Talk:Scotland national football team/Archive 1

Article improvement

Be nice if we could get more than the glorified stub with many lists we have at the moment, possibly along the lines of the England team entry.

I know we don't have as much to say! but still.

I'm currently working on extending this, we are the joint oldest national team in the world, so we have as much to say as anybody else.

Cardiff City

Is it really appropriate that Cardiff City have an England flag next to their name? I know they play in the English league but they are obviously a Welsh club and play in Welsh competitions too.

I agree - just so happens we've had a bit of heated discussion in the Welsh national team entry for a similar reason. In my opinion the Welsh flag should be put next to Cardiff City as the club, despite playing in the English league system, are members of the Football Association of Wales. Jonzi9 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Cardiff's affiliation to the FAW, they are regarded as an English club by UEFA and FIFA. The English flag is appropriate, IMO. – PeeJay 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that to be honest, as UEFA actually regard Cardiff City and other "exile" clubs as Welsh clubs playing in the English league system. There is a precedent for this, that being the clubs of Liechtenstein playing in the Swiss league system, which are recognised by UEFA as Liechtensteiner, not Swiss.

I personally think the solution should be this - the flag listed next to the team should be the flag of the national association that it is a member of. Cardiff City are full members of the Football Association of Wales. There are a number of precedents that support this on Wikipedia - namely the national team pages for France, which has AS Monaco listed as a French club due to their membership of the FFF, and Liechtenstein, which has all Liechtensteiner clubs with the Liechtenstein flag (as members of LFV), even though they play in the Swiss league. Jonzi9 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely Cardiff City are also full members of the Football Association too? If they weren't, how could they be allowed to play in the FA Cup? – PeeJay 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff City have no membership or affiliation with the (English) FA, likewise the other "exile" clubs. They are permitted to play in the FA Cup because they play in the English league system. Indeed any punishments dealt to the Welsh clubs when playing in English cup competitions are at the sole jurisdiction of the FAW. Jonzi9 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To clear up some arguments, I have now put the Welsh flag next to Cardiff City, but also added a reference note which states that Cardiff City are a Welsh club which plays in the English Football League. This will clear some matters up, even though it has been suggested on WP:Football that on the grounds of ambiguity we shouldn't use flags anyway. Jonzi9 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Within hours, someone undo's my edit withouy reason, I give up. Jonzi9 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Eight World Cup wins and five consecutive?

Would be nice wouldn't it? Could have been true had the world cup exists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Sure beats a reputation for the team arriving home before their postcards. Anyway did not have the heart to edit this page. Hopefully the lads can beat the odds and qualify for Germany.

"Tartan Army"

Is "Tartan Army" the nickname for the team? Isn't it for the supporters? 137.205.17.132 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It can mean only the supporters or the supporters and the team. Can anyone even think of another suitable nickname anyway? Kanaye 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see this has been questioned a couple of years ago as above. The two citations referring to the team as the Tartan Army is the only time I've ever heard this usage. This usage directly contradicts Wikipedia's own Tartan Army entry. I've only heard the term ever used for the support. Are these citations reliable? This one seems to me considerably more accurate [1]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The ref websites seem too broad in scope to be relied upon and of questionable veracity so I'm scrapping this. More than delighted to put it back if a reputable, particularly Scottish, reference to support the usage can be cited. An actual quote would be convincing, if one can be found. Am not holding my breath. See also here. Mutt Lunker 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Strip Colour

I changed the colour of the away strip slightly. The old version was way too luminous. It’s more of a pastel blue in reality, it’s closer now at least. Kanaye 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Football in Scotland

I note that the England national football team article has a nice template at the bottom:

Does anyone fancy having a go at starting up:

• Template:Football in Scotland

Regards. --Mais oui! 06:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging Future Team article

The Future Team article is only a stub and doesn't really deserve its own article - I think it should be included as a section in the main Scotland team article.

