Talk:Belgium national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Football (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the national teams task force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Belgium (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

rv incorrent qualifying record streak[edit]

LimoWreck, what was incorrect about (1982-2002)? I'm quite sure they were there, I saw all the games. Please explain when you revert. Piet 10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, 1982-2002 was correct, sorry, that got lost in the edits. It was the phrase "behind italy's seven" that was incorrect, but seems something got lost because i actually restored a part of a previous version. Seems to be correct now ;-) --LimoWreck 10:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Piet 10:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Current squad[edit]

Since it not updated since October, the November, and February squad missed. I just change squad to only the current squad for last match. Matthew_hk tc 09:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Devils[edit]

I believe the name was invented earlier. Camille Jenatzy had the same nickname at around the same time, because of his red beard.

Vanden Borre[edit]

Should he be added in the Belgian current squad or Recent call-ups.--Villa88 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Does the team have any kind of policy about the language(s) used in the locker room? I'm curious, given the tensions between Flemings and Walloons. (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, freedom of language. It is true that now and then Dutch- and French-speaking players tend to cluster because of easier communication but in the current squad, there are no known tensions between players with different mother tongue. Most players understand Dutch and French, and many players (like Vincent Kompany and Romelu Lukaku) and coach Marc Wilmots can speak both languages well or fluently. Since the education of French in Flanders tends to be better than that of Dutch in Wallonia and since Wilmots is native French speaker, it is likely that French is used more frequently in the locker room.Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Football Uniform[edit]

Belgium football uniform 2011-2012 burrda

Can someone change the Belgium football uniform on the display. the home kit is red and away is all black. check the references.

Andy4190 (talk)

Edit War[edit]

This article is clearly in the middle of an edit war, with MonkeyKingBar insisting on inserting this paragraph:

Belgium's FIFA World Cup appearances reflects the unusual depth of footballing talent for a country of this size, in the manner of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Sweden. The Belgium qualified for six successive World Cups from 1982 through 2002, a record bettered only by Spain whose 2010 World Cup was their seventh consecutive qualification (a streak going back to 1986). Every other nation with an equal or longer string of appearances has had the streak "interrupted" by automatic qualification as the host or the defending champion (the 2006 tournament was the first for which the defending champion did not automatically qualify).

This is unsourced and is, it seems to me, original research. I believe the burden of proof lies with the editor attempting to insert or re-insert the material (MonkeyKingBar). Can MonkeyKingBar or another editor provide some justification for including this material? If so, I will gladly stop removing it. (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be included, it is OR and saying the depth of talent is "unusual" then listing three other European teams (to which you could add England, Denmark and Portugal off the top of my head as smallish Euro countries with fairly decent records) seems to suggest it is not unusual at all anyway. BulbaThor (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
England has over 50 million people, so it's not really "smallish". It has a much larger population than all the other countries mentioned. (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For me it is ok to insert pieces what a Belgian football fan could be proud about, but I would recommend only to include the parts that are still correct from a neutral/impartial point of view. For example, the part "a record bettered only by Spain whose 2010 World Cup was their seventh consecutive qualification (a streak going back to 1986)" is a at the same time kind of a compliment for the Belgian team but it also indicates an objective fact (I think, I don't know the qualification streaks for all countries) and because of that this small part could be inserted in my opinion. Kareldorado (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Youngest players[edit]

Would it not make more sense for the list of youngest players to state the team they were in when getting the first call up? An additional date for the debut could be useful too. — WardMuylaert (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Detailed FIFA rankings[edit]

The month-by-month coloured list of how many ranking points the team had at specific dates in the past are not very conducive to good prose at the article. I would propose that the highest ranking (and possibly lowest, too) may be included, somewhere in the history section, but a standalone section just about the rankings holds trivial value to the article. I have thus removed it; national team Featured Articles and Good Articles do not have such a section, so I imagine this article could be improved in different ways. Thanks, C679 12:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat regretted the removal, but agree that it was a substantial numerical portion with relatively few information. Thanks for the commented adaptation. I got the idea from Hungary national football team, currently a "B" rated article (which is not too bad at the national football team scale as most of these team articles are "C" rated). Kareldorado (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Proposals for further elaboration of this article towards (F)A-class[edit]

After having put quite some effort in this article, I thought that next things could be useful to level up this article further to a splendid article about the Belgian national squad:

- Optimizing the word choice and the text in general

- Adding some kind of comment such that the current player list is always adapted in an appropriate way. In my opinion, this means: ranked by position, then player number, then surname, then first name; for loaners the club they actually play in should be shown. A similar comment between double arrows could be written, such that tables with numbers are adapted with caution.

