Talk:England national football team/Archive 4

Qualifying for England Squad
For information, I came to this article in search of the qualifying criteria for being part of the England team, but it didn't cover the subject - perhaps it should, because UK's particular situation makes it less than obvious: anyone with a British passport? Are people born in Scotland banned? Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.159.86 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's anyone with a British passport who is from England or gained the passport through residency in England, and anyone who is British or Irish and has an English parent or grandparent. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

From 'to do' list, England managers

 * Can Peter J. Taylor please be added as an England manager after all, he was manager for 1 game v Italy, Turin, 15.11.2000, England lost 1-0 Johnboyb (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ditto Howard Wilkinson who was caretaker manager twice; v France, Wembley, 10.2.1999 England lost 2-0; v Finland, Helsinki, 11.10.2000 drew 0-0 Johnboyb (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pretty Green (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Glen Hoddle - Why isn't anything about him mentioned in the History? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekillers342 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTABLE PLAYERS
I think using the English Football Hall of Fame as a means of deciding who should count as the England national team's 'Notable Players' is a mistake.

Some players are included for their achievements with their clubs, and deservedly so. But speaking purely in terms of their career for England (which is what this article is about) there is no way Ian Wright and John Barnes are more notable than say, David Platt or Michael Owen. Is there another list (possibly a fans' poll of greatest England players) that would be more suitable?

Germany has a list of captains, so why doesn't england?

Ages
Why are the players' ages shown in the most recent squad section? Surely the DOB is enough? (I actually think that adding a player's DOB is a bit unnecessary). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So readers can see what age the players are, it's used on all national teams (at least those well updated), it's just good information for the reader. "Oh they have a 40 year old in the team" or "Oh a 18 year old already has 15 caps" or stuff like that chandler · 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Badge
why does the badge not have a star? the kit has a star over it, albiet a white star on white kit, it is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.202.2 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ever since England won the World Cup the team has been entitled to wear a star over the badge on the shirt and incorporate it into the Association logo. It wasn't until recently that the badge has been worn on the shirt as the FA resisted moves to put one on. They have stated that, whilst they have now relented on that, a star will never appear on the FA logo. (Quentin X (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

the fa are gutless idiots! Dribblingscribe (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

why has the badge got two stars over it when England have only won once - what jammy so and so managed to dupe you into putting that up?! If only! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.94.216 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, someone's played with the FIFA ranking etc - I thought this was a locked article?! Sort it out guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.94.216 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Carrick debut
Michael Carrick actually made his England debut in 2001, not 2005? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.13.238 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're correct, we've got his first start rather than first appearance for some reason. Thanks. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

'One of the more successful football teams'
Sorry, but this really makes no sense. More successful compared to what? Yes, England won the world cup, but truth be told they have a rather abyssmal record in the WC competition otherwise, hardly that of 'one of the more successful teams' and if you take into account their relatively poor performance in the other major competitions they compete in, such as the Euro, it becomes clear that this clause simply does not belong. Their total 'success' in any major tournament apart from that one WC win is their third place finish in the 1968 Euro.

Of the other winners of the WC they clearly have the least successful record. That alone would put them as 7th best in the history of the tournament. (Forget about Brasil, Argentina, Germany, Italy... compare England's record to say, France, who also have only one WC win, but also have 2 second place finishes and 2 third place finishes. And they've won the Euro twice.) But arguably a team like the Netherlands, although never having won the WC, has been at least equally successful as England, having made it to the WC final twice, and winning the Euro, but we see no claims on their page of successful whatever. How about the USSR? They won the Euro once and made it to the final another 3 times. They won the Olympic Gold twice and the Bronze three times. The list goes on of teams that have been very 'successful'. If England is one of the most successful national teams in the world, then they have a lot of company, and that makes the claim rather pointless. I realize most of the editors here are going to be three lions fans and therefore biased, but that line should really be changed. It is only based on the one WC win, so it should be more specific. Something like " England is in a very select group, having been one of only 7 national teams to have won the World Cup." Trefalcon (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy math, there are currently over 200 national football teams, they're on of the only 7 teams to have won a World Cup... that's one of the most successful. chandler • 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you addressed my point. The point is the WC win is their only major success, and it was 43 years ago, so the line should reflect that. Saying England is 'one of the more successful football teams' implies something slightly more than I think is true. If we're going to say that something should be added after like 'however, the WC win in 1966 was their only major success' which refutes the claim in the first place. What's wrong with "England is in a very select group, being one of only 7 national teams to have won the World Cup." ? Trefalcon (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I addressed the point. If you've won the world cup, you're one of the most successful football teams. Just as Uruguay is, even though their last world cup win was in 1950. chandler • 09:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely POV and to be honest its a bit of a joke. England and Spain are both a joke when it comes to their WC records. I'd remove it.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No the POV thing to do would be to say they're not one of the most successful teams despite winning a World Cup just because they've not gotten past quarter finals since 1990. chandler • 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is completely POV, unverifiable and fits the definition of weasel words. "Success" is a subjective term and a matter of opinion, not fact. I have removed it. Fußballspielen (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)]]
 * I think Fußballspielen's edit looks good. If anybody wants to embellish the line about the WC win a little, including something like "... which puts them in a very select group" I don't think they would get any objections, because it would be true. It was just the 'more successful' that was a bit too much.Trefalcon (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Trefalcon do you really believe Olympic medals rival world cup wins, and two losing final appearances are equal to a world cup win? The world of football doesn't care about your anti english bias, even if you have contaminated wikipedia with it. At very worst England are the 7th most successful side in international football history. Anyone would take a world cup win over any number of olympic wins, losing final appearances, or euro wins. Trickyjack (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Trickyjack  the objective here was to follow Wikipedias standards, which prohibit the use of unverfiable claims and loaded unreferenceable language. The long explanation was for the sake of fans like yourself whose pro-bias would color their word choice. I've nothing against the 3 lions and wish you the best of luck in South Africa! Trefalcon (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'One world cup record with France'
Uruguay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.108.225 (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have won two, in 1930 and 1950. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Graham Taylor's stats are wrong
According to the table, he won 20, drew 19 and lost 7, but played only 38 (surely he played 46, if the other figures are correct). Can someone find the correct stats.

--81.39.20.28 (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've corrected this - based on sources the 38 is correct and the other figures are wrong. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Manger 'Points Per Game'
I'm not sure if this column is appropriate? After all, many England matches have not been played in point-based competitions; the implication is, I guess, 3 for a win and 1 for a draw, but this is not made explicit and is an artificial creation of someone - making it original research, I think. Anyway, it's a somewhat meaningless stat which arbitrarily places values onto results which were not there when matches were played! --Pretty Green (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. If it's thought to be worth keeping, at the very least it needs a note explaining that it's an arbitrary measure of success for the reasons you mention.Clicriffhard (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Hoddle
Do we just not believe in him being England manager? There is nothing mentioned in the History. You have it going Venables -> Sven. What about WC 98? What about his comments? What about the dislike towards Beckham for a short time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekillers342 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well England have a long footballing history and I'm not sure that the dislike of Beckham is relevant in the long run. But given that we mention England's other WC campaigns, he is worthy of inclusion. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