Comments? Fedgin 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Archibald99 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) I don't think it would be necessary to merge them. They are technically seperate, with the Futures team now being a 'past article' in that the SFA have abandoned the idea of a 'Futures Team' in order to concentrate on the national under-19 and under-21 teams. So if someone would care to add more info to the Futures team page, it would be recognised as it should be - seperate from the national team.

Agree with above, I think they should remain separate. But I'd rename it to Scotland B national football team because although no more 'Future Team' games will take place in the future, B internationals are still a possibility. Forbsey 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise the Futures thing was dead. OK, I agree that B internationals is the way to go. Is there a need for the infobox though, as it is replicating the same information? Fedgin 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see any need for an infobox, as with the England B national football team article. Forbsey 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, there is a B international scheduled for November against Ireland B in Dublin. This appears to be a replacement for the future team concept. 212.113.23.124 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm all for keeping the new information, but it needs a lot of cleaning up. I've sorted the Berti Vogts section as much as I could. Archibald99 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

New away shirt

I think someone should change the away shirt (I have no knowledge of how) to the new away shirt, viewable here: http://www.foxsoccershop.com/shop-by-country-scotland-scotland-national-team-scotland-2007-away-soccer-jersey.html NK 10:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, as it is stated as a 2007 kit and is not being currently used. The sky blue kit is still in use. Fedgin 12:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The kit featured on the above website has not been ratified by the SFA as the actual new 2007 Scotland away kit, so may never actually be made/worn. 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Should individual results (ie Kirin Cup, win over France and 1967 win over England) be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? 212.113.23.124 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Kirin Cup was a notable event, considering how few tournaments Scotland have won, the other results are (arguably) notable enough to merit inclusion in the opening paragraph, especially due to the length of it. Archibald99 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Squad list

Seeing as the next match is not until March, is it appropriate to keep the 'current' squad list? Perhaps this should be commented out and reintroduced for when the new squad is announced, and then phased out again sometime after the match. Comments? Fedgin 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Caps for Weir, Dailly, O'Connor, (Severin etc...)

I noticed that some other sites (e.g. RSSSF) have not included the match vs the Hong Kong League XI in 2002 as an official game. I checked FIFA and the game is not listed there, either. Ergo I've decreased in the Current Squad area the cap totals for Weir and Dailly. I missed out O'Connor so I'll do him in a sec. Severin etc. may need to be adjusted when they come back into the squad. While the SFA lists the match on its site, it's not a full international so I don't think the caps should count: FIFA, after all, is the arbiter of international football. I look forward to an "interesting" debate on this matter; I've been bold but I think some may disagree! Nach0king 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're right. I can't think of any occasions when any game other than those against other national football teams should count. Archibald99  21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember this coming up when people were discussing Lee Wilkie's caps, as he has 10 official caps but 11 if you count Hong Kong match. I agree with both of you - it wasn't a full international and is only recognised by the Scottish FA so they shouldn't count. Fedgin | Talk 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Macconachie

My great grandfather called Jack Macconachie (that might be spelt wrong) played for Scotland. He also played domestically for Swindon Town and Everton FC. This was probably around 1930, I'm just wondering if anyone has more information on him? Mglovesfun 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't anybody of that (or a similar) name on the SFA national team archive page.Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Tartan Army

The infobox gives the Scotland team nickname as the Tartan Army and links this nickname with the Wiki article for the "Tartan Army". Unfortunately, the 'Tartan Army' article defines the term as pertaining to the travelling fans of the Scotland football and rugby teams and makes no mention of this name being applied to the actual team. This gives the impression that the information given in the infobox is incorrect.
Either this nickname should be removed from the infobox or it should be explained on the "Tartan Army" Page that the nickname can also be applied to the Team. In order to do this, it will be necessary to cite a reliable source for this phrase being used for the Team and not only for the fans.
81.145.242.88 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

lead section

The lead section of this page seems to be obsessed with England. This kind of parochialism is pathetic and unhealthy. Also it describes matches that are adequately covered elsewhere. An encyclopedia should aim to be concise and avoid needless repetition. I suggest that the information in the lead section that duplicates what is down below should be removed. Conval 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your sentiment. On the other hand, we are the two oldest international teams in the world; what do others think? --Guinnog 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

