Template talk:Defunct national football teams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Criteria vs. rhetoric[edit]

Okay, at the risk of being helpful rather that confrontational, I'll begin the process of outlining what clubs should be included in the template:

  1. Any team that represented a national entity that no longer exists in any FIFA sanctioned match.
  2. Any team that represented a national entity that no longer exists in an Olympic competition.
  3. Any team whose national FA has been succeeded by two or more separate national FA's as recognized by FIFA.
  4. Any team whose national FA has become part of another national FA as recognized by FIFA.

Anybody care to add to that and get a useful discussion rolling? Wiggy! (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would specify "association that no longer exists", as FIFA work with associations, not national entities. I think the national entities definition opens the way for entries such as the Fourth French Republic national football team. I think that would entail 3 yugoslavia entries for Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, three for Poland, the People's Republic of Poland, Republic of Poland and Second Polish Republic. Egypt is a funny one too, it ceased to exist when joining the United Arab Republic, and if memory serves UAR didnt cease to exist, but as there was only one member at the end, it just changed its name to Egypt. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly using the national entity definition, Ireland would have been deemed defunct three and a half decades before they stopped selecting from players from all of Ireland and using the term Ireland rountinely to describe the team. (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, thats why we're here. To find something that works. Wiggy! (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest the list of teams here? Obviously not the section under new names, but everything else. For those teams that have recognised successors I'm undecided. I feel that each former nation should have its own article as a matter of course, with the successor team being made clear in the lead. Stu.W UK (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting article, but I would be a little concerned it is OR, for example in the case of FDR it claims, Saarland was integrated into FDR, so only saarland ceased to exist, yet GDR was merged with FDR to create a new team, and thus both teams ceased to exist. I dont see the distinction other than relative size of the previous associations. I think WIggy is corect the least that should be required is FIFA/IOC recognised matches, and I suspect many of these defunct teams have never played a sanctioned international, also this article list doesnt seem to have any kind of obvious inclusion/exclusion criteria. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

<-indent Mmmm, I'm thinking that the example of Saarland, East Germany, and West Germany as outlined doesn't represent the reality of the situation. The German FA was established in 1900. There never was a West German FA - it was simply Germany, always has been and says so on the FIFA site. There were separate FA's established for both Saarland and East Germany and each of those entities played sanctioned international matches. The Saarland FA was reincorporated into Germany in the 1950s and the East German FA incorporated into Germany in 1990. That fits the (first two) rules I've outlined above. That has both Saarland and East Germany fitting the template, whereas West Germany would not.

The following point about clubs that have never played a sanctioned international I think is more valid and needs further debate to flesh out. A club representing Shanghai looks to be some sort of artificial construct, utterly contrived. At this point I'm guessing Japan was a FIFA member when they played against Shanghai, but the matches were likely just friendlies without sanction of any sort (FIFA or Olympic). That has Shanghai failing to meet the two criteria above, so describing them as a defunct national side doesn't jibe. I'm not sure how you would describe a team like that - a defunct respesentative team? If there are enough of them, maybe they deserve their own criteria and template?

I would also be mindful of claims of OR. That just puts a chill on the conversation. If the material put forward provides some clues or context its useful, and if its not constructed out of whole cloth it may point to a proper source. We are after all in a process of separating the useful from the not and that should be a reasonably open process.

It might be useful to take each of the teams on the current template and test them against the two rules above and see what shakes out. That could lead to some early agreement on what belongs and lead the the evolution of another rule or two.

And to that end, I've proposed another pair of rules that might cover off situations like Czechoslovakia, the USSR, the CIS, the UAR, Indonesia, etc. Wiggy! (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Running a few scenarios through that
  • Germany which in 1945 was succeeded by FDR, Saar, GDR would be deemed defunct.
  • Denmark is defunct with the succession of Iceland in 1950
  • Syria & Egypt by virtue of the UAR become defunct in 1953.
  • Slovakia and Bohemia becomes defunct due to the formation of Czechoslovakia in 1945
  • Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the USSR become defunct during WW2 being succeeded by USSR
  • USSR become defunct again in 1990s with the independence of the Baltic states
  • CIS become defunct with the death throw of the SU
  • USA become defunct with the formation of the American Samoan football team in the 1980s.
I dont know if these teams ring true as defunct. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I personally would prefer the definition of defunct as 'Those teams which have played a recognised international, for which the organising association no longer exists and to whom FIFA has not allocated their international record to a team organised by an association which currently exists' Fasach Nua (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiggy! I agree with you about those teams and would personally delete those international teams that never played a recognised international match, I just felt that if the pages exist then there's no point not having them on the template. For inclusion criteria, I would suggest "all teams that have previously competed in recognised internationals whose FA does not currently exist (excluding country name changes that resulted in no boundary alterations)." That would mean the following teams would be on the template.