England's aggregate results against the Republic of Ireland accurate?
It appears the results table has misclassified England's results against Northern Ireland's IFA as being against the Republic of Ireland. Between 1882 and 1921 Ireland's results should be attributed to the Belfast based IFA which remains over the Northern Irish FA. Before southern Ireland extricated itself from Britain in 1916, the results would have not have been truly representative of all Ireland and should be attributed against the IFA. See the FAI wikipedia homepage for more specific details that explain the separation. There have only been 14 matches between England and the Republic of Ireland since the FAI and Republic was founded and certainly not what is represented on the results table. Eire4ever (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have the stats? If we can get them, I'd suggest that the results v Ireland be listed separately from both NI and the Republic.Clicriffhard (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to combine the pre-1921 results with Northern Ireland as the vast majority of the "home" matches were in Belfast confirming the results as Northern Ireland and not reflective of the entire island of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland did not play its first match against England until 1946 and has played a total of 14 through 2009. An accurate reflection of how the results should be partitioned would be from the Nationwide Football Annual - latest issue for 2009-10 season - which correctly represents England vs. Republic of Ireland results from 1946-present on page 236. That record for England would be played 14, with 5 wins, 6 draws and 3 losses (included the most recent abandoned match result from 1995). You can see the England vs. Ireland/Northern Ireland results from 1882-2005 on page 287 as being played 98, with 75 wins, 7 losses and 16 draws. That seems the fairest representation and their independent interpretation of apportioning the results among the countries. A results line for Ireland can be reserved for the day when the country fields one team such as in rugby and cricket. Eire4ever (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Eire4ever (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see someone's updated the Ireland stats, so the Republic's are now correct. I would still separate "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" for the sake of keeping this table more encyclopaedic than political. Compare the situation to that of Serbia - according to UEFA and FIFA, they "inherited" Yugoslavia's history and results, but the table has one line for Yugoslavia and another for Serbia & Montenegro. No doubt if England play Serbia (now separate from Montenegro) next year, a new line will be created. It's not a question of politics, and if it were, the results from 1992-2003 almost certainly wouldn't be credited to "Yugoslavia"; but they are, because that was the name the matches were played under. Similarly, matches pre-1921 were played against "Ireland", even if they weren't actually played against Ireland. You know? Even if it was a de facto Northern Ireland team, that's an editorial perspective rather than a dry fact. If it makes all the difference, I'm sure we could have it as "Ireland (IFA)", and then anyone whose interest is piqued can click through and read up on the history of football in Ireland. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I disagree with combining the results since the "Ireland" stats were for a different team (albeit the same FA) incorporating players from all 32 counties. This was discussed no the Northern Ireland national football team Talk page where myself and another editor couldn't agree. The official stats are maintained by FIFA and they separate the stats. This should be the same approach here. --HighKing (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've added a link to the Ireland national football team to the Northern Ireland line - it's a good compromise for the minute, although I think the best thing would be to add a separate line for "Ireland" including all games played 1882-1921, along with a footnote to both N-Ire and R-Ire saying that until 1950 they both picked their players from the whole of Ireland. So, if someone can find the stats for 1882-1921, it'd be cool if they could do this. BigSteve (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Captain
"Their current captain is John Terry, but it wont last for long as Rooney is going to replace him very soon." What's all this about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.208.113 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Feb 5th 2010: BBC: "When I chose John Terry as captain, I also selected a vice-captain (Rio Ferdinand) and also named a third choice. There is no reason to change this decision" So Rio Ferdinand should be the captain. Until further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.248.119 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "covering for" in a captaincy, you are either the captain of a team or not. Right now Gerrard is the captain, once Rio is healthy, he might be a captain, or he might not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.253.161 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gerrard isn't the captain. He's the vice-captain. In the event that the captain is injured, the vice-captain stands in his place. Ferdinand is still the captain of England. Woolwich (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rio Ferdinand is not on the current england squad so how can he be the current captain. Steven Gerrard will hold the captaincy for the rest of the season (the end of the 2010 FIFA world cup) and is therefore the current captain. Smithdan86 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the captain's injured it doesn't mean the vice-captain becomes the captain, it just means the vice-captain performs the captain's duties. Yes Ferdinand's injured but that doesn't mean he's relinquished his captaincy. At least that's my point of view. But I dunno. Considering everyone seems to disagree with me I've tried to make a compromise in the infobox. Woolwich (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ferdinand is the de facto captain. Gary Neville was out of the Man Utd side for a season and it didn't make Ryan Giggs the captain. As there is so much toing and froing over who should be the captain in the infobox, Woolwich's compromise is good. God help us when England are out out/win the tournament though :-) Quentin X (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy with that compromise. Smithdan86 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Political editing of this article
There's a bunch of editors around here who try to use Wikipedia to foist their politics on the rest of us. This article has now been targetted. The main culprit is User:HighKing but others have poked their nose in as well. The idea is that because they don't like the term British Isles they try to replace it with something else, delete sentences that contain it, put unrealistic requests up for references and sometimes the result is the introduction of a falsehood. Here we have an attempt to replace BI with "Home Nations". I request that someone knowledgeable in the subject of football should decide on this matter. If there's nothing incorrect with using BI then so be it, but if it's an error to use it, then obviously replace it. The fact that some people don't like it should be totally irrelevant. Thanks. Mister Flash (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it and thought, oh no! You are totally correct, it is one of the worst things about the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a central review point for inappropriate and appropriate use of British Isles, precisely to prevent edit warring. To date we have two extremes, editors who want to remove it at all costs and editors who want to retain it at all costs.  A few of us are trying to take a more balanced view, supporting its use when appropriate, removing it when it isn't.  In this case the normal language used for sports has been Home Nations rather than British Isles.  The term Home Nations is used elsewhere in the article and it made sense to switch to that for continuities sake.  In this particular case the then supervising admin took the view that Home Nations was the most appropriate along with three other editors.  Opposition came from Flash (who has opposed every change regardless of the context and one other editor now banned as a sock puppet. In fact if we take out High King and Flash the vote was 3-0 for Home Nations.  The pattern of throwing accusations of politics anytime anyone tries to change the term, and auto-reverting even when a consensus has been reached is part of the problem.  -- Snowded  TALK  00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yawn yawn..look out of the window and see the changes, nada. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against using British Isles in the correct situation, given the absence of an alternative name that has reached what we might call 'encyclopaedic level'. But Home Nations is often more accurate in relation to football. My question would be what does the sentence want to say? If it refers to England's first match against a none-Home Nations team (in this pre-1922 context, Home Nations would include what is now independent Ireland) then the sentence should have HN. However, if it means a first game outside of the British Isles (ie an away match against a non-HN team) then BI might be more accurate. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the sentence clearly refers to the tour of June 1908 in which England played Austria, Bohemia (!) and Hungary. So this refers to both England's first matches outside of the British Isles and against a non-Home Nations team (interestingly, they didn't play a team outside of the HN in England until 1923). So how about England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game against a non-British team on a tour of Central Europe in 1908. It's accurate to describe Ireland as British as at the time they were not independent. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately PG, you're falling into the trap set by the POV pushers - rewriting text to avoid using a term that some people object to. If as I think you say, British Isles is correct here, then leave it. If this article hadn't been targetted there would be no problem. Eventually BI may have been removed, or added, but it would have been done for genuine reasons, now its removal would be just to appease the POVers. Mister Flash (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thing is though, the sentence as it stands left me not knowing what was meant - I had to go to englandfootballonline and search through their match database to discover whether it meant the first none-Home Nations team or the first match outside of the British Isles. In this case, it meant both, but that's not clear in the text. So it could do with rewording anyway. And Wikipedia is about consensus - surely replacing something disliked, even if its just a small minority, by a with equally satisfactory terminology shouldn't be problematic? Pretty Green (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and makes it easier to resist changes to remove British Isles where it is being used validly. This is one of the articles where alternatives to "British Isles" are more meaningful, and more consistent with terms used elsewhere in the article.  Insisting on the retention of the term regardless is as much a political POV as is removing it whenever it occurs.-- Snowded  TALK  11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the actual edit in question here? Here it is.. England had no permanent home ground. England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game outside the British Isles in 1908. and british Isles wants changed to Home nations. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)   What is the actual edit in question here? Here it is.. England had no permanent home ground. England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game outside the British Isles in 1908. and british Isles wants changed to Home nations.  Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See your last edit to prevent Flash falling foul of 1RR (and please use indentation if possible it makes the talk page easier to follow) -- Snowded TALK  11:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no one revert here. IMO the article should be reverted back to the long term stable position. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has your signature on it. Currently the majority of involved editors support "Home Nations" (including 100% of those editors who have a record of sayhing yes and no to British Isles in different contexts) and as Pretty Green has pointed out its more accurate and makes life easier for readers. -- Snowded  TALK  11:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a good mind to revert it, you were mistaken when you told me that there is a one revert condition on this article, the alteration here is completely wrong, the expression home nations is used to describe different things in the rest of the situations, this is about la location in general not the teams in question, it clearly should be British isles in this case, saying all the terms should be the same is not correct here, it has become totally confusing, home nations is not a location, I immediately ask myself..where is this place the home nations and I find no answer to the question, it is confusing and to be honest the change being requested is pointy and unworthy of even the tiniest of debate. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1RR restriction has been applied by at least one admin on any article where there is spill over on Irish/British national issues so I think my cautionary comment was valid. In the context of competition, its who you play against which matters.  In this case the English team had only played the Home Nations prior to the date in question.  The current use of Home Nations is this clearer for any reader.  Pretty Green's two comments are good examples of the sort of common sense we need on this issue.-- Snowded  TALK  11:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my main point at the moment is that the sentence is actually unclear as to its meaning no matter which term we use - it should indicate that the matches referred to were both England's first game outside of the British Isles (understood as a slightly-awkward but acceptable name for a geographical location) and the first game against a none-home nations (understood as sports teams representing the constituent countries of the UK including 'all Ireland' teams) country. My other point to note is that the whole issue can be avoided by simply saying 'British' (we could pipe link this to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article if we want) which is accurate as the Ireland national team at the time were British. Pretty Green (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No surprise to see Snowded opposing use of British Isles, but at the same time claiming he holds a balanced view. His political views are clearly no secret. Trickyjack (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a track record of supporting its use on several articles TrickyKJack, try checking your facts. -- Snowded  TALK  13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than a low-level revert war, is there support for any other term? Why not simply 'outside of the United Kingdom'? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having been through these debates several times its more important to keep to cited sources. I must admit I thought reference to British Home Championship would (i) match the sources and (ii) be seen as a compromise.-- Snowded  TALK  09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * and (iii) not include British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the use of which is not supported by citations (to complete your addition) -- Snowded TALK  11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Majority of caps/goals wrong...
For some reason, maybe spam, many of the current squad and recent call-ups sections caps are wrong. I have edited a handful but they all need to be looked at. For instance, Joe Hart is listed as having 6 caps when he only has one appearance to his name. 92.236.185.219 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, someone changed all the caps last week, a very subtle form of vandalism I guess. I'm walking away from my computer now but will look at this when I get back; otherwise if someone else could do this? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable former players
I just noticed that the list of notable former players taken from the English Football Hall of Fame hasn't been updated with the 2009 inductees however I haven't bothered to do it because I personally think that it should be removed altogether. The hall of fame is based on contribution to English football overall not the England team specifically. Hence Ian Wright is there even though his international record was pretty poor and soon I expect Matt Le Tissier and Andy Cole will be inducted and they definitely can't be considered to be notable former players. Whereas Terry Butcher isn't there (yet) even though he is clearly a more notable player than Ian Wright in terms of international football. Plus the list is just going to get longer every year. So does anyone object if I remove the list? Truly notable former players can be mentioned in the text (if they're not there already). We could also increase the top scorers and most appearances list to 20 to cover a few more notable players if people feel this is needed. If you object please comment here otherewise I'll make the change in a few days time. Mah favourite (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have gone ahead and deleted the list. If anyone thinks that such a list is necessary then I think a new source is needed, maybe a fan poll or magazine article rating the most important England players. Personally I don't think the article needs it though. Mah favourite (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article is a Shambles
Look at the whole thing it's terrible. There aren't any sources on the Japan and Mexico games, surely they shouldn't be listen until there is a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.36.170 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, I've removed them. We had a series of people adding false fixtures and these have obviosuly been left over from them. Do you have any comments about the rest of the article. --Pretty Green (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FA confirmed those 2 matches ages ago... Put them back up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/03/england-world-cup-warm-up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.113 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Active players
Regarding the most capped list, what is the definition of an "active" player? Gary Neville hasn't played for England for 3 years and Michael Owen has not done so for 2 years, so it must be stretching the point to call them "active" although neither has announced international retirement and both are still active at club level. 91.110.214.234 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case, an active player is anyone still playing professionally. Don't forget that Neville was in a squad as recently as last summer. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What has happened to James Milner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.171.242 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Hi! It would be great if someone could write about the meaning of the coat of arms of the national football team, what each symbol means (for example, the 10 flowers) and why change the color respect the Coat of Arms of England, it's only by design or has any meaning? Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.182.165 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The flowers are the roses of Tudor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.78.223 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

crest history
why is there no information regarding the crest history, like there is the team colours history? The England crest was recently (2009) changed from a darker blue to a softer, lighter blue and quite a while before that we used to play with just the 3 lions and no ENGLAND banner above.. how about some info on the changes over time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.7.253 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Verb Number Agreement
With regards to the first sentence of the second paragraph (i.e. "England are one of seven national teams to have won the FIFA World Cup, which they did in 1966 when they hosted the finals.", shouldn't the sentence construction read: England is one of seven national teams to have won the FIFA World Cup, which it did in 1966 when it hosted the finals.?