When you consider the percentage of international matches Scotland have played which have been against England, I'd say it's deserving of a few sentences. Historically Scotland and England are the two oldest and biggest national teams in the world, one of the main rivalries in international football. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree per se, but considering the intertwined and often shared history of the two teams it's inevitable that England are going to get plenty of mentions. Kanaye 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Scotland, the most Anglocentric nation on the planet. There is absolutely no need for it's mention in the opening paragraph. In the rivalry section absolutely but the opening section should merely be about Scotland. The Anglocentrism isn't just a peristent pest in football related articles, it's everywhere. History articles, political articles and so on. Saddening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nickname: The Bravehearts

For years, I have regarded "the Bravehearts" as a well-etablished nickname for the Scotland team. But (to my surprise) some users of this article appear not to have heard of it or not to regard it as a genuine nickname. I did a Yahoo search with "Scotland" and "the Bravehearts' and below are some of the examples that I found of it being used. One of them even quotes Rudi Voller as using it (although the publication in question is "The Sun", so it can't necessarily be trusted!).
I think that there is plenty of evidence for "the Bravehearts" being a widely used nickname for Scotland and I think that it ought to be included as a nickname in the infobox.
I invite other Wiki users to take a look at the sources and give their opinion on whether "the Bravehearts" should be included in the article.

[[2]] World Cup Latest Football News, submitted by Neville Nixon on 07/09/2005, “Scotland were not making the passes and could have done with pressurising their occasionally lackadaisical opposition, from a defensive point of view the ‘Bravehearts’ were doing well, but playing rather deep, however, all was about to change..”

[[3]] ESPN soccernet.com, Scotland, News, article,‘Fortune favours the Bravehearts’, September 4 2000, by Brian Scott

[ScottishFitba.net], The Alternative View, 9 September 2003, ‘Story by ed_ScottishFitba’, “All things considered the German team and all football fans in the country remain positive of beating Scotland in Dortmund and they still see themselves as high favourites to finish top of the group. However, of course, a defeat against the "Bravehearts" would cause real panic over there…”

[[4]] About.com: World Soccer, ‘A Wounded Animal is Dangerous - and this Dutch Team is Wounded’ by Alan Hylands, November 19 2003, “Having failed to reach the 2002 World cup Finals (beaten by Ireland in the playoffs) - the number 5 team in the FIFA World rankings, have to win by 2 goals against the Bravehearts of Scotland in Amsterdam tonight to progress to the finals of Euro 2004 in Portugal next year”.

[[5]] ‘Slam! Sports’, ‘England blanks Scotland in front of home crowd’, by Ian Harvie, June 15 1996, “Even William Wallace couldn't have saved the Bravehearts of Scotland today”.

[[6]] (‘Slam! Sports’, article by Terry Jones of the Edmonton Sun (Canada) on 25 June 1998. “The Bravehearts have been to the World Cup eight times and gone home after the first round in all eight”.

[[7]] NightTimeUK, Football, European Championships 2004, ‘Bertis? Boys back on track’, James McCann, October 13 2002, “The win has pushed the Bravehearts to the top of group 5, at least until Wednesday when Germany meet the Faroes Islands who are expected to crumble under the weight of the formidable Germans”.

[[8]] FIFA.com, The Official Website of the Federation Internationale de Football Association, UEFA Euro 2004, ‘Ten teams in hunt for spot in the Portuguese sun’, 14 Nov 2003, “The Bravehearts will need all the help they can get from their "twelfth man", a raucous 50,000 capacity crowd at Hampden Park, if they are to book a trip south next June”.

[[9]] Washingtonpost.com, World Cup 1998, Day-by-Day Results From the First Round, June 16 1998, Norway 1-Scotland 1, “Craig Burley kept Scotland's World Cup hopes alive when he chipped home a long ball pass in the 66th minute to give The Bravehearts a 1-1 draw”.