- Uploading of suitable historic pictures into WikiMedia (a. o. squads from WC 1986, Euro 1980,(Done) as well as one of the mad Grand Place in Brussels in 1986), even though I don't know where to get the best pictures - legally (I am still quite a newb). A picture with the fan fury in 2013 and perhaps the "1895" logo(Done) would also make good pictures for "Supporters".

- Somewhat extending the team history and/or(Done) transferring the tournament history text parts into the history part. Maybe we should vote whether to do this last thing or not? Anyway, I think that in most A-class or featured national team articles an exhaustive history part is the case.

- Adding a "Records" section(Done)

- Creation of articles for the captains of the national team (to be found in the captain list) that were captain during a considerable amount of time - five matches, say

Is there someone with a creative pen around or a good photo searcher who wants to take care of one of these items? From now on I will probably contribute with rather minor edits. Thanks!

Kareldorado (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Managing the records: short summary and a separate article?[edit]

Hi, I'm aware that the current article is very large (about 180kB), mainly due to the many tables. Wouldn't it be better if we make a new article "Belgium national football team records", transferring the following tables: All-time team record, most appearances, most goals, youngest player, top-10 of captaincies? Then, at the main article we could make a small records section with statements about the individual and team records. Kareldorado (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not, it's been done before, see England, Scotland and some more, even Iran. Basically: WP:BOLD! --Pelotastalk|contribs 15:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:SS. C679 12:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; the records page is in progress! Kareldorado (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical results[edit]

I'm curious to see the results of 2013 and perhaps even earlier, but I don't know where to find them. Of course, I'd like to find them right here on Wikipedia, in the same kind of overview as we have here in the "Recent results and forthcoming fixtures" section. Any chance of having a few more 'recent years' in hidden format, or perhaps having them in a separate article somewhere? Or is that against some convention? I just feel like it's cut off a bit too late right now, because I can't even go back 9+ months. Sygmoral (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the overview template below: you can consult in detail the results of the 1900s, 1910s, 1980s and 2010s. Currently, I am busy with completing the 1990s. Kareldorado (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Aha! I guess I should have found that, but the new pointer in the "recent" section makes it much more easily accessible, thanks! Sygmoral (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellow-on-red table headers[edit]

I don't like the red table headers. Not so much because they are red, but because the yellow-on-red combination simply doesn't look very professional. Yeah, I'm a web developer, I'm picky :) It's a bad contrast for readability, and it makes me think of toys or flashy shows.

I propose one of two changes:

  • Change the yellow text into white (still on red)
  • Go back to the default style (black on light-blue)

I'll be happy to make the required changes if we can agree :) Sygmoral (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, for me it is a constructive suggestion, especially regarding the readability, but indeed, also to avoid an overcoloured page. I'd prefer white text on red background then. Kareldorado (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It will be a bit of work (also in the templates) but worth the effort. As I look over it the yellow does make the tables quite 'heavy' here and there. Kareldorado (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, glad you agree! So I went ahead and made the changes :) I only changed the templates that appear on this page though - I haven't touched any subpages yet.
I was actually considering to only keep the top table headers as red, and change the second row and result row to grey - you can still see that try-out in my second-to-last edit on the Minor tournaments template and the Belgium vs Netherlands section. Might still want to do that after all. Sygmoral (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

Doesn't this article (still) feel too large? According to WP:SPLIT, it "almost certainly should be divided". But before making any changes towards that effect, I suggest taking a look at the current structure, and rearranging quite a bit. It may be easier to then see which pieces might need to be split off. I took inspiration from several other B-class national team articles.