Similar to "England is great, it has beautiful landscapes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.74.249 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When talking about collective nouns in British English then the plural is generally used; this differs to American English. For example: "Manchester United are an English football team"; "The New Orleans Saints is an American football team". In the sentence in the intro, 'England' refers to the England football team so is considered plural; in your example, 'England' refers to the country, so the singular would be correct. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.149.217.169, 11 May 2010
Please change "Joe Cole	8 November 1978 (age 31)" to "Joe Cole	8 November 1981 (age 28) as per his wiki page

81.149.217.169 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. I have used a reference from the Joe Cole page for this statement. Chevymontecarlo . 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Change Captain to Steven Gerrard in article ... everywhere
Change Captain to Steven Gerrard in article ... everywhere 99.52.151.170 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ferdinand is still the team captain. --Pretty Green (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard is the current england captain, Rio Ferdinand has not been selected for the current england squad due to injury 16:51, 11 june 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.61.210 (talk)

The current England captain is Stephen Gerrard Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Draws and penalty shootouts
1.^ – Draws include knockout matches decided on a penalty shootout.

Is that usual? Is it standard for WP?

Ordinary Person (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, yes. I could be corrected though. Woolwich (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * no it's not. Not at allWhatzinaname (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fourth place, semis
The World Cup record table shows Fourth place, the Euro record shows Semifinals: these refer to the same kind of event, but are represented differently. Maybe there should be a standard on this.Ordinary Person (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The Euro record shows semifinals because there's been no third place playoff since 1984, so there's no way to know who came third or fourth. The World Cup has this playoff though. Woolwich (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

David Beckham as Assistant Coach
Shouldn't David Beckham be added to the list of assistant coaches? See: David_Beckham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgespee (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, David Beckham is part of the England world cup staff, he has no direct coaching duties within the England world cup squad. Why shouldnt David Beckham, Stuart Pearce or the rest of the touch line staff be listed as assistant coaches? Simple, its not their job. Smithdan86 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is his role? It must be something(?) because he's sitting in the dugout at the games, so he must have a technical role of some kind.  --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it. Capello says He sees Beckham, who has 115 caps, as a mediator between management and the players and as an English member of the coaching staff  --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely bogus team stats to be removed unless fixed
Friendlies do not count, only competitive. And matches lost by penalty kicks are matches lost by penatly kicks, not matches "tied" or "drawn".Whatzinaname (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

drug testing
This was added and I can't see that it is relative or that england are involved at all.

In July 2009, the FA was in talks with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) over the FA's proposal to comply with the WADA international anti-doping code (as other UK sports such as rugby, golf and tennis have already done). The FA was at the time under pressure from organisations including UK Sport and Sport England to comply with the code and to put forward the first 30 players of the English national football team for testing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2009/07/decision_time_for_the_fa.html. There were disputes over some aspects of the code, which would require the FA to put forward 30 members of the England squad to be the "testing pool". Only these players would be able to compete.

This hasn't been taken up so what value has it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The section that was removed was entitled "Squad Drug Testing".
 * It is true that this issue no longer makes headlines, and some assume that there is a stalemate or truce regarding it. For good reason the section has been removed from the article for now.  However, if the issue becomes controversial again (when contracts come to be renewed, etc) please re-add the section to the article.
 * Although, the talks were with the FA, they were about the England National Football Team and have relevance to the squad players, so this is the correct article for this section. If the "30-man testing pool" is implemented it will certainly have an effect on squad tactics, as only 30 members of the squad will be able to compete. This is why it is relevant.  Cheers, telewatho (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Penalties
I think we should add that England has had difficulties with penalty shootouts, because this is a kind of symbol for the team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.212.243 (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup table
I think that the position column should be removed from the World Cup table. As far as I can see there is no reason for most of the given positions (for example, in what way did England finish 13th at this world cup?). If there is a genuinely valid position, ie 1st or 4th, then it is already shown in the previous column. Any objections to removing this?

Also if anyone else wants to go ahead and make the change (assuming no objections come up) then that would be good because I don't know how to and so will probably have to spend a while working it out! Thanks. Mah favourite (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

World XI
says in the all-time team record, won 1 against 'World XI'. incase you didnt know, World XI is a fictitious best-players team created for FIFA video games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.77.44 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_League_Centenary_Tournament&oldid=427400154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.91.105 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

first defeat?
There is something that I did not understand

"Their first ever defeat on home soil to a non-UK team was a 0–2 loss to the Republic of Ireland on 21 September 1949 at Goodison Park. "

"A 6–3 loss in 1953 to Hungary, was their first ever defeat at Wembley by a team from outside of the British Isles."

but which,exactly, is the first defeat? against who? when? where? at home or away?

http://www.englandstats.com

http://www.thefa.com/England/Results

http://www.iffhs.de/?390a857fcf027cda17685ac03e0f827dcdc0005fdcdc3bfcdc0aec70aeeda0a3e8e003e0f518

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/results/male.html#

these sources "say":

07.03.1874	Glasgow	- Scotland - England	2: 1

03.03.1877	London - England - Scotland	1: 3

I m not a so deep fotball expert, so someone could confirm it?--Shortahead21 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the game against Scotland in Glasgow in March 1874 is the first defeat, and the 1877 was the first defeat in London. England were soon losing quite regularly as Scotland was comfortably the strongest team in the world during the 1880s. In fact, England didn't beat Scotland between 1880 and 1888. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Star
Where is the logo's star for winning the World Cup in 1966? --79.153.95.21 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The star isn't included in the team's emblem. The star resides proudly above (or around) the crest to show that England have won a World Cup 92.6.181.247 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) (British GM (Not Logged In))

Pearce
Which source give Stuart Pearce as caretake-manager? This BBC article is linked to, but all that says is "FA head of elite development Gareth Southgate suggested Under-21 head coach Stuart Pearce will be in charge". The fact that Southgate said this makes it worthy of mention, perhaps, but I don't think it's enough to use as a reference for Pearce actually being the caretaker-manager. matt (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no source stating that Pearce is caretaker manager, so I have changed the infobox to say 'vacant' instead. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

here is the source http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/12016/7498974/Pearce-to-lead-Three-Lions Mikegegger (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Crest
There seems to be a pretty major edit war going on about the crest. The FA's website seems to only use the blue version, but why don't we add the red one as a "crest" subsection under the colours section anyway? If it's been played with, it'd be nice to have it in there. BigSteve (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I mean when are we ever going to see this crest used other than on the home jersey. The away jersey will most likely use the old one and on TV and tabloids it will always be the old one as well. What is the point of putting it up in the infobox when the only time we will see it is on the home jersey? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But would that be legitimate fair-use of a copyrighted design? We already have the official crest at the top, and stating in the prose that the new shirt features an all-red variation is fully informative without using a further non-free image.
 * On another note, during the edit-warring it was pointed out that the crest as featured on the FA website no longer includes the 'England' text above the shield. Whilst a poor rationale for changing to the red version, it is a valid point in regards to our current image. Should the existing version not be modifed to remove the text?  AJ Sham  13:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, this isn't the first time a team (England even) has worn a crest that is a different color from the official crest. In fact, if I recall correctly, England's primary kit at the World Cup in 2010 had a white crest on the white shorts. That didn't warrant changing the image on the page to the all-white crest. Just because the crest has been modified for a kit is no reason to deviate from the official crest. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that both of them are inappropriate ('09 crest is inaccurate, '12 crest is only a shirt variation). Personally, I'd use the red one, as it is the most 'correct'. It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes no difference. Fact is that this crest closely resembles the actual logo and that its like that on the away jersey as well as on TV. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The current crest was acquired from an official source, was used in official material (and still occasionally is), and is still in use by many other sources such as TV and press - even Pearce was wearing it. Whilst it would be better if we could source a version more closely resembling the one on the FA site, this 2009 version is far superior to the red version which, as stated before, is merely a feature of the shirt design. There is significant precedent for kit designs featuring alternatively coloured versions of the official badge; eg. the one mentioned by Kevin, a former France home shirt in which the logo was all gold, and the Chelsea away kit on which the badge was black-on-yellow. None of these designs meant that the official logo had changed, and it is ridiculous to assume that is the case here.  AJ  Cham  01:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice find mate. This proves that the crest should not be changed yet. Heck look at the India national football team which I run, the logo on the jersey 2 years ago had that logo on the page currently but it was inside a triangle. Yet we still did not change the logo because of what the media where using and what the away jersey was. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The logic of "the away kit doesn't have it so it's not genuine" is flawed, they just haven't made a new one yet. When they removed the blue England bar from the home kit in 2009, the away kit still had it, until they had a chance to change it a year later (Accrington Stanley did this recently iirc). Maybe that's the plan here; we just don't know. I am aware of the various edited logos (York City and Glasgow Rangers for example wear different badges on their shirts compared with the website logos). What the media use isn't exactly relevant (in my opinion) - various media outlets call Nottingham Forest 'Notts', that doesn't make that the team name. New logos (especially ones that are only slightly different) take time to become used by all and sundry. Just my take on the matter. It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That still does not explain why that new crest should be used NOW. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the reason that the old '09 badge isn't used in any meaningful capacity (one article vs. every other instance of the 2010 badge) any more isn't enough of a hint, I don't think anything else will be. Personally, I'd sooner see the 2010 badge used ahead of the 2012 badge, but still... It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The crest is one of the least interesting things about the England team - in fact it's a stupid issue to be editing about. Get this sorted, but please stop disrupting the article with edit wars. To give some perspective, I had to trace through all these stupid crest edits to work out that players such as Tom Cleverly and Kyle Walker had, in well-meaning but misguided edits, been removed from the article. I was able to replace them but this stupid dispute made it difficult to edit the actual things that are interesting about this article, ie, the players who play in the England team. So you know what - just leave one version in and stop editing because no one cares. Pretty Green (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aww, that's a shame isn't it? --2.127.75.143 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, the above post is a bit over dramatic :) But the sentiment remains that to disrupt this article over what is essentially a side issue is a bit dumb. Pretty Green (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the crest was changed again. Have we even reached a consensus on this yet. Until we actually do make a final decision the crest should remain the 2009 one. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sigh) I thought it was settled. I've not seen any decent justification for using the red crest to illustrate the article. That is the crest as it appears on the home shirt only. The away and goalkeeping jerseys feature different designs and everywhere else the crest appears it is the familiar blue. However, referring back to the concerns that the 2009 version is inaccurate I've uploaded an updated version that reflects current usage (i.e. without text). This really should be no longer an issue.  AJ  Cham  00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'll not do so yet in case this edit is contested, but if we can consider this resolved then the old version of the logo will have to be flagged for deletion as we can't have old revisions of non-free images. AJ  Cham  00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have the picture of the old crest but without the words can you please upload it. Thus ending this debate. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Already done - I've uploaded over the previous version. There's no point uploading it separately, as we'll only keep one version anyway - although it does render the filename technically inaccurate (still saying 2009), but we can always move it later if it bothers people. AJ  Cham  01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Hopefully no one has an issue over a file name so as of now I think we can all say that the verdict is to keep the old/newer crest (without the words England). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wales
How are Wales the traditional rivals of England? What source has this come from and what criteria is being applied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.45.126 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012
Where Sir Alf Ramsey is referred using the Sir prefix, Sir Bobby Robson should too.

