Talk:Belgium national football team
|Belgium national football team received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|WikiProject Football||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Belgium||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
- 1 rv incorrent qualifying record streak
- 2 Current squad
- 3 Red Devils
- 4 Vanden Borre
- 5 Language
- 6 Football Uniform
- 7 Edit War
- 8 Youngest players
- 9 Detailed FIFA rankings
- 10 Update: Proposals for further elaboration of this article towards A-class
- 11 Managing the records: short summary and a separate article?
- 12 Historical results
rv incorrent qualifying record streak
- 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)
I believe the name was invented earlier. Camille Jenatzy had the same nickname at around the same time, because of his red beard.
- 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)
Can someone change the Belgium football uniform on the display. the home kit is red and away is all black. http://www.footballshirtculture.com/11/12-kits/belgium-2011-2012-burrda-football-shirts.html check the references.
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. 126.96.36.199 (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)
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)
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
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 A-class
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, 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!
Managing the records: short summary and a separate article?
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)
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)