April 7[edit]

All except East Germany, Saarland, North Vietnam and South Yemen would be in a subgroup with a label saying something like 'states with a recognised successor team currently playing'. Obviously the flags wouldn't be on the template, I've just copied the links from elsewhere. Two further points- would you include defunct teams that have played in NF-Board games? And if a team stop playing games but haven't dissolved, are they defunct? Sao Tome for example are a FIFA recognised team but they haven't played a single match since 2003. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay a few thoughts, there definietly seems to be a theme regarding FIFA/IOC being a criteria, and I would put NF and whoever else on a seperate template. Generally the way countries split the original association has its remit altered and another is created, so to German Football Association has existed unaltered as has the Irish FA since the dawn of football, so we would need to establish how an association no longer exists. Any solution should be independednt of whether or not wp has an article on that team, otherewise wp just becomes right because wikipedia says it is right. Fasach Nua (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

outdent How about 'any team representing a sovereign nation which is now defunct or significantly altered, excluding decolonization and name changes'? Stu.W UK (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where would we get a definition for term "significantly" was the fourth French Republic significantly altered to create the Fifth, or was Germany significantly altered in the creation of Saar, FDR, GDR, and Prussia annexed by Poland, or is significantly altered somewhere in between? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 8[edit]

I said 'excluding decolonisation', meaning that for these purposes there was no difference in borders between the French fourth and fifth republics. I know it is not a precise definition, but I would say the following are examples of things that are NOT significant: Denmark no longer being able to choose players from Iceland and the Faeroes; America no longer being able to pick players from American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia etc. If you want to be precise I can pick a figure out the air that would probably work- lets say a significant change is when a country loses or gains 10% or more population. That would result in all the teams I listed above still being included and I don't think it would mean adding any more. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That would also add Lituania, Latvia, Estonia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Poland, Croatia (and Cyprus?), as long as there is a quantifiable definition I would be content Fasach Nua (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It could do with a punchier title, but seems to work Fasach Nua (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not defunct:
  • Egypt, Syria, Bangladesh- these countries' present borders are the same as when they joined FIFA
  • Cyprus pick players born in 'Northern Cyprus' since the Turkish invasion, e.g. this guy.
  • The Balkan states - as far as I can tell their borders were more or less the same as they are today. Lithuania's were slightly different, but they treated areas under Polish control as though they were Lithuania so I imagine they would have picked players born there.
  • Independent State of Croatia
  • South Africa (pre-1992) - this team played 21 games between 1947 and 1955 and were then effectively banned until 1992. The selection could potentially, I suppose, have included players from what is now Namibia.
  • India (pre-1949) - also included Pakistan and Bangladesh
  • Pakistan (pre-1971) - also included Bangladesh
  • Poland (pre-1945) - had significantly different borders.
I'm not sure how I feel about Poland, South Africa, India and Pakistan- I struggle to think of any way they can be thought of as 'defunct'. In this case a renaming of the template may be needed, but I can't even think of one that might work. Stu.W UK (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How about 'former nations with FIFA-recognised successors'? Any further rationale can be placed at the top of the template page. Also, I'd lose the flags on the template or at least space it out a bit. The template needs navbox standardisation too.
Alternatively, I would suggest that this template becomes a category instead. This allows for more explanation of inclusion criteria at the top of a category page. Stu.W UK (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Flags can go no problem, its just an easy way to link the articles for the purposes of a talk page

April 9[edit]

I don's see any difference between the Pakistan split and the Czechoslovakia split, beyond one was renamed and the other wasn't, so I dont really see the point in differentiating them. Former states is messy, in someways they continue and in others they don't, Russia is not the soviet union, but it inherited legal obligations, debts, security council seat etc, and I think we are back to the Fourth frech republic national football team. A category is fine, I would name it "historic international football teams", or similar, you might end up with History_of_the_Scotland_national_football_team in there, but people can make up there own mind what is defunct and what isn't. I would keep the template for FIFA recognised teams, as their defunctness is encylopedic, and quite interesting Fasach Nua (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

outdent well how about renaming this template 'historic teams'? The four that are recognised as defunct by fifa could either have a subgroup or a note marked with an asterisk (or a cross or whatever) Stu.W UK (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

