended from 1% to at least 22%. Jappalang (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats cool. Might be worth asking the admin to do them simultaneously though. A width of 1% might render strangely combined with expanded country names. --WFC-- 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put up the suggestion above. I also changed the suggested "icon" parameter to "icononly" to make it less confusing to users. Let us see if an admin is willing to do this. Jappalang (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work! --WFC-- 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks hideously complicated, but that's just me. Has this been tested to ensure that it works? If so, could you copy the code to the template's sandbox so I can just copy and paste it, then stick the template back up. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This will get even more complicated, as an edit will also need to be made to {{fs mid}}, unless a bot is going to mass-remove it. I've done some work, and the current state of play can be seen here. The player name field might prove to be a bit narrow (particularly for Eastern Europe), and we need to figure out a way to get Northern Ireland to render properly without compromising any further on player names. Once that conundrum is sorted I'll let you know. --WFC-- 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, we've cracked it

{{editprotected}}

I'm filing this request on one page for the conveniece of the admin, but for procedural reasons will place {{editprotected}} on the other pages. I recommend making the edits in the order I have specified. In particular, it is vital that {{Football squad player}} is edited last.

These changes achieve two major things:

1. Ensuring that the template can comply with MOS:FLAG, by displaying the country name alongside the flag by default.

2. If country names have been spelt out in a previous table or a key, it is possible for the user to display flag icons only by using the new |icononly parameter.

Please:

1. Replace the code in {{Football squad start}} with the code from {{Football squad start/sandbox}}
2. Replace the code from {{Football squad mid}} with the code from {{Football squad mid/sandbox}}
3. Replace the code from {{Football squad player}} with the code from {{Football squad player/sandbox}}

The combined effect of these changes can be seen at Template:Football squad player/testcases

Please credit User:Jappalang in the edit summary, as he has done much of the work. He indicated his approval for me to proceed with this request here. I now consider myself to have a very good understanding of the source code, so feel free to contact me with any queries. I also have this page watchlisted if you'd prefer to keep the discussion in one place. Regards, --WFC-- 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wish I had been aware that this conversation was going on, but I guess that's my fault for having not put it on my watchlist after I had contributed in the early discussion.

I'd support it, but I would suspect mass revolt when it is rolled out: large amounts of white space won't go down well. Many team articles still list players on loan as an "other" section in fs mid: what would happen to such notes, and will it make very wide columns even more common?

My other reservation is that it might be seen to confirm the current header. FIFA eligibility rules do not allocate one nationality to every player in the workd, they simply indicate what will, and therefore what will not, be permitted if a national association wishes to name a player to its team. If Brazil were to decide that their World Cup campiagn would have gone better had they had a short-sighted overweight 47 year old with experience of playing at right back in the heights of inter-seminary football tournaments among their squad, FIFA would have told Dunga that I was not available to them, but FIFA has no opinion as to whether I am English, Irish or Northern Irish, nor does it have eligibiilty rules that would create any default position or order of preference between my potential eligibilities. The current header is factually wrong in that regard. Kevin McE (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (struck: WFC has introduced this under another heading below)

I haven't changed the header. I request that you move that comment to another section so as not to complicate the matter. --WFC-- 09:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind. I've moved the sandboxes and testcases to their proper places. I've also made a couple of other tweaks as well. Can you check if all is in order and I will make the changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't figure out what the extra |} you removed was for, but I've tested at length and everything seems fine. We look good to go. --WFC-- 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 all done. Let me know if they are any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've checked all the featured articles (and my own club), and haven't come across any problems. Aston Villa F.C. and Watford F.C. have images alongside them, but they still render well at 800x600. Aesthetically the template doesn't look fantastic for clubs without a squad numbering system, but that was already the case, and can be fixed with a new opt-in parameter if desired. I'll update the template's documentation accordingly. I'm having problems with wikipedia at the moment, but as soon as I get the opportunity I'll update the documentation. Regards, --WFC-- 23:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks appalling