I wonder for example whether there is a specific reasoning for the order of the current sections? I would suggest moving around some of them, with a special focus of course on the first few items, which I suppose should contain the most important and most 'urgent' information that a typical visitor would want to find. For example:

  1. History
    1. ...
  2. Team image
    1. Media coverage (moved from top level)
    2. Actions
    3. Support (moved from top level)
    4. Popular culture
    5. Mascot/logo
  3. Kit
    • Including sections Colours and Crest, rather than the other way around
  4. Grounds (might want to rename to Stadiums or Home Stadium)
  5. Rivalries
  6. Staff
  7. Players
  8. Recent results and forthcoming fixtures (before the historic results below, and right after 'players': these both hold "current" content)
  9. Competitive record
    • I suggest moving "Record per opponent" to a separate page, and then linking to it in a new introduction for this section.
    • I suggest collapsing those minor tournament tables.
  10. Honours
    • In current form, it breaks the flow of the article... I suggest moving everything apart from the major tournaments into the separate Records page, which can then be linked to from an introduction here.
  11. Managers
  12. Captains
    • I suggest making a separate page for the all-time list. Or maybe merge it with List of Belgium international footballers or something. (Btw, it doesn't fit on small screens, thought I'm still contemplating how best to fix that. )
  13. Records
  14. Belgian League XI
    • Can we put this into any other section? Perhaps at the end of History - 1920-78?

I've been doubting a lot about whether to suggest moving Kit into Team image as well, but I guess it needs its own section. Moving Media coverage and Support in there would improve the menu overview though, as would moving Recent results up and removing the subsections of Honours. I believe it will make the menu slightly more easily digestible! Sygmoral (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joris, thanks for critically analysing the article size and structure. I agree that it should have been divided already, however, I did not find the time and courage yet to do so. Some things that definitely should happen are:
  • Create a "history of ..." article, shorten the current history section (and perhaps move the evolution of the kit uniform to that)
  • Copy parts of World Cup history to the article "Belgium at the World Cup" and shorten the current World Cup section (and perhaps the same with the European Championship)
  • Belgian League XI: I would put a sentence about this in the history section, and copy the current block to the History article that yet needs to be made.
  • Slightly further cutting down on some of the five sections on team image
Soon I will get back to the other issues as well (more structure-related). Kareldorado (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed article structure: done. The reason I used "Grounds" as sections title was that apart from the home stadiums I also mention the training grounds here. On the other hand, the national football team does not "possess" all the stadiums they played at, so probably "Home stadium" is a better choice. Kareldorado (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Main work remaining for this article: the issues brought up by you, me, and peer reviewer Euryalus (his comments stand in the archive, see [1]). Kareldorado (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I just went through the whole article, to try and improve some parts that didn't feel like natural English (not that I'm native, but I consider myself pretty good :) ). I don't think I made any controversial changes, mostly just rewordings and a few typo corrections.
The only remaining things I'm personally still thinking about, are the introduction (which could even be halved), and some legends under tables that just look a bit odd when the table's collapsed (especially under the Managers table), so I'm considering to move those legends "inside" the table (in a full-width cell at the bottom) some time in the future. Sygmoral (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

British English in this article[edit]

Nowadays more native English speakers speak American English than British English, but for the following reasons (only) British English is to be preferred in this article:

  • The roots of association football are British
  • Consistency
  • (To a minor extent: ) The UK is a lot closer to Belgium than the US are, and in the same continent

If you happen to find American English words in this article, please replace them with an alternative that is valid in UK English. Thank you, Kareldorado (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Results and fixtures[edit]

I can't say I like that this section has been moved off the page... I understand WP:RECENT, but there's also the argument of how relevant recent information may be to a certain topic. At least, I don't think those three bullet points at the top of WP:RECENT apply to this section in this article.

I checked about 80 other national team's pages, and only a few don't have recent matches/fixtures information: Gabon, Scotland, Wales and Peru (if you don't count historical teams). Some countries do mention it in 'shorter' ways though: Greece has an empty section with a "Main article: " link. Austria, Montenegro, Norway and Northern Ireland only show the Euro 2016 Group table, without separate information for those matches (which 'automatically' keeps it up to date; although N Ireland does separately mention Friendlies). Similar for Uruguay in its own region.