[[10]] Funtrivia.com: The World’s Largest Trivia Website, Special Sub-Topic: Orange is the Color I, Authored by Jaydel, “It was heartbreak for the Bravehearts. After all, it was some kind of a repeat of the 1978 World Cup, where Scotland went out on goal difference despite beating the Dutch”.

[[11]] Channel 4.com, Big Brother – the official BigBrotherUK website, “Later on, Sandy took to reminiscing about Scotland's golden era in the 1994 World Cup, when the Bravehearts lost by just one goal to the mighty Brazilians”. [Note: 1998 is presumably what Sandy was talking about]

[[12]] (FirstFoot.com, Famous Tartan Army – the World’s best supporters, England 0 Scotland 1 Wembley 1999, “The bravehearts in blue came within a whisker of becoming legends, but alas,…”

[[13]] (The Sun, “Rudi call for blood 'n guts” by Bill Leckie, “And it led boss Voller to growl: “I am expecting more pride than we showed against Iceland, far more desire. We must beat the Bravehearts and to do that we will have to fight until our feet are bleeding. We have to crunch into every tackle, risk smashing our heads just to score”.

[[14]] DailyRecord.co.uk, 9 Oct 2006, Hotline [inviting reader contributions on 1-0 victory over France], ‘Alan McGaw, Grangemouth, said: "Well done to the Bravehearts and especially to the management team of Smith, Tommy Burns and Ally McCoist”’.

[[15]] ‘The Punter’s Lounge, The World’s Best Betting Forum’, Euro 2008 Qualifiers, post by ‘sensibleboy’, 16 April 2005, “Comon The Scots! Whole host of us going to Hampden on Saturday and can't wait. The best atmosphere anywhere! I have a feeling we can do it. Scotland 2-1 France....BELEIVE IN THE BRAVEHEARTS!!!!!”

[[16]] DigitalForums.com, posted by ‘beekae’, 5 October 2006, “’Mon the Bravehearts. 2-1 to Scotland, the French are over-rated”.

[[17]] Yahoo Answers, Question, ‘What are the different names in the FIFA world cup, like for example, italy is called Azzuri’. [“Answerer 2” provides the following response] “usualy to do with the countries history. England (my home country) is known as the 3 lions, italy as stated are the azzuri, scotland are the bravehearts, wales are the dragons”.

[[18]] Soccer 24-7, Forums, Scotland v. Italy. Posted by ‘Runna’, September 03 2005 “Good Luck to the Bravehearts :clap :clap :clap”.

[[19]] World Soccer News, Forum, posted by ‘scoone’ on October 15 2003, “However as much as I would like to have Scotland advance I think it will be one more "glorious defeat" for the Bravehearts”.

[[20]] The Third Leaf: Taking the global view of sports [site provided by an American based in Belgium], Euro 2008 Qualifying, March 28 2007, “Tonight brings a bevy of games but not every team is in action. The most meaningful game is surprise Group B leaders Scotland traveling to 3rd place Italy. If the Scots can manage a tie, they’ll be thrilled. They won’t as an inspired Italy should dispose of the Bravehearts. TTL is unabashedly rooting for the Scots though, as they are the greatest fans in the world even if no one can understand what they’re saying”.

[[21]] [Fansite for Portuguese player Vitor Baia], Posted by ‘Trude’ on 30.03.2003 “Berti Vogts, long-year German NT, is coaching "The Bravehearts" now”.