I just found out about this entire discussion today. It would have been nice if the proposed changes to the template were announced at WP:FOOTY prior to it going live, but that's a different matter. I appreciate that changing the template was done so that the flag icons comply with WP:MOSFLAG, but adding entire country name to the table makes the layout look utterly horrific. There has to be a better way. Wouldn't simply using the recognized FIFA Trigramme - ENG instead of England, USA instead of United States, COD instead of Democratic Republic of the Congo - make more sense? That way you can control column widths so they don't split across multiple lines and you're ensuring the spirit of MOSFLAG is retained without it looking like someone threw up on the screen. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't updated the documentation yet, but it's possible to opt out of this change by using |icononly=yes in each {{Football squad player}} template. You would still have to find a way of complying with MOS:FLAG though (possibly your own key, such as the one that once existed in Watford, mentioned above). Regards, --WFC-- 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Each football squad player template?!?!? I maintain pages on over 200 US minor league teams, with over 5,000 players in the squad lists. Asking editors to do that is totally unrealistic. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this before. This change was the most convenient way of achieving MoS compliance, given that over 5,000 articles use this template.

The decision to use |icononly is made on the grounds that you are either going to knowingly ignore the manual of style, or that you'll comply with it in another way (for instance a key). Assuming the latter, you would still need to manually add a key in order to comply with it, which would involve a lot more work than copy-pasting "|icononly=yes" 25 times. Unless an article has Congolese players (that would be what, 5 or so US ones?) I really don't see why anyone would want to go to that trouble for the sake of avoiding a few characters' worth of whitespace. I'm not saying this is the finished product, but it was the most efficient solution to the problem of MoS compliance. I'm completely open-minded about superior alternatives. --WFC-- 01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As for not mentioning this at WP:FOOTY, the "decision making process" has grown increasingly... how shall I put it diplomatically... shite in recent months, to the extent that I know of at least one user who has retired over the matter, and another that no longer has anything to do with the wikiproject. In any case, the meat of this change can easily be opted out of, and I'll be happy to solve (or provide code to solve) any substantive problems. --WFC-- 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think the matter could be resolved by displaying the country name as a three-letter FIFA trigramme rather than the entire country name. I'm not saying to remove the name entirely, because I understand that is a violation of WP:MOSFLAG; just display it as the widely-recognized 3-letter code, and shrink the nationality column so that the integrity of the squad template isn't compromised by forced row-splits. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That idea has been discussed at WP:FOOTY before, and always rejected. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a case in point. I sure as hell wouldn't know what "COD" means unless I was told.

In any case, the icononly parameter ensures that users who disagree with this change are not forced to put up with it. If preferred, articles can use the |icononly parameter, and come up with their own key. However, now that it is possible to use this template and comply with the manual of style, it's a reasonable expectation that articles meet it one way or another. --WFC-- 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WFCForLife speaks true. I initiated the change because when the non-compliance with MOS ("country names on first flag use") is pointed out, most editors are at a loss on how to comply with the MOS or defend the non-compliance. WP:FOOTY and certain partisans enforce the use of the Football squad templates on the football articles; however, most editors are unfamiliar with template markups, and any discussion about MOSFLAG somehow gets derailed into "remove the flags.... hell no!" rants irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is all easily solved with the above change. Whatever it is, the project is supposed to present information accessible to all and flags-only displays can confuse those with lesser knowledge of flags (we are not expected to be vexillologists) or have issues with visual abilities (e.g. color blindness); even the flags of Northern Ireland and England are too close in appearance to confuse. Initials are also discouraged for the same reasons (unfamiliarity with the ISO country codes). "Prettiness" has less place than clarity and accessibility. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the documentation to explain the change, and also to more widely publicise the fact that it is possible to hide the note. Please can an admin action the following request:

{{editprotected}} Please:

1. Replace the code in {{Football squad start}} with the code from {{Football squad start/sandbox}}
2. Replace the code from {{Football squad mid}} with the code from {{Football squad mid/sandbox}}
3. Replace the code from {{Football squad player}} with the code from {{Football squad player/sandbox}}

The combined effect of these changes can be seen at Template:Football squad player/testcases.