82.35.198.26 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came here to say something else, but I have to say....what the hell? Are you asking for sources for Robsons Sirness? Cos check Sir Bobby Robson. I can't see how you came to the decision to refuse this request. 92.15.58.16 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Potential upcoming fixtures.
Upcoming fixtures section lists the opening three euro games, then just world cup. Would a line between them linking to Euro knockouts explaining more euro matches are possible be a good idea? 92.15.58.16 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking of putting a criticism section
I believe there is a enough third person information to put a criticism section. Because the national teams football style has been analysed to death by the press in the UK and abroad what does anyone else think? Here ares some links I found. See below. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is probably merit in such a section (I note you added a 'playing style' section 11 minutes after writing the comment above) but as the article is about the England team over its entire history it shouldn't just cover recent failings. Things like use of W-M, redefining of play after the 1953 defeat by Hungary, Ramsey's Wingless Wonders, etc. It should try and be balanced though; I'm sure that there's plenty of coverage of praise for certain aspects of the national team's game. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this section should be included because England's playing style has been completely different under different managers thoughout history and in recent times, for example under Capello it was more possession based, and the tenures of Robson, Venebles and Hoddle were possession based play as well, and Ramsey's successful side that won the world cup and reached semi finals of 1968 euro championship did not use exclusively longball tactic either. The defensive, 'long ball' style of Roy Hodgson has been introduced more recently, rather than it being a consistent phenomenom of the last 10 years(Sven used varying styles), and will likely change as his managerial tenure progresses, so I don't think it merits a section because it is innacurate to say it has been a consistant tactic throughout England's historyBen200 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This info would be best if included in the history article, or the history section of this page, in relation to the specific period that it refers to. Pretty Green (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

England against Italy
The england vs italy loss for england hasn't been accounted for in Roy Hodgson's row on the managers table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiedwi (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Euro 96 on Home Soil
Shouldn't there be a red outline box around the UEFA European Football Championship for 1996 to indicate this tournament was played on home soil (just as the 1966 World Cup is shown) ? This would be consistent with the article for Germany showing their home soil tournaments in 1974, 2006 (both World Cups) and 1988 (Euros). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.124.118 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2012
The link of Steve slattery is incorrect. (Steve is under back room staff)

213.120.41.114 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I changed the link to Steve Slattery (football) Ryan Vesey  Review me!  22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Style of Play
On this page there is hardly any mention of England's style of play. So I decided to write a brief overview over their style of play and how it has changed over the years.

Long Ball: The English players are usually from different clubs due to which they have difficulty linking play with each other. Thus they rely on a long ball oriented game. Predominantly known to play a tall sturdy striker and a compact and disciplined defensive line, English players are not known for their technical abilities and rely on their physical strength and speed to defeat their opponents. During the 1990's they received a lot of criticism for their long ball unattractive display.

Counter attack: The advent of the 21st century started a new age of English football which is said to be the Golden age. During these times England relied on counter attack. their basic strategy of a strong backline remained the same, but there was a change in the mindset of the midfielders and the strikers. The England striker was no longer tall but quick and technically gifted often falling back to help the defence. The midfielders were more precise in their passing and did not launch long balls upfront unecessarily. Good examples of them are David Beckham, Steven Gerrard and Frank lampard.

England are lately criticised for not adopting the possession game while other countries have evolved their game.

Anirudh2a (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical Kits
Is this section with all the old kits really needed? I mean England kits are white.. the small detail worn in each tournament just looks messy to me. Kidstylez (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, With Historical kits is meant Both Home and Away --KoreanDragon (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oldest or joint-oldest?
The lede states they're the oldest national team, but they're later referred to as the joint-oldest. Any matches before the Scotland one? MisterVodka (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Joint oldest is most accurate - that was the first international match. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Amended the first paragraph to match that. MisterVodka (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014
The 'current squad' lists Jermaine Defoe as a current player. His name should be spelled without the letter 'e'.

152.3.68.83 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. So, you want me to change his name to Jrmain Dfo as that is what it would be "without the letter 'e'"? Seriously though, I have no idea who this dude is... Are you asking for "Jermaine Defo" or "Jermain Defoe" as either seem plausible to me. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Couldn't you have just used, you know, Google? Or Duck Duck Go if you don't like being stalked? Or the Wikipedia search engine to find out what his article is called? No wonder we're known for being unfriendly and are losing editors. Anyway, now done. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014
Phil Jones Birthday is 21st of Febuary, not the 121st of Febuary

Adianliusie (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - 97rob (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014
58.152.144.205 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, John Stones has 2 caps now not one, please amend it. Thank you.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I tried looking for John Stones, in lowercase, but they appeared to be labelled "John Stones". — cyberpower ChatOnline 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Change already done since the request was made. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Date correction
The England friendly on 4th June 2014 did not happen on 4th July 2014. (Recent results) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.156.150 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nickname
Are England really nicknamed "The Three Lions"? You can't substitute the phrase "The Three Lions" for "England" in the same way you can, say, "The Indomitable Lions" for Cameroon, or "The All Blacks" for the New Zealand rugby team. No one would write "The Three Lions crashed out of the World Cup today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.245.61 (talk)
 * Yes they are. For example, this article refers to them as the Three Lions. -  97rob  ( talk ) 20:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Lots of examples on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.245.61 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Failure to qualify for USA 94
Surprisingly, England failed to qualify for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, with crucial losses to Norway and the Netherlands, the latter of which eliminated them from the Finals tournament. Graham Taylor resigned at the conclusion of the England's unsuccessful campaign. The program Do I Not Like That is a documentary about England's last failure to qualify for a FIFA World Cup (which is to be this), containing 14 parts. 190.138.148.11 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2014 (CET)

The program Do I Not Like That is also know as An Impossible Job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.178.228 (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Playing style section
I think there is enough stuff evidence to support a suggest for section for a playing style. Has anyone got any ideas? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

England should stop trying to play football No, England Did NOT Invent Football (Soccer) As We Know It [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/27/sport/football/football-euro-england-warrior/index.html Football culture: Who are you? Warrior or tika taka technician?] England has always provided a home for long ball football [http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/sports/24iht-rob_1.html Will the Bulldog's Fall Give Rise to a New Breed of English Soccer? - The New York Times] How We Play the Game

The 3 Lions motif
I always thought that the 3 Lions were in fact actually leopards if this is correct I am not totally sure but looking at the old formations in the finals maybe a spring forward would have been better than a stationary roar,but another day ,another time we will find a answer to English lethargy more concerned about what is in their boots,rather than their bank accounts,but the day may arrive when we hoist the cup and watch soccer players who are less beauty queens and wanting to maintain and improve their English National Pride,by grabbing the games played by the cojones,God bless Bobby and the other heroes,they may have liked a pint or 2,but they arrived for the matches expecting to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.82.38 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ELO Ranking
New lowest ELO Ranking of 15, after their 2 defeats in the 2014 World Cup. Lower than the previous lowest number of 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.160.23 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

13 was not the previous low. On June 11, 1995 the ranking is listed as 16 according to. UrbanGrill (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Either way, it needs changing! With a reference to the date, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.165.141 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Star
Where is the star for winning 1966 World Cup? --2.245.88.139 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not part of the England team badge. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How is it not part of the team badge if it's on the kit? It's the same with Spain; the association crest and the national team crest is different; their association crest doesn't have the star, but the team crest does. Hence I think the picture the needs the star above the crest as per the picture in this article England to wear all white kit at 2014 World Cup in Brazil | Football | The Guardian Kupek (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's on the kit, yes, above the badge. In the same way that the Nike kit is to the right of the badge. Look on the England team on the FA website - the badge is there, without the star. The star is a feature on the kit only. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm rather inclined to say that the star should be there. The image on The FA's website shows the badge, but it is there as a kind of banner that is at the top of every page in the England section, including the women's team. As this article is about the men's team only, and the star has been present on every kit that they have worn for some time now, I feel that the picture used should reflect that. Red  v  Blue  14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015
All-time scorer's wrong

Jermain Defoe now plays for Sunderland FC

Not a massive point but Woodward and Lampard should be joint-9th highest scorers not 8th which would see everyone below them drop a place too. Couldn't do it myself but thought I'd point it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.94.85 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why has the 'All-Time Team Record' been removed from this page? Can anyone give an answer?

10/01/14 OGBC1992 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Top Goal Scorer 14/04/15
As of 14th April 2015 the top goal scorer is listed as Wayne Rooney with 50 goals. This is incorrect, he is still on 47. See: englandstats.com | Wayne Rooney Yellowman94 Talk•Contribs 17:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Crown Dependencies
It seems that people are not aware that the England team also represents Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man in 'international football'. To make this clearer, I've added "FIFA-recognised" to the introduction.

The Guernsey Football Association, Jersey Football Association and Isle of Man Football Association are all county members of the Football Association but there are 'national' teams in those areas that play in non-FIFA recognised football (Island Games and CONIFA) and it causes some confusion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the wording of that sentence correct? I thought that players from the Crown Dependencies (e.g. Le Saux, Le Tissier) were eligible to represent all of the home nations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial badge in the infobox
The badge with the star in the infobox is unofficial. The badge of the national team officially    has not the star. The star used only in the shirt. --IM-yb (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rooney's goals in squad list
Rooney has 52 goals not 53 as shown in the current squad list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.6.118 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit for 27 June 2016
Someone remove Roy Hodgson from the head coach action because he has resigned after they lost to Iceland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.146.141 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Medical Staff
Please seek to remove Ian Beasley & Gary Lewin from the medical staff. Here is the source Gary Lewin & Dr Ian Beasley to leave The FA this summer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.171.185 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Managers - table
I think the page would benefit from a table of managers, showing years of service etc. pmailkeey 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.2.250 (talk)


 * Years?! Not for Big Sam... But here's a source for the six managers who served for the shortest periods – and for Walter Winterbottom's (unbelievable) 18 years in the job: Sam Allardyce: England manager leaves after one match in charge JezGrove (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Top scorers list too long
continues to insist on lengthening the list of goalscorers to include the top 38 scorers for England (although he has numbered the list wrong). This is far too many for this list, Wikipedia is not a factbook, and it places undue weight on players who have not had illustrious careers for England, including some who have played fewer than 10 games for the side. I agree with that the previous list of 20 was possibly larger than is merited, and many other national side pages have a top 10, or no mention of top scorers at all. My intention here is to try and build consensus on what the right balance is for this article, is 20 the right number? Should the list be shortened to only 10 (and presumably the top capped players list would be shortened to match)? Does anyone know of other discussions on this topic that may have come to a more general conclusion about the appropriate length of such sections (perhaps I will ask over at Wikiproject Football)? Thanks in advance for your input. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I searched the archives of WT:FOOTBALL and can't see anything. I feel we should have the same format on all national team articles, and the vast majority that I've checked have top 10 for both; this may need discussion on WT:FOOTBALL to gain a general consensus. I also think we need to sort out which players should be bolded – at present on this article it is all active players (i.e. Rooney, Cole); but most articles would, I think, unbold those players as not active internationally. OZOO (t) (c) 12:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

England national football team did a Nazi salute May 1938
Football, fascism and England's Nazi salute Per in Sweden (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay...? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Star / no star
I've removed the gold star from the England crest file because (a) the star isn't used by the FA as part of the men's team badge in any context outside the shirt itself (e.g. FA men's seniors website, men's team's official Twitter profile, Facebook profile); and (b) the same file is used across all men's and women's England football teams (senior and u21 etc), and the women's team doesn't use a star at all.