Give your opinions, please
81.145.242.88 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would use the one from FIFA's own site as a ref. Some of the others are useless. Conval 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Prose

I've made various copyedits in response to the objection on the FAC, but I'm not sure waht to do with the third paragraph of the lead. Suggestions welcome. Oldelpaso 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the result of mainly IP users adding results and facts to the lead e.g. this edit a few days ago. I don't know what to do with it. Tidy it up? Delete it? Replace it with something else? Many thanks for your efforts. Kanaye 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

'Supporters' section

Is all that contentious stuff about Scotland-England unpleasantness really appropriate? Surely, an encyclopedia should avoid this kind of controversy. The Scotland fans have a good international reputation and its a shame to see so much of the section devoted to them taken up with unsavoury nonsense like that. I vote to get rid of it. Conval 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bravehearts nickname

I was responsible for adding this nickname to the infobox. I did this because another user seemed to be campaigning for it and I knew it to be in actual use. However, my wife has informed me that this is a "daft", "wet" and "corny" name and people from other countries will laugh at it. So I have deleted it. If anyone else feels strongly enough to put it back, then fair enough. If nobody does, then that proves it is better off deleted. Conval 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I've suggested that the History of the Scotland national football team article be merged into this one, as I didn't see the point of having another whole article on the history of the team when that area constitutes a large portion of this one. The only downside to it is that at first glance it can create an excessively long article, but I think the problem can be a minor one for three reasons:

• 1- Even with no alterations it'll still be shorter than some other articles I've seen.
• 2- Almost all of the history included in this article can be found in the History one so this article's original history section will be almost entirely removed to avoid repetition, thus cutting down slightly on size.
• 3- While this article is quite well written, the History one is not and is in need of some massive renovations, especially in the citation department. I understand that this article is up for a FA article nomination so I recommend whoever worked on this article to do the same on the History part. If you can get it up to par with what you've done with this present article, I think an FA status will be very much deserved and I'll support the nomination. Swimforestswim 10:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of... article is more than 3000 words longer than the history section of this article (excluding refs and templates). Merging the two would really be pushing it in terms of article size IMO. Oldelpaso 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - history article should be developed, and kept brief on main page. --MacRusgail 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's no reason to merge this whatsoever. A synopsis on this page followed by a comprehensive article elsewhere is fine. The Rambling Man 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above reasons. No need to merge; much better split up. - Shudde ^talk 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Staff list

I have the reverted the addition of a list of staff members - the important ones are already mentioned, and the minor ones are excessive detail (do we really need to know who the Masseur or video technician is?) Oldelpaso 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

100% agree. The Rambling Man 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I point out that on the drop down menu of mangers, (found on the pages of those who held that post) the manager from 1966-67 is a Malcolm MacDonald who, (according to his page) is born in 1950 in London, I find it hard to beleive he was manger of Scotland at this time as it also says he started his career in 1968 with Fulham. I think this problem should be rectified even if the real manager does not have a page. --86.131.217.94 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) RS 15/7/09

Well done on FA status...

...and well done on Scotland's performance last night in Paris.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Supporters

I have removed the argument about the Tartan Army's lack of support of England. I believe this is more than adequately discussed in the Tartan Army's own article and is simply petty to include it on a very small section talking about Scotland's many non Tartan Army affliated supporters. Anyone disagree? 134.36.14.98 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. The stuff you removed was out of place in this article. Conval 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Purple kit

Why are Scotland playing in purple against Georgia? I am referring to the Euro 2008 qualifier being played as I speak. WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The kit is actually a burgundy colour, it was launched as a third choice kit by the SFA a few days before the qualifier. Jonzi9 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The men's team

Shouldn't this article be under Scotland men's national football team?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, generally the naming convention is just national football team as the men's team is typically more notable than the women's. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem more appropriate to disambiguate. At the very least, the lead should point out that the article is about the men's team.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw Polls on "Association" being added to UK and Irish football articles: Scotland

There is a straw poll at Talk:Football in Scotland on whether the word "Association" should be added to the Football in Scotland article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor is reverting this so please persevere - and help bring it back if you believe you should know about the current changes to our national articles. Don't ignore it - it is relevant to Scotland despite what they say.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This happened in Feb 2008 at Association football in the Republic of Ireland. A popular reason is to "conform" with Association football. The poll is to give your view about Scotland --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article review

Scotland national football team has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Please alarm anyone else involved. Domiy (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Constructive critique requested please?