In any case, that's over 70 other pages (including all of the larger football countries) that always have a full dedicated "Results and fixtures" section. I didn't check all their article quality rates, but since almost all pages do it, it should be an indication of what people may expect to be present on a national team's Wikipedia page. I know Peru is a FA-rated article (without that 'recent information'), but on first impression, it really makes me wonder whether that team is actually still active today. In fact, it's not very consistent that it (and Belgium) does have recent information about the players, but not about the matches. — Sygmoral (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes... this is a tricky one. Often I considered it as normal to have the Recent Results section, but there are some things to consider:
The advantages of having them at another page are:
  • a 'thinner' main page,
  • not having to change the main page so often, and
  • not having to move the matches to the results page now and then.
I saw that Scotland and Perú's page - the only featured articles - do not have such a section.
The main (and only) disadvantage is the less immediate (and obvious) access to recent results. However, I also regret this a bit for the Scotland and Peru pages.
Even though I am often busy with this page, I do not own it, so sure we can take the section back. If I am right, once there was an objection to the Recent Results section in one of the two articles that was in the flow for "featured article", and in a reaction the responsible editors did away with it. Ok, perhaps we can take it back for now and raise the issue again if the article becomes FAC ("on a beautiful day"). Kareldorado (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, good argument of yours about the recent info regarding the players, namely the latest call-ups. Kareldorado (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I did omit the current injuries deliberately, and want to keep it that way, since it is not so convenient to catch up with that for all 20+ players. Kareldorado (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw you removed those "current injury" icons -- and I certainly agree with that argument. Glad to have the Results & fixtures section back though :P I'm hoping that if this article ever gets to FA, it can even stay there (in some form at least). — Sygmoral (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Help me identify former players! ManFromNord (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This RBFA website with all Belgium players will probably facilitate your player identification; it provides the first names, photographs and former clubs. Do "Ctrl-F" for the last names and you should find all. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Move "Managers" and "Captains" to the "History of ..." page?[edit]

Even though these sections do not take many sentences and the tables do not ask for that many bytes neither (because of the templates) these moves would seem both logical and desirable, since they are not so much about the team as a whole. Other opinions? Separate list articles? Kareldorado (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

To improve smartphone-friendliness and also because I received one or two comments on the limited value, I moved the "Captains" section into a separate list, with a link under "Players". The "Managers" section seems more valuable to me, as it shows who officially managed the team (= selected and usually trained them), while a captaincy is often merely ceremonial. Also, the section about the managers gives a good idea of how the team performed in a specific period, thanks to the win percentages and average points per game. Kareldorado (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Good decision I think. About the Managers section, I've been in doubt about this section before: it indeed provides a great overview of the performance of the team and which major tournaments they joined, but what I wonder is: is that actually what you expect to be in that table? I mean: if you were looking for that kind of chronological performance information, would you check the "Managers" section?
That overview seems so useful, I think it should "somehow" be in the section Competitive record. Perhaps as a visual graph on a timeline, wouldn't that be nice as an introduction in that section. That would decouple it from the managers though, and just show it by year. But then the full current Managers table (still including those right columns) might be moved into its own page, if that is still preferable, since the period-specific-performance is displayed in a different way. The keyword here then is "somehow" :) I.e., what should such a graph look like exactly (any others that do this?), what kind of information exactly should it have. Sygmoral (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Too true about both comments, I have been thinking the same about whether people would search for it in that section, so much more because it is collapsed... - which is needed, if you see the table size. Do you think people can easily find their way to the "Results" article like everything is organised now? Kareldorado (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether the full results article page is easily found depends how people navigate this article, I guess. Personally, I would start in the "recent results" section, and only when I've seen those do I get interested to see older onces - that's why I think that link to the "summarizing results page" in the introduction there is useful to have. Especially for people that come from other national team articles, because the "recent results" section is so common. Sygmoral (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, see my suggestion on the talk page of History of ... :) Sygmoral (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Integration of tournament match tables?[edit]

For me it is okay, but I would like consensus on this one: shall we integrate the following table in the article? In that case, maybe it should be part of the "Belgium at the World Cup"-template - separated from the other (overview) table with a space, of course. In case we do it for the FIFA World Cup, the same should be done for the UEFA European Championship and the Summer Olympic matches, in my opinion.