Changes:

• To shorten the header from "nationality" to "nation". Discussion needs to be had on the longer-term heading, but nationality is intolerably long if the |icononly parameter is used.
• If icononly is used, the nationality parameter is centered, to reduce the increased whitespace between the flag and a player's position.
• If icononly is not used, the nationality parameter remains left aligned, because the manual of style correctly stipulates that where flags are used in a table, they should all line up. Unless every player is from the same country, this cannot be guaranteed with centre alignment

Regards, --WFC-- 00:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen done on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to continue contributing here if you people think shit like this improves anything. I don't even know what to say. It's unbelievable. Eightball (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Care to expand on that? --WFC-- 06:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is "this change to the Fs template makes every single page about every single soccer team across all of Wikipedia look like complete and utter crap, and we should go against WP:MOSFLAG in this instance because sticking to the letter of the guideline renders squad templates almost entirely unreadable". This is a prime example of an instance where WP:IGNORE applies, for the good of the WP:FOOTY wikiproject as a whole. Does that about cover it? --JonBroxton (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know from experience that you are a reasonable person. Please consider rephrasing the above (and feel free to delete this paragraph if you do). You have legitimate points, but the forcefulness of that post only serves to strengthen the position of those who disagree with you. --WFC-- 07:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a reasonable person, but I'm not going to rephrase anything because I feel very, very strongly about this and my words were very carefully chosen to properly capture my feelings about this. I honestly think that this is one of the most misguided blanket changes I have seen here in years. Firstly, the fact that you intentionally kept this from the wider WP:FOOTY community and discussed it between yourself, Jappalang and a couple of others here and on your talk pages indicates to me that you were trying do to this "on the sly" without the participation of the wider wikiproject for whom you seem to have quite a bit of distain. I, and many of the others who would have wanted to contribute to this discussion had we known about it, work VERY hard on producing pages here which are accurate, informative, useful, aesthetically pleasing, and conform as best they can to the spirit of the Wiki guidelines. The latter os the most important thing; WP:MOSFLAG is a GUIDELINE, not a CARVED IN STONE RULE, and as such can be manipulated to best suit the needs of an article when said article is genuinely attempting to be accurate, informative, useful, and aesthetically pleasing. This is one of those occasions. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the FS template as it stood; certainly nothing that required such a drastic change to its layout. The bottom line is this: I for one don't want all the pages I maintain looking like crap as a result of a discussion in which I was not involved, and I'm sure a LOT of editors will agree with me. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Eightball is trying to say is that there is really no need for a nationality header when you can simply hover above the flag which reveals the players nationality. Moreover, inclusion of the "Nationality" header has made the template look awkard and unorganized, in where nations with long names like "Azerbaijan" overshadow and skew the alligement of smaller nations such as "Iran". Overall, this edit seems like a hurried and unorthodox attempt to solve a problem which never existed. As such, i beleive more creative ideas, such as hyperlinking the flags to the country's wikipedia page, seem like simpler ideas to solve the nationality problem, if there ever were one.. Kasperone (talk) -- 12:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the accusation that this was hurried, discussion started four months ago, work started several days ago, and complaints started today. That said, I cocked up with the "Nationality" header. That looks bad in several circumstances, most notably in conjunction with "|icononly". This second set of changes will address that.