Personally, I don't think the star is part of the team's badge. At present it's used more as a decoration on the shirt, like a Scudetto. However, if consensus is against me and editors want to re-add it, I think it should be as a separate file, keeping the solo shield for use by other England football teams. It should also probably be silver, not gold. Charlie A. (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

removed honours
Davefelmer removed honours without any real explanation or questioning them on the talk page;


 * '''FA Summer Tournament
 * Winners: 2004


 * '''Tournament of France
 * Winners: 1997


 * '''England Challenge Cup
 * Winners: 1991

Should these be restored? Govvy (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally wouldn't; these were friendly tournaments, with no real status. They could be relabeled as 'Exhbition tournaments' or some such perhaps as:


 * Exhibition Tournaments
 * Winners: '2004 FA Summer Tournament, 1997 Tournoi de France, 1991 England Challenge Cup

Missing Subjects on Page
It has come to my notice that the article is missing substantial parts to which I hope it is reverted to its former state as soon as possible. Fadidos (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing Subjects on Page
It has come to my notice that the article is missing substantial parts to which I hope it is reverted to its former state as soon as possible. Fadidos (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

England national football team → England men's national football team – It has long been Wikipedia policy to use WP:COMMONNAMEs as article titles. However, this is not currently the case of England women's national football team. It has become commonplace across a broad range of reliable sources (BBC Sport; The Guardian; The Independent; Sky News; ITV News; Evening Standard; The Telegraph; Radio Times; ESPN; The Football Association ) to primarily refer to the team as 'England', not as 'England women'. Having established that there are two senior football sides commonly referred to as 'England', it's necessary to look to WP:DISAMBIG. The question is whether one can be deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

"While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:

A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

I would argue that there is no primary topic here, with neither of the above aspects being fulfilled. A page for the men's team clearly does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the women's team. Neither is it "much more likely" that readers are necessarily searching for the men's team when looking for information on the English football team. As evidence for this, I note that traffic for the England women's national football team was higher than for England national football team in June and July of this year. .

On the FA website, both sides are disambiguated with use of a gender prefix: "Men's senior"; "women's senior". In the fixture list (for each specific side), the names of the participating countries are listed without any gender qualifier for either team. I believe that this approach would be the best within Wikipedia: Article titles differentiated by gender; references within the article referring only to 'England' – just as is done within the United States men's national soccer team and United States women's national soccer team pages, with 'England national football team' becoming a disambiguation page (as currently operates the United States national soccer team page). Domeditrix (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The men's national team is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even if it's just for longevity. Whilst I appreciate trying to "reduce the gender gap" or similar verbiage, the women's team is not on the same level, and hasn't got the same history. Internet traffic isn't important here, and the women's team has only been relevant for around 8-10 years (before such it wasn't really a thing). In comparrison, the men's team is one of the oldest federations in the world.
 * In comparison, if it were a simple case of making both federations consistent, perhaps a move of England women's national football team to England national football team (women) would be more pertinent Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The men's team is not the federation, merely a team that are part of that federation. What you perceive as the 'level' of play isn't really relevant (though for what it's worth, the women's team consistently outranks and outperforms the men's team). Neither is history all too relevant if the conflict exists now. Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) clearly has more history than Anne Hathaway (the actress), and the United States men's national soccer team has been running for far longer than the United States women's national soccer team, for example. Domeditrix (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Also, the men's team isn't "one of the oldest federations", the FA are. The men's team, like the women's are part of that federation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Aside of the obvious PRIMARYTOPIC argument, COMMONNAME indicates that this is the primary football representative side of England and even the media when talking about the ladies say "women's" while it is generally understood that national football team means the men's team so no need to distinguish.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My submission actually shows that multiple outlets explicitly do not do as you say they do. They refer to 'England' and not 'England women'. Domeditrix (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - clear PRIMARYTOPIC, as clearly stated by Lee above. GiantSnowman 08:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose primary topic etc. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the arguments presented above, the men's side is still the primary topic. The time may come for this, but I don't think it's right now. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CRITERIA (Consistency) : there are 55 teams in Category:European national association football teams all of which are Country national fooball team and refer to the men's team. A more general discussion would be needed to change all of these rather than use the precedence quoted of the US teams. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have evidence of news sources from 54 other European nations not using the qualifer "women's" or "female" with the national team name, and that is an unreasonably high bar to clear. Per WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Domeditrix (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be an abuse of IAR if you cannot find any evidence for the other UEFA members (or even all of the FIFA members too).  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. Domeditrix (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * using IAR in this way would suggest that the rules and guidelines being presented against the move are somehow making wikipedia a worse place, and this would improve things. The argument for and against is simply about common name and primary topic, which isn't something that is fixed or replaced by IAR. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR can be applied when the existence of a rule, strictly applied (as WP:CRITERIA), prevents good changes being made to Wikipedia. Other national teams in Europe not being disambiguated is, to my mind, not sufficient reason to prevent any European national teams being disambiguated. WP:IAR is not a means of re-writing the rulebook, but a means of ensuring that bureaucracy does not win out. Domeditrix (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And as to the page view statistics, I note you start in August 2018, which is handily cuts out the last men's World Cup, where the men's team got over 1 million views in 2 consecutive months. The months of June and July were the Women's World Cup, where the women's article got 300k views in the 2 months combined. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No conspiracy, 12 months is just the default for monthly pageviews when using that tool. Of course there are spikes around certain tournaments – however if for 2 of the past 12 months the women's article has more pageviews than this page, it's tough to argue that this is "much more likely than any other" the topic people coming to Wikipedia are looking for. Domeditrix (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the one year time period, the men's article has 2.5 times the page views of the women's, even though it took part in no major tournaments in the period. Including the last men's WC, there is a factor of 6 difference between the page views. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I question your maths. 10/12 is a high level of confidence. When it's 22/24 and 34/36, and 46/48 and 57/60 it's somewhat selective. When taken month by month quantities are approx a 5:1 ratio in favour of "England" over "England Womens". I don't question your reasons, but I do suggest your defence is rubbish. Now if you had said many of the "England" results were actually false positives due to people seeking out the womens page, but even then I would suggest that the proportion would be remarkably low at present. Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should just be focusing on the England national team and not all UEFA or FIFA national teams. In certain cases, the "men's national team" title is appropriate - the United States men's national soccer team is generally referred to as such, or as the USMNT, so in that case putting "men's" in the title is appropriate. In this case, the England men's team is generally referred to as simply the England national team, so that's what we should use in the title. Smartyllama (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per all reasons above. Football is still generally differentiated by the core national team, and then the womens (be that "England Ladies" or "England Womens Senior football"). I would suggest that, actually, the Womens team is more commonly referred to as the "Lionesses" a lot of the time to specifically differentiate. I have no issue with an argument that there should be a "England Mens Senior Football" which should at present default to main "England national football team" just as "England Womens Senior Football" should default to the "England womens national football" as part of a general shift towards having disambiguation pages and links that reflect some of the common terminology being used in the media, but currently it remains very much an assumed "England = Men", "England Women = Women". Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - If you look at the navigation bar at the top of this page on the FA website, they refer to the "Men's Senior" and "Women's Senior" teams. There may never be true parity between the two sides, but I see little reason not to add "men's" to the England national football team article. In my experience, field hockey has long been considered predominantly a women's sport in the UK, but we still have England men's national field hockey team and England women's national field hockey team. If there were only one notable national team, e.g. England national netball team, then it makes sense to drop the gender from the title as it can be inferred from the context of the article, but this is not the case in football. – PeeJay 11:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The example for The Guardian is misleading. It is an article about Lucy Bronze so it is already established that it refers to women's football and that references to national teams (England, Scotland, etc) in the text refer to the women's teams. However, the article is categorized under "England women's football team", whereas articles about the men's team are categorized under "England" (e.g. ). In addition if you look at club football competitons in their listing they have Premier League, Championship, etc. and the only one prefixed is Women's Super League. Similarly for Champions League and Woman's Champions League.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Women's Super League and Women's Champions League are both the official competition names, which explains their usage there. As for your first point, you're making your own inference, and the exact same argument could be used to justify adding "men's" to this page: The Guardian only omits the prefix of "men's" in [article] because it is about Harry Kane, so it is already established that references within the body are to men's football. Domeditrix (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * as another counterpoint to the use of The Guardian, some of their WC reports use "Women" in the team names / lineups, such as the semi-final report and minute-by-minute and separate their indexes into men (England, no qualifier) and women (England women's football team) Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict - I don't think that is necessarily true. For instance in the top left of each mens article it only refers to "England". In the top left of the womens article it is described as "England Women". When the story is about an individual league then your point appears to be relevant, but not for the International. Koncorde (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 11:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose simply on the grounds of primary topic, people don't think "England's football team? Which one, men's or women's?". People searcing for the women's team will preemptively disambiguate the search term themselves. Of course, I think this is the case at the present and may change. So it's potentially WP:TOOSOON.  Lazz _R  12:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per (most of the) reasons above. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many excellent arguments above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator, GiantSnowman, and PeeJay2K3. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure GiantSnowman didn't support this nomination. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he means that he supports the nominator’s, GiantSnowmans’ and your arguments. Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 17:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense, but okay. – PeeJay 17:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but suggest an alternative. The WP:COMMONNAME for all the teams is the England Football Team. The gender / age group is usually assumed in the premise (i.e. watching the Euro U21, its a given they are talking about the England U21 team). Also I don't like the name including "national" - and prefer the England cricket team style (its generally isn't said and is unnecessary - its a given). Therefore I suggest we call the pages "England football team" in all cases, with clarification in parenthesis. i.e.
 * - England football team (Men's Senior)
 * - England football team (Women's Senior)
 * - England football team (Men's Under 21)
 * - England football team (Women's Under 21)
 * - etc etc