Anyway, nice work, ProudTarjaholic! I will temporarily move the table here in case you don't finish it yet today:

Keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

True, that's a nice overview! But I doubt whether it should be on the main article, since it is so specific. I personally believe it would make more sense to have it on the Belgium at the FIFA World Cup page. In fact (on a somewhat related note), I've been doubting in the past whether even those current large FIFA and UEFA tables are too big for the main page ... I would probably feel better about it already if we can change the headings on the right side to just "Qualification record" (without the 'prefix'), to make the collapsed table only 1 row high :) Sygmoral (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
1) Agree, but we can still keep the summarizing tables. (Until we get a big remark or so.)
2) Done. Kareldorado (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the tables collapsed for smartphones? For computers the big tables seem perfectly ok to me because collapsed, for smartphones on the other hand... Kareldorado (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, it seems tables can't be collapsed on the mobile site... Even the Help:Collapsing page doesn't work there, because MediaWiki:Common.js doesn't seem to be included on Mobile. So I think we're out of luck here, unless the Wikipedia team can be convinced to add collapsing support for mobile! Sygmoral (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of section "Popular culture"?[edit]

Hi, after some reconsideration I would like to delete the Popular culture section, and will carry on arguments pro and con:

PRO deletion:

- in AndyZ's FA suggestions it is explicitly recommended to remove "Trivia"/"other facts"/"Miscellaneous"/"In popular culture"
- little information about the team itself, neither about the team image (popularity and so)
- information about several commercial products, on top of that, it is arbitrary what to include and what not (card games? board games? The many other comic books that were released in 2014?)
- size reduction to obtain a more acceptable length
- bulleted lists are flow-breaking

AGAINST deletion:

- the section shows how the team fits into local culture (but rather little, IMO)
- a couple of times the team also co-operated in singing or appearing in songs or the recent Ta fête music video

Any more comments? Be my guest! Kareldorado (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Good work. Let's make it better. I am using as a base the work that I did for Peru national football team. The basic idea is to follow WP:SUMMARY editing where appropriate, because we need to keep the reader in mind. I consider that GA reviews should ideally result in exemplary organization, whereas FA reviews should focus on refining prose and the like.


  • Please explain the reason for the brackets in the nicknames.
The reason was that the article (de/les/die/the) is not always needed (individual players can be referred to as "Red Devil(s)", but it is usually used. The articles are written with a capital because it is the beginning of a word group, but this should not be the case in a sentence (like is the case in the introduction). I will drop the brackets then - better readable that way. Kareldorado (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The same situation occurs in Spanish with the article "la". What helped me out was searching for the English sources (rather than the Spanish sources), to see what they use; in my case, they preferred "La Blanquirroja". It may be the same or different for Belgium.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


I plan to finish the text adaptations with this part. Kareldorado (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph should not be a single sentence. It should present basic information.
  • Why not make the second paragraph about achievements, colors, and rivalries?
  • Third paragraph is good for a brief history.
  • An optional 4th paragraph is good to bring the history to the present.


Compared to 9 days ago the History section is now +/- 350 words, 4 images and 1 section smaller. I am still looking whether I can drag information away to other sections, and how I can get it 'smoother'. Kareldorado (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
For me the subsections seem handy to hoover over the history and zoom in on one aspect. As a reader, to me no subsections would look "neat", yes, but discouraging to look up general historical facts. The timeline is not (and should not be) as detailed as in the History article. Other articles that show subsections in the History section are Barcelona (8), Croatia (6), Man Utd (5), Germany women's NFT (4). However, I do agree about the narrative flow and that it should get thinner; for this, I want to outsource some parts to other sections as you proposed. Kareldorado (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the Barcelona and Croatia articles are good points in your favor; remember to use these for the FA review if you still decide to keep it with sub-sections. I do, nonetheless, think that the Germany women's team also favors my perspective—this is because they don't have a history page, so it is correct for them to use sub-sections.
Another reason that I consider the historical summary as better is that it will make use of less sources and information (therefore, it would be easier to defend during any future reviews).--MarshalN20 Talk 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep a maximum of two images. Images that show action are generally the better suited for an article (but it's up to personal discretion).
I don't want to have as much as many images here as possible, but the four I kept now seem quite important for the article to me: 1st team ever - action picture of only victory at major tournament - picture of generation with best achievement at WC or EC - action picture of the other golden generation. Besides, several FA articles of football teams show at least as many pictures in the intro: Barcelona (15), Sunderland (8), Man Utd (7), Malmö FF (5), Liverpool (4), York City (4), Germany women's NFT (4). Kareldorado (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I spent the better part of yesterday trying to find more images (in Spanish) for Belgium, but I am surprised that there really aren't that many available for free use.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for searching anyway. Yes, a pity, right? To me it was at the same time surprising ànd disappointing, luckily our good neighbours, the Dutch, do provide some databases for free images and newspapers. I used these several times for information in the main page, records page and unofficial match page. Kareldorado (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Never have images sandwich a text (see MOS:IMAGES).
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Team image[edit]