Hi all,

Can I request constructive critique please on the section on the 1950 and 1954 World Cups?

Regards, Socheid (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Points per game in managers section

This qualifies for removal as original research. Points per win was not 3 for most of the period this table covers. Any objections if I remove it? --John (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Away rights?

When Setanta went bust in the UK, did ESPN get the away game rights as wellas the SPL ones? CS Miller (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They would have gone back to the original rights sellers. The only away WC Qualifier that Scotland hadn't played before Setanta went bust was the match in Norway, which was shown on BBC Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New kit(s)

I've made elements of the home kits, which I've included in the article and a white away one, which I've left out as it hasn't been confirmed yet based on this. Tell me what you think:

Home

Away

And a variant incorporating the crest embroided on it:

Home

Away

I won't plan to add this version until the away kit has been unveiled. So, any improvements? Should I make the embroidery lighter? Make the two seams on the shirts straighter or leave them diagonal? VEO15 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Made some slight changes to them so the above sentence might be a bit irrelevant. VEO15 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Best result Last 8, 1992

Why is this saying we got to the "last 8"? Given we finished 3rd and did not qualify I would have expected this to say "Round 1" as it does for World Cup competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.10.0 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Because there were only 8 teams in UEFA Euro 1992. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Uk Football Team Section

I'm calling for the United Kingdom Football Team section to be removed from this page. It does not appear on the English, Welsh or Northern Irish Football teams pages. Why put it on Scotland's ? It is totally irrelevant. If people want to read about the UK football team they will search for that. This page should be purely about Scotland. I'm going to remove it now. If anyone is planning on adding it back in then please at least give an explanation as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an argument for adding a similar section to the England, Wales and NI articles, not for removing content from this article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's both. Why put it in if others don't. Why have it in any way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you cannot assume that every reader of wikipedia is knowledgeable about the UK constitutional position and why the Home Nations have separate teams. Somebody from (say) America might think that "Scotland isn't an independent country, why do they have a team at all?". It's a worthwhile section to have. It's not as if it dominates the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No if someone from America was interested in that they would search for that (and why do people always use Americans as an example for not knowing where Scotland is or something about it ?) As I said it's a page about Scotland. Not the UK team. That section does nothing but highlight the embarassing fact that Scotland is a part of the UK. Fifa considers Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland seperate and distinct nations. Since this is a footballing article it should be treated the same way. I don't see your approval anyway. You support independence wouldn't you want to distance Scotland from the UK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to last very long if you continue to edit with some sort of political agenda. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that because I would consider whoever put that section in there in the first place to have a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean for god sake even the scotland rugby union page doesn't have a section about the British and Irish Lions and they play regularly. Scotland haven't played in a UK team in football for decades and won't be competing in it in the olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make it not relevant and do you even know who placed it in this article. If not how could you possibly know what their "agenda" is. Adam4267 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well someone has put a section about the UK football team in a Scotland article. Doesn't really take a genius to guess what their motive probably was does it. What makes it relevant then ? I don't see how being such a little part of Scottish football can't make it irrelevant. Shall we also add in a section about Queen of the South players who became Scottish internationals. Because honestly that has as much to do with the Scotland National Team as that UK section does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant because it relates to the Scottish national football team. Adam4267 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's a surprise enough to find a Celtic fan (I'm not a Rangers fan btw before you jump to that conclusion) who actually supports Scotland for a change. Can't expect one of you to agree with someone as well. As I said it relates to the Scottish National Team as much as a section on Queen of the South players who went on to become Scotland internationals. Shall I add that in as well then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not in the English, Welsh or Northern Irish teams pages because it has next to nothing to do with that individual team. Same goes for Scotland. Show some common sense and remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Queen of the South internationals wasn't the best example. How about I add in a section on how Scotland participates in the Rest of the World charity match versus England. Because that really does have the same relevance and to be honest they play more regularly in that fixture than they do in a United Kingdom team. Can you still not see the utter pointlessness in having that section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The only person "jumping to conclusions" and inventing "agendas" is you. Please go away unless you are actually going to contribute constructively to an encylopedia. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was attempting to contribute constructively to the Scotland National Football Team article by having the UK section removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthomson18 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No you weren't. You were trying to advance some stupid agenda. But all you have done is annoy people. I have run out of patience with you and it seems like Mr. Morrison has as well. I'm done with you. Adam4267 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to say the attitude shown by both Adam4267 and Jmorrison230582 towards a perfectly valid point was pretty awful and inappropriately aloof. There was no "stupid agenda". Also, as the user rightly said - having Scotland as part of the UK is just as much a political agenda as advocating Scottish independence. The point was made that the section on the UK team was ONLY on the Scotland page (and not on the NI, Wales or England pages). Absolutely valid. The both of you need to go and learn some manners. Mcruic (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're taking one or two comments completely out of context. For a start, all this user was doing was blanking a referenced section of a featured article – he/she was doing nothing constructive. I think it is necessary because it allows a brief (doesn't violate WP:UNDUE) description of the anomaly, as it's not typical for a stateless nation to have a national team within FIFA (eg Catalonia doesn't have a team participating in FIFA/UEFA competition, even though it would probably be one of the best teams in the world!). That user then insulted both Adam4267 and myself. We defended ourselves robustly. Come back when you've got a serious point to make. James Morrison (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"I think it is necessary because it allows a brief (doesn't violate WP:UNDUE) description of the anomaly, as it's not typical for a stateless nation to have a national team within FIFA"