The England football team could provide a link to all options. Jopal22 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Already long established gender equality in our societies would favour the move, however, while in society, generally speaking, woman and man share equal status, that is not the case in football. Woman are still very far from archiving equality when the issue is quality, popularity and coverage in football. When we talk football, we are still refering to man football overwelmingly. The disambiguation factor is vastly used only to specify woman´s football in opposition to man´s. What I would like is to call the attention to the fact that this RfM is one of those with potential domino effect, so it should include a much wider range of editors than just the ones involved with the article in qiestion. For instance, I am sure England nt article is already so well edited and watched by a number of good senior editors, that my contributions are much more needed elsewhere. Even having the article in my watchlist would not be beneficial because would only contribute to the pile of articles I am currently not involved in, so will just distract from the ones I need to watch. In this case it was crucial the mention of the discussion at FOOTY talk-page, otherwise it would have passed unoticed. Although English nt article surelly gathers much valiuable editors, the result may effect the other nt articles, so, in my opinion, this would be a discussion that would rather be about moving all nt articles according to a gender, or not. The acknolledgment of the importance of the move does validate the call for attention of a much wider group of editors, at least all from WP:FOOTY. FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update - I mean, wouldn´t be better to ask this RfM generally for all national teams rather then just an English one and espect a domino effect? FkpCascais (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current name is the primary topic.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose of this as the national team is usually the main thing that people search up when they are looking for the national team. Other than that most of my thoughts have already been said earlier on. HawkAussie (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. England national football team pageviews (last 30 days): 139 438, England women's national football team (last 30 days): 17 806. Corwin of Amber (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I strongly support a move, for the reasons outlined in the proposal, I also agree that most football editors here won't yet be amenable to such a bold change. As can be seen by some of the more backward comments above, the delineation between "football" and "women's football" is still very jealously guarded. Perhaps in another 5–10 years some wider increases in editor education/maturity levels might allow for these sorts of moves. Here's hoping! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Daz, if you don't mind casting aspersions is unwarranted. All reasons given by every user above as I can see is couched in Wikipedia policy. And while WP:BOLD or WP:IAR might be invoked by some, WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * The two criteria given for the change by the nominator (his interpretation of PrimaryTopic) were patently false and all evidence presented by all those in opposition verified it.
 * Now if there is some better argument, policy, or even just a proactive push to disambiguate every single subject such as "West Ham Utd F.C. Men" and "West Ham United F.C. Women" ignoring all COMMONNAME and PRIMARY policies then you might have some kind of case. However I really don't forsee any significant change until the sport and all reliable sources change, of which Wikipedia is a reflection rather than independent. Koncorde (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, that when we say "World Cup", we overwhelming mean the FIFA World Cup, but the page is not set up that way (World Cup), so in some ways a precedent has already been set. Jopal22 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bare in mind there are over 50 different world cups. If you believe that the FIFA World Cup is the primary topic, put in a move requests there. Other things may exist, but they shouldn't change unrelated discussions Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and per the arguments made above. Ben5218 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kits
There seems to be a big wide white-space between the Kit Supplier table and the kit deals, I couldn't work out a way to limit the white-space, maybe someone else can fix it. Govvy (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I recently made a change to that section. Did that fix what you were intending to do? Ben5218 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Different, I thought those two tables could be next to each other. It is better than before know. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021
Hi, I am trying to redirect people who search for enft to my page User:ENFT, but every time I do it gets redirected to your page, so kindly requesting you to please let me edit this. ENFT (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Also, an attempt like this is considered promotional. Jalen Folf   (talk)  07:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Back Home (England album)
This album has book sources, but I'm surprised couldn't find an LP cover or tracklist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

England's performance at euro 2016 was absolutely abysmal. We lacked skill, passion and determination. If we are to succeed as a nation we need someone that can contribute much than what Roy Hodgson can. Although England dominate and control the field, we are lacking in the final third. Alan shearer has the charisma and quite clearly shown attitude to succeed as England boss. he's someone that the players will clearly respect and be proud to play for!! Louisshotton (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing NyongAnoa (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing NyongAnoa (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021
"England need a Third place finish at Euro 96 added to Honours list." 2A00:23C4:D917:5901:2970:BAED:1C28:8DED (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please supply a source saying they finished 3rd (there was no 3rd place play-off in that tournament). Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Euros 96
"At UEFA Euro 1996, held in England, they equalled their best performance at a European Championship, reaching the semi-finals as they did in 1968, before exiting via another penalty shoot-out loss to Germany.[36]"

Anyone feel this is too small? For one, it is no longer their best performance at the Euros. It also omits the complete demolition Netherlands (an iconic England game) and England's first ever penalty win: the Spain game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.165.53 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hodgson age correction
The page states that Roy Hodgson, oldest manager to take the job was 61 years, 9 months and 3 days old when he took the job. However on 1st May 2012 when The FA appointed Hodgson he was 64 years 8 months 23 days, on 14th May 2012 when he officially assumed the role he was aged 64 years 9 months 5 days Jrediting29 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No changes can be made unless you give reliable sources. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

England football team wiki
A semi finals finish at Euro 1996 needs to be added to the 'Honours' list at the end of the Competitive Record section. 2A00:23C4:D917:5901:90C5:4A9A:73EF:34E7 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Honours section
A Semi final finish at Euro 1996 needs to be added. 2A00:23C4:D917:5901:90C5:4A9A:73EF:34E7 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Sports Personality of the Year Awards: England and Gareth Southgate won Team and Coach
Hello Everyone, please if possible can edited onto England Men's Football Team Wikipedia article, that England won the BBC Sports Team of the Year Award, and Gareth Southgate won BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award at the 2021 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards on the 19 December 2021.

Here a website source/link with confirmation and further information about Sports Personality of the Year Awards 2021: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/59681685?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

Thank you. 2.101.170.11 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

England at the UEFA Nations League, Wikipedia article page.
2.101.168.231 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Everyone,

Enquiring to request and create a Wikipedia article page called "England at the UEFA Nations League", a similar page to England at the FIFA World Cup and England at the UEFA European Championship Wikipedia article pages. and also add a link to main article of "England at the UEFA Nations League" on the competitive record in the UEFA Nations League section on England Men's Football Team Wikipedia article page.

For the "England at the UEFA Nations League" Wikipedia article page. Edit information and website sources of all England's appearances, football matches results, and the seasons league position standings, and the England squad, and the coaching staff during the UEFA Nations League tournament on the Wikipedia article page.

Thank you. 2.101.168.231 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it yet qualifies for a WP:SPLIT, I doubt it meets WP:GNG for being independently notable either. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022
Please change “England national football team” to “England men’s national football team” 95.148.116.137 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This has previously been discussed in 2019 if you read a few sections above on the talk page. Things may have changed now, feel free to build consensus here Cannolis (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022
In the interests of equality please could this page be renamed "England men's national football team". Thanks Strangebuttrueyoumightsay (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022
add Tyrick Mitchell in DF current squad as he has been called up 207.35.1.2 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (looks like someone has done this) Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022
Removing all of this section from the history section (Roy Hodgson, Sam Allardyce and Gareth Southgate) below. Nations League matches are not significant enough to be mentioned in England's history in comparison to FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro matches. Also, the history section would be too slanted towards recent events in my opinion.

"In the 2022-23 UEFA Nations League England were drawn in Group A3 with Germany, Italy and Hungary . England failed to win any of their first four games in the competition, with their first three results being 1-0 defeat away to Hungary, a 1-1 away draw with Germany, and a 0-0 draw with Italy at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton. On 14 June 2022, in their fourth game of competition (also played in Wolverhampton), England were convincingly beaten 4-0 by Hungary, their heaviest home defeat since Scotland won 5-1 at Wembley in 1928.  This defeat led to media and fans questioning manager and player credentials ahead of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. " (talk)
 * "Nations league matches are not significant enough to be mentioned". I don't see why nations league is somehow not a notable thing to comment on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Important figures in football such as Jurgen Klopp describing it as "a senseless competition" and Kevin De Bruyne describing the tournament as "glorified friendlies". Michaeldble (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

England medals
We got a Bronze medal at Euro '96. Please reflect this in the article. BRACK66 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Via - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_European_Championship#Trophy
 * "UEFA decided in the 2008 edition to award the semi-final losers (Turkey and Russia) bronze medals for the first time" Ron Stowmarket (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

American Grammar on an English page, on an English topic
Can we please drop the Americanisations?! This is an article about the English football and should therefore follow the grammar rules that are used in British English. The differences are subtle but important. Changing them to English shouldn’t inhibit the understanding for Americans at all.

In some cases it is OK to use the singular "is, have etc" when referring to the team. But, in general, the team should be referred to in the plural "are, have etc". This is a minor but important difference between American and British English.

"It played in the..." is an incorrect (and extremely ugly) sentence, for example. "They played in the..." is correct. There are numerous examples of this throughout the article.

This is a page on an international website, about an English team, about a culture with far more resonance in Britain than the US, and should therefore follow the British English form. It would be incredibly patronising to think that Americans are unable to understand a minor grammatical switch.