  • This section should be prior to the records, but before [after] the basic information of the team (kit, stadium, rivalries, etc.).
That is already the case, or did you mean "after" instead of "before"? Kareldorado (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I meant after. Sorry! The reason behind this is consistency within the article. First we want to know everything about the team, and only after do we want to know about its image.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I assumed so, it seems logical to me - done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid text sandwiching.
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Good. Could it be possible to move the Fellaini fan to the sub-section with the bullet point list?--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Why, great idea! I hadn't considered that before but it also suits quite well there. Kareldorado (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


  • The kit manufacturer's table in the uniform section is an unnecessary template. The citation is also a little bit messy. It would look much professional if the information was placed in a short paragraph.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Many FA articles also use similar manufacturer's tables... but I really don't want to defend this at all costs. I agree the citation looks a bit messy, and also the following thing. After the prose above, you see "sentence-box-sentence". So, I will convert this into text. Kareldorado (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Needs citation: "Apart from local events it also hosted eight European Cup and UEFA Cup Winners' Cup finals, as well as six European Championship matches."
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs citation: "This catastrophe called for a drastic architectural transformation. After a decade of renovations, the modernised stadium was named after the late King Baudouin I in 1995."
Done - sentence corrected and reference added. Kareldorado (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Training grounds information should be better merged with the section.
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


  • As much as I like the Belgium-France image due to its historic importance, I can't help but consider that it is unnecessary for the section. The drawing of Belgium-Netherlands is a much better visual aide than two teams standing side-by-side. I think that it should be removed from this article (but I do plan on creating an International football article where it would be featured prominently).--MarshalN20 Talk 23:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I am okay with tossing that picture. It is a small section after all, and I also think the drawing is best, for three reasons: it has a creative aspect, it shows action and it depicts a match with their "biggest" rival (considering the number of games). The place for the Belgium-France image is Évence Coppée Trophy. Kareldorado (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Uruguay and Argentina beat us in playing the first match between independent countries. :) Kareldorado (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


  • I changed the section title. It seemed a more stable format. I also was toying with the idea of titling the section Management instead of Managers. Which do you prefer?--MarshalN20 Talk 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I definitely prefer "Management", for a double reason. Not only the manager, assistant manager and GK manager are mentioned in the Current staff heading, but also people that belong to the management in a broader sense (without the title of "manager"). Apart from that, in the prose above we discuss more "the way managers manage" than the people behind their names. Kareldorado (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


  • The blue box quote in the "notable players" section detracts from the flow of the section. I suggest to better implement it as part of the text.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and even more than that I find it may look a bit odd how it splits the two text parts, right in the middle. I want to fix this soon. Kareldorado (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent results[edit]