April 11[edit]

You guys made a pretty good job working through this thing and it looks not bad.
You may have hit on something with the notion of a problem with the language. "Defunct" mostly works. "Historic" I think has too much other stuff wrapped up in it so doesn't have the right sense. "Superceded"?.
"Defunct and superceded national football teams"? I dunno. But hey, still good progress. Wiggy! (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the sound of 'defunct and superceded'. How about this navbox? For aesthetic purposes I have also included how it would look as a standard navbox.

April 12[edit]

I left out Korea, as I can find no source (other than wikipedia) that says they competed as a unified nation. The only time it would be theoretically possible is the 1948 Olympics, but Korea was de facto divided then. Serbia and Montenegro should really be called FR Yugoslavia as that was its original name, but I think this provides for greater clarity. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was similar enough to post-war Yugoslavia that I don't think it needs a separate entry. A number of these teams currently redirect to articles about teams that currently exist. If this template is agreed upon I will seek consensus at WP:FOOTY on what should be done- my suggestion would be that successor teams contain separate sections on predecessors where possible; when this would lead to a page being unwieldy, a separate page should be created for each team.Stu.W UK (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I dont see the reason to include India, Pakistan Poland, South Africa, West Germany, Serbia and Montenegro and North Yemen as they don't have separate articles. So those articles will be included at the current [confederation] teams template, and written as current not previous teams. chandler ··· 11:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the teams from India, Pakistan, Poland and South Africa- I feel that teams whose names are still the same should not be on this template regardless of boundary changes. How about adding 2 links at the bottom of the navbox - one to this and one to a list I haven't made yet- something like countries whose borders have altered since joining FIFA. This would include India, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, Denmark and others, but I don't know who off the top of my head. As for West Germany, Serbia and Montenegro and North Yemen- I feel that these should link to either new articles or a section within the successor team's article. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well personally I dont like the (what I would call) inconsistency that is, West Germany/Germany is one but could be two, SFR Yug/FR Yug/Ser and Mon/Serbia is two but could be one-four. Same with USR/CIS/RUS etc. Now I could be all for the idea of where FIFA (and the sub-confederations) have done, as in Germany/Serbia/Russia given them successor status to have all those as one article and be very specific about that in the lead, if possible perhaps even multiple infoboxes to show the separate era information, but this is another discussion that in any case should be held at wp:footy. I do like the idea to link List of men's national association football teams#New names, or even List of men's national association football teams#Former national football teams as perhaps even more relevant, where all the different scenarios for all teams are explained, perhaps link under a text like "For other teams that might have gone through changes but are not covered in separate articles" or something shorter and better phrased. But I still wouldn't link to redirects, I just feel that templates should link to articles which fall into the category the template is about. chandler ··· 12:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

Wheter WP has an article is irrelevant, wikipedia should not be writing about wikipedia. On the issue of Successor teams, how is this term defined? Wales played Germany on the 1st of April, and a team called Wales played Finland on the 28th of March, both Wales teams were controlled the same FA, both had similar (but not the same) players on the team, my understanding is that the team on the 1st is the FIFA recognised successor of the team on the 28th, so would this team be included? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it matters, as a navigational template is about linking to articles inside the topic the template handles. The articles themselfs are not about former teams, and would cause confusion. And again you're being stupid while trying to WP:POINT even as you miss the fact that FIFA does not consider those two teams successors but rather the SAME team. chandler ··· 20:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

outdent How about 'successor nation' then? As for the redirection dispute, how about linking for now to non-existent articles on these teams? If we agree at a later date to merge these articles into the main one then that's fine and if not then it encourages someone (probably me) to write them. I have removed India because I got my dates wrong- the Indian team was affiliated to FIFA upon independence and partition. This would give us