Yet it does NOT appear on the pages of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish national football teams. Anyone interested in learning about a UK football team can quite easily search for it in the search bar, or look at the United Kingdom or Scotland articles and check the sports sections. Scotland's situation is more similar to that of the Faroe Islands than Catalonia, which has it's own national football team despite being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. I also see no Danish national football team section in the Faroe Islands page. Why the exception with Scotland. That to me reeks of an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm growing used to Scottish people wishing to present their country in a far inferior and inaccurate image of what it actually is. You only need look at all the Scotland related articles on here to see blatant evidence of that. Poorly written and full of stupid statements and pieces of information that no other sensible nations would add in. Shame really as it could be a great country if not for the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the personal abuse. What have you ever done to improve the project??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd hardly call that personal abuse. I'm referring to Scottish people in general. Your insistence on keeping this blight in the article is merely unsurprising considering the other articles relating to Scotland I've seen on here. Well for a start I suggested removing the UK section which has no place here and is merely littering a page that's supposed to be about the Scotland National Football Team. Other than that not a huge deal as I tend to spend more time on the historical pages. Most of my edits tend to be reverted almost immediately, despite them being corrections.

I also fail to see the relevance of a fairly large section about a UK team in the Scotland national football team article. if the issue is of such abiding importance to a UK National team why does it not occur in both the English and Welsh team articles - The section seems a) marginal or irrelevant b) if it is deemed relevant the section is disproportionate in length compared to other more pressing issues c)if deemed relevant then the relevance would surely merit a mention in other UK team sites. I propose removing it or redressing the balance on the other UK teams Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Away Colours

The away colours are out of date. It's now a white top with navy shorts and socks. If I knew how to change it I would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Badge in the infobox

Should the infobox have a badge like the england national team page? This is the current team badge If it doesn't already exist I can request it to be made, but only if it is needed? VanguardScot (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

looking back throught the article history, the badge in svg format did exist here, why was it deleted, i cannot find the deletion log for it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ScotlandNationalTeamNew.svg VanguardScot (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It was on Commons actually, and it got deleted for being a copyvio in December. [22] Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So if it was re uploaded under the correct license it could stay (i.e. same license as england three lion badege)? if so i will try to sort it. The article doesn't look right without it. VanguardScot (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I can sort that out, I have a copy of the file, which I will upload soon. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)