  • I am not a big fan of these tables. It attracts too many IP editors...and we want to avoid that for stability. I created the Peru national football team results for this reason.
I have had a big discussion on this one with Sygmoral. Personally I am ok with dropping the recent matches, provided readers can easily have access to them via a link. What is your opinion about the table of the current campaign, are you ok with that? Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that the FA reviewers will want all of it gone per WP:RECENT and something about us not being a sports website. At the GA review level this is not something that would disqualify the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know! Kareldorado (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
They are gone. Kareldorado (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Following my recent discussions on the WP:FOOTY talkpage, I get the impression that including the standing in the current campaign (which in this case would be UEFA Euro 2016 qualification Group B) should be acceptable. I conclude this because of the arguments being called to keep 'Current squad' the way it is, which is that WP:RECENT is only meant to avoid recent information with undue weight. The players of a team are obviously very 'weighty' information (although I have reservations about the exact current format, but hey), while 'recent matches' may contain too seperate and loose information, and cause instability concerning article edits (as the original post here mentions). The table-overview for the current campaign, however, feels like something that could be on the same level as the player tables (i.e., it carries 'due weight'). It only shows an overview, does not cause instability (it's edited elsewhere), and I believe that for many viewers it is just as relevant as the current selection of players.
I would personally add it at the end of this section, with a preceding title 'Current campaign' and perhaps a one-sentence intro. Also, I would then change that current last line to "Recent results and upcoming fixtures are listed at the 2010s results page." and rename this main section to just "Results and fixtures", i.e. without the word "forthcoming". Sygmoral (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Believe it or not, but I agree with all of the above you wrote about re-introducing this box with the standings. :) My main reason is that we already include current players and staff; how this bunch of sportsmen actually is performing "at this very moment" - about to qualify for the upcoming tournament or not - is just as relevant IMO. Indeed, this qualification box seems not very "weighty" since only the standings table and the concise team-versus-team match overview box is shown. That is a lot less than showing all match details and the relatively unimportant friendlies. Also, as you pointed out, it would not be prone to editing as this happens elsewhere. Marshal, do you have any other consideration about this? Kareldorado (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Part of the logic behind avoiding recent results is that it is difficult to have editors maintain an up-to-date version. It's also difficult to maintain article stability. If you really want to include this table in, perhaps a good solution is to have a strong (mostly stable) section that can balance things out. Would you consider creating a "Records and statistics" section (similar to the one in the Peru national football team article) which would combine the 7th section (Results & Forthcoming Fixtures) and the 11th section (Records)? The table could be included within this section (which would be at the end of the main written text). Let me know your thoughts.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that logic (concerning stability/up-to-date-ness), but what we were considering was merely to transclude the qualification group table, which does not require Belgium-only editors to keep it up to date: also editors of (in this case) Wales, Israel, Cyprus and Bosnia as well as any others interested in the UEFA qualifications will keep it up to date. Would you not agree this negates the issue of article instability and the difficulty to keep it up to date? I do understand however that content-wise, we would be missing a flow if we just 'throw it in' there. I see how there could be a way to combine those two sections you mention. I have some ideas, I'll try it out in a sandbox and link it here. Sygmoral (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Well... User:Sygmoral/Belgium national football team - Records and statistics. I changed only very little text; it's mostly the current "Records" and then a reworking of "Results & Fixtures". I think that this way, the table sits there as a "by the way", rather than focussing too much on it. I think the flow isn't that bad either, in this order? It does have a large amount of links at the top, but I don't see a way around there. Better like this at least than the bulleted list we currently have. (That third link, the Managers table article, may need to be renamed) —Sygmoral (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Competitive record[edit]

  • Minor tournament records should be better mixed with history and rivalry sections.
There is a (better) referral now from this to the other sections, and vice versa. Kareldorado (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All match results and statistics must be cited. Several parts of the section are missing citations to serve as sources that verify the information. This is probably the major fix the article needs prior to being a GA.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I cannot prove you wrong in this comment, at all! I will do an effort for this in upcoming days. Kareldorado (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Done for the "Competitive record"-section. I should still do this in upcoming days for the History section - several claims there are not referenced yet. Kareldorado (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Citations in History section: done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


  • If the other sections present the right information, this section should not exist.
Again: it is not the best excuse, but most if not all club articles do present this information at the main page. For me, it seems a handy overview to see them listed. With "summary style" in mind, only the major honours are listed. Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I would encourage you to think about repetition and article size. The latter affects how fast a page loads for a user, and those with older/slower computers will struggle to read the article if it has too much size. Moreover, the most important honors for a national team should have already appeared in the introduction and infobox (as well as in the history, if not team records).--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point, but the Honours section is quite parsimonious and it refers to the minor honours, which I would never incorporate elsewhere in the text because of too little value. I can and should cut away some more or the article size, I agree, but some sections (like Rivalries and Results) are more eligible for that. Kareldorado (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Records and statistics
  • Instead of a bullet point list, I want to see paragraphs with the information.
Good suggestion, I want to adapt that in upcoming days. Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