Stu.W UK (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't include red links in templates (some MOS or other), they would simply be the name with no link Fasach Nua (talk)
Hmm well unless you can find the MOS article you refer to I'm going to stick with this MOS guideline and this 'generally accepted' guideline. Stu.W UK (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes you can redlink, just for example see alot of World Cup squad templates from the early world cups. chandler ··· 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you were looking at WP:NAV, which is an essay that doesn't forbid redlinking and sees it as preferable to unlinked text. It suggests creating the article first, which I may end up doing but I want to reach a consensus on what to do with predecessor teams first. On that note, I'm just about to add a suggestion on WP:FOOTY which you may like to comment on. Stu.W UK (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Could be right, linking or not linking is the least of the problems, I dont have particularly strong feelings on the issue Fasach Nua (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's not important but I thought I'd look into it as you brought it up. What are the problems that remain with this template? Stu.W UK (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There still is no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well we did have a solution, that's what lead to these templates being created. I have a new, and I think better, solution though. How about simply Any national team whose name and borders are different from the present. That would give us:
I don't know how I missed UAR before, completely forgot it! Stu.W UK (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If I missed any teams off, please let me know, but they're the only ones I can think of.Stu.W UK (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Well here's some Korean source material. A Korean national association was established in 1933 and was affiliated with FIFA in 1948 [1]. A separate North Korean national association was established in 1945 and was affiliated in 1958 [2].
The original Korean association never disappeared but a second association emerged after the break up of the country. There's no defunct team and the current South Korean side carries on the traditions and hold the records of the original association. Both the North and South Korean teams existed before either took up affiliation with FIFA.
So in this instance it doesn't appear that there is either a defunct team or a team(s) that succeeded an original FIFA-sanctioned side.
The only part of this that looks anything approaching easy is in identifying defunct teams ... Wiggy! (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
FIFA have backdated all the internationals of the home nations as being FIFA recognised during the periods when those teams were not affiliated, 189?-1904 and 1923-1948. I accept the normal rules dont apply to these teams, but there may be more to determining Koreas defunctness than simply just dates. I also think that any criteria agreed should be clearly stated on the template, if something is in an encylopedia it should be clear why it is there. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely navboxes are a perfect example of something where wikipedia differs from a normal encyclopedia? I feel the phrase 'Teams of defunct and superceded FIFA football nations' is suitably clear, and for added clarity I'll sort out the link from 'defunct and superceded' in the title to explain the criteria in the lead. I will also add to the bottom of the box 'for teams that have undergone name changes but no border alterations see here' with a link to List of men's national association football teams#New names. As for Korea, there is a relatively straightforward answer. If you go here, and go to 'time range' in the search section (the box to the right of the results) you can select 'customise search' from the drop down menu. I chose jan 1872-dec 1949. The first result you get is from the Olympics in August 1948. That to me indicates when the first recognised Korean international was played. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I still dont know what the term "superceded FIFA football nations" means, have you an external and verifiable source to support the definition being given? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You know what? I'm bored of this now. It has been self-evident from the beginning that there can't be a definition that is independently verifiable- if this was always your main contention why wait until now to bring it up? Let's just have a template with 4 teams. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying there cant be a description that can be independedntly verified, I am saying this one cannot, "countries that have changed their names" has meaning, "countries that changed there borders" has meaning, "countries that changed their borders with more than a 10% population change" has meaning, however the term "superceded FIFA football nations" has no meaning and you cannot have an ill defined list on an encylopedia, and if a reader is not going to be able to understand it, what is the point of it being there? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Sorry, missed your response. How about this?

I feel it sounds silly but it's the best I can come up with. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively happy, I would change the Teams with "successors recognised by FIFA"(for which we dont have a definition) to "Teams whose names and borders differ from the present"(for which we have a definition), maybe the header could be a bit punchier, "defunct and altered nations", and the definition of altered becomes apparent when they read the template. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
See above. Would you object if "Teams with successors recognised by FIFA" was wikilinked to a page that clarified the definition? Stu.W UK (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is an easy way to shorten the main title, but I won't get in a fight over it, my main issue is a verifiable definition, which there now seems to be, anything else is minor Fasach Nua (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I have protected this template because of the edit warring. I am not taking a side on what should be done, but please continue the above discussion. If edit warring continues when the protection is lifted I will issue blocks without further warnings. Rettetast (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The table under '17 April' is my suggestion for what might be a suitable replacement. Having said that, I feel this has happened as a result of an obstacle that really wasn't there in the first place. Stu.W UK (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Its fine with me Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
One problem with that is that many (almost half?) those links are only redirects. chandler 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection lifted. Please make your changes. More edit warring will result in blocks. Rettetast (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to discussion at WP:FOOTY and see if it can be resolved through greater consensus. Ultimately though, it's a navigational assistant for some articles about football. Nobody's gonna die if it isn't perfect. Stu.W UK (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)