Even if you remain opposed to the initial change, it is imperative that the second set of edits to go through. They fix the above problem, and undeniably improve on what is currently in place, even if you think what was in place was better. I recommend that the admin dealing with this does so while explicitly expressing no prejudice to whether or not the previous changes should remain. Given that the first set of edits happened, this latest request is necessary maintenance, and that maintenance is entirely separate from the discussion on whether we should keep these changes. --WFC-- 07:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Kasperone, JonBroxton and Eightball. The new design is horrible to look at and absolutely nothing is gained by speling out the entire name of the country. And if you really want to be a bureaucratic pain in the ass about it, WP:MOSFLAG states that "the name of a flag's country should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon", meaning the current layout is also against its rules for any club which has more than one player from the same country (e.g. around 100 percent of them). Well done. The four months which have allegedly been spent discussing this must have been very fruitful. Timbouctou (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with the notion that a second set of changes will fix everything. You're working under the assumption that the Fs template needed "fixing" in the first place, which I don't think it did. Any fix you make will simply make it a little less awful than it is now, not actually make it better. For the benefit of the project you should restore the original Fs template and take the discussion on whether it needs changing to WP:FOOTY, where veteran editors and others who care about soccer articles on Wikipedia can actually have a chance to air their views on the matter. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I've disabled my edit request, meaning that the "Nationality" header in its entirety will stay for a longer period of time than it otherwise would have. Congratulations.

All I did was enhance Jappalang's work,, make the edit request, and then promptly make a second edit request when I realised that there were teething problems. Criticise the process by all means. But if the remark that I deliberately acted in bad faith isn't retracted, I will take the matter further. --WFC-- 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

I've reverted the changes until this issue has been discussed by a wider group from WP:FOOTY. I think it's clear that there are several issues with this, not least the fact that it severely disturbs the layout of player squads. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in basketball team articles

I noticed something while looking at the article for Olympiacos B.C. I've noticed it in some other articles, but this one made me decide to post.

The "Football squad" template is being used to list players transferring in and out of a team. Only one problem with its use in basketball articles: the "Football squad start" specifically references FIFA. For basketball, the correct governing body is FIBA. For basketball, the text should read (I'm correcting the text for clarity):

Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under [[International Basketball Federation|FIBA]] eligibility rules. Players may hold one or more more non-FIBA nationalities.

Think someone can fix this issue? Simplest way I see is to create a basketball version, though it might be a good idea to run it by WikiProject Basketball first. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this template was made for football squads (hence the name), I suggest making a basketball version, or not using it at all for that purpose. Digirami (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

...or, instead of criticising people for wanting to adapt a good thing, we could do this. --WFC-- 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Positions

What if a player is frequently played in more then one position e.g. Defender and Midfielder, and a primary position cannot be distinguished? Is it possible to input two positions successfully? Half Price (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, in that case just refer to the one position listed in the team website or, alternatively, to the one he is mostly used to. --Angelo (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Half Price (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The header

My other reservation is that it might be seen to confirm the current header. FIFA eligibility rules do not allocate one nationality to every player in the workd, they simply indicate what will, and therefore what will not, be permitted if a national association wishes to name a player to its team. If Brazil were to decide that their World Cup campiagn would have gone better had they had a short-sighted overweight 47 year old with experience of playing at right back in the heights of inter-seminary football tournaments among their squad, FIFA would have told Dunga that I was not available to them, but FIFA has no opinion as to whether I am English, Irish or Northern Irish, nor does it have eligibiilty rules that would create any default position or order of preference between my potential eligibilities. The current header is factually wrong in that regard. Kevin McE (talk) 9:13 am, Today (UTC+1)

I'd just like to reassure editors that I am in no way endorsing the wording of the current header; I'm not happy with it either. The simple fact of the matter is that I did not want the changes I was introducing to be undermined by another discussion on a matter that has previously not achieved consensus. If there is any possibility of changing it I will be absolutely delighted, but the header does not affect the changes I have proposed, or vice-versa. Regards, --WFC-- 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The change above is to simply bring the template into compliance with MOSFLAG. The discussion of whether flags and nationality are to be included should not detract or derail the previous section's change from implementation, and should be a separate topic. Jappalang (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)