Sorry if this comes across as a rant. I confess a bias: I am fed up with the American colonisation of English football. While I obviously welcome new fans of the sport, they ought to take the brief time to learn the vernacular and culture, rather than vandalising it with their own. 46.34.228.158 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's only a hunch, but because of the World Cup, I reckon the Wales/England pages might be heavily edited by US people. That would explain the American grammar all over them. Remarkably, 'Wales National Soccer Team' still manages to find the Welsh XI. PeachyBum07 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

FIFA Rankings table
Is it a mistake that the second column of the table under the FIFA Rankings header has 210 in every row or am I misunderstanding what it is supposed to be? TripleJayDoubleYou (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's wrong. Was broken in Special:Diff/1100608918. .  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

1996 third place medal as honour
All other teams have third place as an honour (medal) for tournaments after 1980. The page does not include this. 2A00:23C6:5400:2201:A8D1:B41F:77F6:4345 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
England third place honour 1996 and medal. All other countries after 1980 at semi final level have this as an honour and medal. 2A00:23C6:5400:2201:A8D1:B41F:77F6:4345 (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

RANKINGS
the rankings of the english team are innaccurate, pretty sure they haven't been 210th for 20 years now. TTTTRZON (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Team Records
Hi, you may like to change the following from "Matches without conceding a goal" to "Most consecutive matches without conceding a goal" to reflect its true identity. Thanks 120.16.56.111 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Why isn’t this titled the English men’s national football team?
If the women’s team is English women’s national football team, why doesn’t this article explicitly identify as the men’s rather than forcing you to read the next sentence on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.53.153 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to change the title right now. Consensus was in a long time ago that it should be changed. If it's the men's team, it should say so right away, rather than making you figure it out later. It's disruptive to people trying to navigate wikipedia, and it's just weird and confusing to have "team and women's team." I will make the change soon if no one else does. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

England men's national football team?
Should this not be called the "England men's national football team"? Dotvicky (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON. Reliable sources don't refer to them as this, and WP:COMMONNAME suggests this isn't the case right now. Maybe soon. Consistency in naming is trumped by what sources say. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this language has now become more common, and in Euro 2020 championship there is regular reference by the media to this being the "Men's team". Luke O&#39;Rafferty (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * These posts saying it's not common enough yet are from several years ago. I exclusively hear the teams referred to as men's and women's now. If you don't say men's specifically, no one will know which one you're talking about. Especially after the women won the Euro 2022. I'll make the change soon unless anyone has any disagreements. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Page move
Erm, User:Siliconred, why have you renamed this page when there was a clear consensus not to on this talk page? Jopal22 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the move based off the September move request. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t seen this conversation. Thanks for the tag here. Not entirely sure I agree with the characterization of that thread as clear consensus, though, considering many Support arguments and the thread closed after just a week. It is closed, though, so this will by my last comment on this. SiliconRed (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus was quite clear, as I summarised above in response to Daz Simpson: 1. Nobody presented any policy based arguments to make the change that wasn't either utterly fabricated or misrepresented in the initial loaded move request. Or 2. Was based upon the concept of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Basic foundations of COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC swept the discussion and unless something happens to significantly change those basic principles we will not see an immediate change. Koncorde (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with an argument, it doesn't automatically make it "utterly fabricated", nor was the move request no more "loaded" than any other move request. Indeed, the guidance which I followed, as it was my first move request, states: "Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic".
 * Make your point freely, but there's no need to belittle other editors just because you disagree with them over something. Domeditrix (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If the argument had been fabricated and I agreed with it, I would have said the same thing. Check my edit history - I do not stand on ceremony when it comes to criticising inaccuracy regardless of my personal stance or preference. You can read my replies in context in the previous section rather than getting into it again here as to why I am being generous in my assessment of "fabrication". Koncorde (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't look very hard. WP:RMUM says undiscussed moves are ok if: There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. The second of these is somewhat subjective, but you can't have checked the first at all. Whether the consensus was clear or not, there was a discussion, which precludes any undiscussed move. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Arguments against moving the page are outdated (from 4 years ago). England men are no longer the primary topic. It's time to move the page. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Title change
Can we change the title to England men's national football team? It's a huge problem to not be informed by the title of what topic the article is discussing. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you not noticed the helpful hatnote: This article is about the men's team. For the women's team, see England women's national football team. or read the guidance on Article titles? Spike &#39;em (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern was about the title, not about the small print clarifying the poorly worded title. Just write it in the title and make it normal and easy for everyone. The title should tell you what the article is about. If the title does not tell you the bare minimum necessary information of what team it is discussing, the title needs to be changed. Labelling the men's team the men's team is completely uncontroversial. People are not going to stop asking for it to be changed until it is changed. This title as is breaks multiple rules of Wikipedia's guidelines, such as precision and inconsistency with other national teams that appropriately specify which national football team it is. If you wish, the page "England national football team" can lead to a list of the England national football teams, so people can choose which one they were looking for. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What about COMMONNAME and consistency with the far larger number of international teams which don't specify Men's in the title? The hatenote allows easy navigation to the other similarly named article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a hatnote on the women's article directing people to the men's article as well. Hatnotes are there to help users, not to clarify misleading titles like this one. The men should have men in the title and then the note about the women, just like the US men's team does. England is more comparable to the US than other teams. There are many more articles that should also change their titles. COMMONNAME is the perfect reason to change the name. For people who are fans of football, it is definitely ridiculous to expect them to know which team they're talking about when it literally does not say which team they're talking about. Will we change the names to "England men's team" and "England team" if the women continue winning major tournaments? They should both specify which team it is. Their own organization refers to both teams as "England" and then states the gender when necessary. For people who are not fans of football and using Wikipedia to introduce themselves, it is equally confusing to expect them to guess which national team it is when they are not fully informed, and they might not even realize there are two teams (I have encountered that problem many times), therefore Wikipedia is misleading users. The article having an "oh oops sorry, by the way!! in case you were tricked by this title, this is the men's team" in fine print is just poor writing. COMMONNAME is about being recognizable. Blankly saying England team when there are two senior England national teams is absolutely unrecognizable. After reading Wiki guidelines many times, I believe you're using COMMMONNAME incorrectly. It is not as if both teams are fighting for the spot to just be called "team." Both teams have their own perfectly recognizable titles (men's and women's). If it was a battle to get recognized as just "team," then you could bicker if the men's or women's team "deserves" the spot. But that is not the case. They each have their own title and it's perfectly simple just to call them what they are. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of gender of team within title and article
This page explicitly discusses the England Men's football team, and should not assume male without clarification. Title and subject should be updated accordingly. Jessac (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As per consensus above in multiple threads, wikipedia applies WP:COMMONNAME. Almost all sources call it the English national team - so must we Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many sources refer to the women's side as the English national team.  Why is the default gender male? Domeditrix (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The men's team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There have been quite a few comments above about this topic, but it needs to be discussed at a more general level (at WP:FOOTY / WP:SPORTS / somewhere else?) than at an individual article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See, but a better location for this conversation would be at WP:FOOTY. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made a move request here, but have added a topic on WP:FOOTY notifying people of the move request. Domeditrix (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The practise of refering to a sports team by gender only for the women's team is a fundamentally sexist practise. Both sides should be referred to with the gender in the title page and in the main article. This practise has been common in the past but that is because we live in a highly sexist world. This practise is starting to change, as can be seen reflected in the official names used on the FA webpages and increasingly by news outlets. If wikipedia does not want to be known as an outdated place, perputating inequality, this name change must happen now. Whilst this change needs to happen for all gender specific sports teams across Wikipedia, a significant first step would be to change this page. GS (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Feel free to try and gain a consensus for the move, but the common name for the team has been such as the title, for well over a hundred years. A move in my eyes is a WP:RECENTIST fix. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Needs an actual argument to gain traction. On last discussion there wasn't a single request that wasn't based out of RGW or misrepresentation. Koncorde (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the WP:Precision aspect? Currently the article clarifies under the header that it refers to the men's team, and provides a link to the women's team. This could be clarified and simplified in the small edit of adding the word "men's." Moreover, most of User: Lee Vilenski's arguments against the change are about WP:COMMONNAME. But someone directly addressed that below, saying it has become commonplace for the women's team to be referred to simply as 'England.' Are there any actual arguments against the change, beyond those disparaging it as political or WP:TOOSOON? (And if it's too soon, when the WP:COMMONNAME has already changed, I'd ask when the correct time would be to make the adjustment?)SanDWesting (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to argue that the long-term significance of the men's team in terms of "notability" and "education value" is going to so "substantially" outweigh the women's team? Or that it's "highly likely,"  overwhelmingly  likely that someone typing the term "England national football" is only looking for the men's team? Because either way it doesn't seem to be a very compelling argument. Particularly when a one word addition would resolve the issue. SanDWesting (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The relative page views of the 2 articles makes the second point very easy to demonstrate.Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. I constantly click on men's articles by accident merely because it neutrally says national football team, even when I'm trying to get to the women's page. If I deliberately search for women's football in my search engine, it will often give me men's wiki pages, even if I type out "women." It's a poor setup by wikipedia, and it's not allowing users to properly navigate their way to articles. Change it now. Especially after the Euro win and everyone is searching for the women's team. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A huge number of people are asking for the title of the men's team to be changed. It's common sense to do so; this is an encyclopedia for learning and we need to be clear. Comments claiming the men are the primary topic and the women are not referred to as just England are from 4 years ago. Football discussion has changed a lot since then. Even back in 2019, many sources referred to the men's as men, and to the women's as just England. But now in 2023, it's nearly unheard of to not specify the gender of the team. All men's national team articles should have their names changed to specify which team they are. This is overdue and just causing completely unnecessary confusion when someone clicks on an article not even knowing it's about the men. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you need three (at least) topics where you are pushing for this? Start up an RM or stop.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might have misread because I only started one topic on this, and it was the only topic started since several years ago. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't it England 'men's' national football team??
Why is the women's team page 'women's national..'but men's is just the national football team. Aren't we past that? 2A00:23C6:9A86:C901:5425:17D8:670A:DE54 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the WP:COMMONNAME for the team.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Half the discussion on this talk page is asking for the name to be changed to England men's national football team. It needs to be changed. All national teams should. But especially England right now when the women's team is more prominent than the men's (with the Euro win, higher ticket sales, and the Women's World Cup coming up this summer). Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Lots of people having the same misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines is NOT a reason to change a page name.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of people are having trouble navigating wikipedia because of these foolish titles. It needs to be changed for clarity. You literally have no idea what this article is about by reading the title of the article, and that is a tremendous problem. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed: moving the page needs consensus, and there clearly is not consensus to do this. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The last time I can see a consensus was asked for was almost half a decade ago. Recently it seems like consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of not using an ambiguous title. A title should inform the reader of the topic of the article. It kind of sucks we even need to ask for this and wait so long for it to be done, when other countries had the pages originally created as men's national team in the first place. The amount of times I thought the men's pages were the women's pages because it doesn't state which team it is is infuriating. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No consensus in half a decade? This has been discussed ad nauseum almost constantly, and has had distinct consensus every time. Other countries (for instance the United States team) constantly refers to it's teams by gender throughout its history (or at least the majority of it). That simply isn't true for England, and a lot of the other European national teams. Even now, the majority of press, broadcast, and print media refer to the team as "the England team" or "the national England team" or simply "England". And, that's not even mentioning the RECENTISM bias, as the team has been universally called the "England national football team" for 150 years or so.
 * In short, the article's WP:COMMONNAME is what the articles title is currently at, and the men's senior team is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although the other teams (juniors, women's, disability etc.) all have their own natural disambiguation.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If we were going by recentism bias, we'd be calling it England and England men's. No one is asking for that. Just simply clarify which team it is about. There's no reason for Wikipedia to be a puzzle to navigate. This is the England men's national football team. If the press refers to it as "the England team," "the national England team," or "England" then why isn't the title of the article merely one of those? Because we, as an encyclopedia, need to mention football and men to clarify something here that in context of a broadcast about men's football does not need to be clarified at the moment. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk)
 * The men's team is absolutely not the primary topic. The women have higher ticket sales and have in the past year won a major tounament for England. The last time the men won anything was 1966. Would we change the names to England team and England men's team? The Women's World Cup is this summer and almost all discussion will be about the women's team, not the men's, so it is especially a disservice right now when millions of people will be clicking the men's article thinking it's the women's. No one is asking for the men's article to be sidelined or pushed down in any way. We are just asking to simply clarify which team it's talking about. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not split my comments up. Quite frankly, what you've said above is completely irrelevant. Please either drop the stick, or start up a formal WP:RM.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean about splitting comments. I replied underneath. I am discussing a topic that hasn't been discussed in years. I don't know how to start an rm so you can do it if you wish. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have replied to 7 different threads about this and have started an 8th. You are continuing to debate this in 2 places and it is impossible to keep track of this. Start a formal WP:RM and stop all the other discussions. I oppose moving the page, but will take no further part until a proper discussion is started. Spike &#39;em (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are 8 threads on the same topic then maybe it's time to move it. If the page was originally titled England men's national football team, would anyone be arguing to change it to England national football team? Stating "men's" is clearly superior. I'm looking for arugments to keep it, but all I can see is people saying the readers should be forced to guess which team it is because they might assume it's men's. This is an extremely basic clarity issue. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of create a move request or drop it was so hard to understand? Because you keep replying in so many different locations, I'm going to close the topics so there is just one open. At that location you can follow the instructions at WP:RM to start up a doscussion.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Rename page: England men's national football team
I would like to seek other editors' opinion about whether it would be correct to rename the page to reflect that the article is about the men's team. Since this is the accepted format for the women's team, why not for the men's? --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the silence answers this question. Perhaps in the future this may indeed be the case, but the decision at this stage would be most likely to be ideologically driven. Calling them the England male non-disability national football team would be correct but unnecessarily specific. Wikipedia does not have a duty to challenge perceived manifestations of patriarchy. 188.30.36.1 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say we should be in line with whatever the FA describes the football team as. At the moment if you look at a fixture list on the FA website, it uses the description "England Women" for women's games, but simply "England" for men's games. If you wish something to be renamed it should be backed up with being in line with the naming the organisation running it uses, otherwise there will just be ideological arguments. Jopal22 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * On the FA website, both sides are now referred to with a gender prefix: "Men's senior"; "women's senior" . In the fixture list (for each specific side), the names of the participating countries are listed without any gender qualifier for either team. I think this shows that the FA at least consider both to be 'England', with no specific gender being able to lay claim as being the default (as is currently the case on Wikipedia). It is also increasingly common that the England women's national football team is referred to solely as 'England' by major broadcasters. Match reports from the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News all refer to the side as 'England', not 'England Women' (or something similar).   It makes sense either to have "England national football team" as a disambiguation page, with links to the men's side, the women's side, and potentially junior sides – just as the page for the United States national soccer team currently functions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Domeditrix. Yeah I do think this will eventually move that way. I'm not sure the naming convention is in common usage yet though. The isn't a England National team specific discussion, and you should bear in mind WP:CRITERIA, especially "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". As such I think this is a discussion that should be had on WP:FOOTBALL so we have consistency across all articles. My inclination is that most people will push back that we aren't at a point that we refer to the team as "men's" in common usage yet. Your welcome to argue your case though. Jopal22 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why this still hasn't been changed. As per Jopal22's original point, the article should match the FA descriptions and using gender prefixes for both teams would do that. Plus it would remove the need for disambiguation, which I think is desirable in its own right. 24.4.31.254 (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Has there been any update on changing this as per the FA’s website and the references listed on this thread? The current title is now technically incorrect- as Jopal22 pointed out, it should follow the FA’s official titles EleanorRigby22 (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been many discussions about the page name and WP:COMMON NAME is still preferred over Official name Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, please can you point me to where these other discussions are? I can only see this one, where people have raised valid points around the FA naming conventions. The point above about naming standardisations across Wikipedia (WP:CRITERIA) is ambiguous - the US national football team is formatted as one headline page with the US National Men’s/Women’s Soccer Team as two separate pages, so what is the issue with changing this one? SanSiro90 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are at least 5 discussions about this on this talk page. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And and  Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links. I have read them all, and it seems that when you say “WP:COMMON NAME is still preferred over Official name”, the people “preferring” it are a very small number of people (including yourself on most replies). Why do such a small group of users get to decide the title of the page when it seems the number of users writing asking to update it seem to outnumber those who oppose it? SanSiro90 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a case of me preferring it, it is part of the WP:AT policies. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "England national football team" is practically never used. They would would say anything from England to England men's team to England men to England football team and more. "England national football team" is definitely not the common name in media, but Wikipedia must of course clarify that we are talking about the football team, the men's team, and the "national" team. "Men's" is used in media significantly more often than "national" and "football" are, so it's very strange and confusing to omit men (and only men) from the title, when we of course need to clarify that this is the men's national football team. "England national football team" confuses readers and very strongly goes against Wikipedia's rule on precision, while "England men's national football team" is perfect. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Can I ask why it is preferred, especially as it isn’t the official name? EleanorRigby22 (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The policy on article titled is is explained in the link above. There is also an essay at WP:OFFICIAL Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We simply don't change article titled because an organisation changes its name. It is overwhelmingly called the "England national football team". This is also a historical thing, we don't simply change things due to WP:RECENTISM  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes PLEASE change the name. So many people have been talking about changing the name that I think consensus is in, and it should be done. I'm very into football and I'm perfectly familiar with the teams, and even I click on the men's articles that don't specify men in the title, and I start going through the article thinking it was the women's page, and I get all the wrong information and I'm confused for a minute before I realize I was on the men's page. I do this all the time and it's incredibly annoying. For people who are trying to use this encyclopedia and learn, this is a truly terrible setup. Also, the United States and Canada already say men's national team as the title, so it'd be common sense to do it with all countries. I'm willing to change it if no one else feels like it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Rivalries
Only rivalries with Scotland, Germany and Argentina are mentioned - I appreciate these are perhaps the rivalries with the most to talk about, so perhaps deserve their own section, but I'd argue it is at least worth mentioning rivalries with France, Wales and Ireland - The England-Ireland rivalry even has its own page 2A00:23C7:DC0B:D01:C4BB:7790:7084:7250 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have some reliable sources for these? Michaeldble (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * England - Wales:
 * https://www.vice.com/en/article/xybyqw/wales-vs-england-an-age-old-rivalry-searching-for-modern-relevance
 * https://theathletic.com/3945484/2022/11/29/wales-england-rivalry-world-cup/
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63742682
 * England - Ireland:
 * https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/0313/1116672-ireland-england-sporting-rivalry/
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/england-ireland-jack-grealish-declan-rice-b1721479.html
 * https://extra.ie/2020/11/11/sport/soccernews/ireland-england-matches
 * England - France:
 * https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/england-vs-france-is-far-more-than-a-football-match/
 * https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/france-england-football-world-cup-saturday-rivalry-b1044933.html
 * https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/09/france-hugo-lloris-predicts-big-battle-with-england-in-world-cup-quarter-final-qatar-2022 2A00:23C7:DC0B:D01:2846:8F:8F06:EE1B (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @2A00:23C7:DC0B:D01:2846:8F:8F06:EE1B Looks good to me, I think they're worth a mention Michaeldble (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023
Update England's FIFA to non-archived link: (https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/associations/ENG) in (External links) because it is archived in 2019. 154.180.3.130 (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  08:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023
Change title, "England National Football Team" to "England Men's National Football Team". 2A00:23C5:E484:801:F492:3798:6577:C7E5 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Xan747 (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023
The Euros haven’t had a 3rd place play off since 1980 so it’s incorrect for England to have a bronze medal listed for the 1996 euros. 2A00:23EE:15A8:5FEA:9887:F510:7FC6:C03A (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1996 bronze medal should be removed from the medal record as England did not receive a medal for that year as the last third place play off for the men’s euros was in 1980. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/3rd-place-play-off-euro-2020-rules-is-england-semi-final-euros-fixtures-explained-1089561 2A00:23EE:19B8:69DE:4C5F:D149:3B4A:5BB2 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