Reserved to discuss points in GA review. I hurt my arm over the weekend, so I am unable to really add much material on the review (I plan to add more as my arm heals and I can type with less pain).--MarshalN20 Talk 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, get well soon! Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This is just to let you know that I am still reviewing the work. I am reading the material to check that everything is in order. I am also attempting to help colorize the team's image. I will see if the photography lab here can do a better job than me.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The colorised pic: alas! But that was perfectly understandable since we pursue an encyclopaedic style. Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not too happy with the photography lab decision. I still think that a colorized image would have been good. I prefer that to relying on "fair use" photos that can be unpredictably subject to removal.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a bit the same with me - I think it is clear enough that I could not retrieve the original colours and that this was an attempt "to give the past some colour" and to visualize the old-fashioned colour pattern. I also know that it can be hard to defend fair use images - they can quickly disappear for good. In the worst case I will simply put there a football kit box with the 1904-1957 colours. Kareldorado (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Player tables[edit]

  • I understand the reasons to remove the Recent results table. I am a sucker for consistency though, so I want to voice my concern about the Players tables, as I feel much of their contents are equally culpable of 'Recentism'. Especially when you look at core players that are sitting outside of the main table due to temporary injury or suspension, while first-timers may be sitting in the 'main' table for months even if it's unlikely they will be called on again.
I believe the information needs to be formatted differently. I do realise there is no precendent for this, and that the Peru article has these same sections, but if we can figure out a better way here to display the 'current core team', it may benefit multiple articles. I believe the challenge will be how to determine "the core team": who is 'worthy' of inclusion in the main table. The actual team that has been selected for the next (or most recent) match would then be something else, and does not even need to appear on the main article (just like 'the next/previous matches' themselves no longer appear). Sygmoral (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A wild first idea: include players that have at least 3 caps and have also been selected at least once in the most recent 3 matches. It still has the word 'recent' in there, but it will be more 'averaged', and should give a better idea of which players are considered to be in the core team. By keeping the required caps low, it allows quickly rising stars to be included, while also quickly retiring players that have not appeared in the last 3 or more matches (and can not therefore be considered to be part of the current core team anymore - even if they may rejoin later). But as I said, just a wild first idea. Sygmoral (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sygmoral! Thank you very much for the comments. This type of change would best be discussed at the WP:FOOTY talk page, which is where the Wikiproject on association football creates guidelines (such as player tables). GA reviews follow guidelines, but do not create any where there is one already in place. I appreciate feedback from other editors in the GA review, so please do comment here if you have any further thoughts or questions.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that seems the best place to discuss such a thing that would affect all NT articles. Kareldorado (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been thinking about the same thing, but that is simply the difference with club teams and national teams. A club player is supposed to last for a season, a national player not. His career can begin or stop all of a sudden. It is welcome that you think of those things as well but honestly, I think it is the last and least of our concerns now. What is a bit more of a concern is: which of the current players are worth it to be already in the "Notable players" part? Those who won a club trophy or personal trophy in a major club competition? I put players that belong to (often play in) the current 'golden generation', but that is no guarantee for individual quality. I look forward to your suggestions (and the say of others as well, of course). Kareldorado (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I realised this would probably be an out-of-scope suggestion, so now I'll go put it on the the WP:FOOTY talk page (see here)! Thanks both of you for your comments. Sygmoral (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

Reserved for final decision and comments about it.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments of the article editor(s)[edit]

During upcoming two weeks I will try to solve one or two issues daily. It is great to see this article reviewed by one of the best placed editors to do so, namely one of the two who improved a national football team article to FA status. The Peru national football team page is for this reason indeed one of the best examples as a guideline to strive towards GA/FA. Other examples that can help IMO are other FA rated football team articles (from clubs) or GA national football team articles. Anyway, I am glad to see the many constructive proposals. Kareldorado (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great! Do let me know what other articles you are using as models when presenting responses. Remember that I am simply evaluating the article based on the GA criteria, but I will also abide by precedent if other articles exist that support a different perspective. That said, my primary encouragement for WP:SUMMARY is that, during FA reviews, the more concise information is easier to support than the longer information (FA reviewers also prefer to read concise articles rather than long ones).--MarshalN20 Talk 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, most of all I want to fulfill what is needed from GA perspective, but I am also willing to modify details that might help a later step from GA to FA. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note for myself: main issues yet to tackle are: makeover of Introduction - optimizing History length - Rivalries (summary, no minisections, citation) - increase Manager length including some tactics - better integration of Minor tournament into other sections. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)