England Women Football Team
There are both Men and Women representing England. The womens team Lionesses winnng EURO 2022 - the page should reflect both of our England teams. 86.154.230.207 (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See England national women's football team. This page refers to the team that has historically had this name - see WP:COMMONNAME.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've wanted to move this page for years. The media already reflect the dual nature of coverage, so should we. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone start a discussion on moving the page? It is especially important to move it now with the Women's World Cup coming up in 3 weeks; it will cause a lot of confusion if the they think the men's teams are the women's teams since they are unspecific. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Please someone move the page to England men's national football team asap. It's getting silly at this point! I get so annoyed when I click on a page and start skimming through it to find some info but I've been looking at the men's page the whole time. Just call it men's. There's no need to make wikipedia a puzzle. "You can probably assume if it doesn't specificy, it means men's..." Ok first of all, no you can't. After the Euro win, a lot of people assume England means women's. Second, you shouldn't have to play mind games and guess which team is which. Just say it in the title. No confusion, simple. People are never going to stop asking for it to be changed until it gets changed. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. With the women's team reaching the World Cup Final, they deserve equal weighting of terminology going forward. By not qualifying the men's team page title, the women's team is automatically diminished as being defined as 'not the men's team'. Equality would be for both to be qualified on individual pages, and for this page to lead to both through disambiguation. 37.30.122.152 (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @37.30.122.152 was me, sorry for not being logged in. Lowndesc (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When more than one entity falls under the same name/description it really should always lead to a disambiguation page so that there's no "first come, first serve" silliness when another entity with equal claim to the name comes along. kyoukoku (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the change should be made asap before everyone starts searching "England football team" for the final on Sunday and being given the wrong page. All the national teams needs to be changed. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary for the same reason you don't need to add "senior" to differentiate from the youth teams, or "able-bodied" to differentiate from disabled people's football. The article represents the entity that is widely known as "England national football team". Trying to equate the women's team to it in notoriety is just baseless activism. Joe Sins (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Tournoi de France - exhibition or not?
In this article the Tournoi de France is referred to as an exhibition. But is it? On the tournament's page it doesn't say so, and in the talk page a user argues that it is not a friendly or exhibition. So who is right? BlackenedTheUSSR (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The RSSSF, which is a reliable source has the England matches as friendlies. https://www.rsssf.org/tablese/eng-intres95.html Bocafan76 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be added as a source both in this page and in the tournament's page? BlackenedTheUSSR (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023
Change title and all references to England men’s national football team. 2A00:23C7:ED7E:1D01:90FA:9C82:96D2:E180 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HouseBlastertalk 22:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024 (2)
Change "England national football team" to "England mens national football team" 62.49.54.83 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)