Talk:Afghanistan national football team

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Afghanistan national football team article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Afghanistan High‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: National Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the national teams task force (assessed as High-importance).

Requested move 23 September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago154 comments63 people in discussion

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: no consensus. After two weeks, there is clearly no consensus for all of these moves. There are strong arguments on both sides but none with the level of support to indicate an overall consensus, and more time for discussion likely will not lead to a consensus being created here.

A future discussion held only regarding cases where there is a women's team would be more likely to succeed, and such a discussion could be opened immediately after this RM. Given the overall level of opposition, however, it would be inappropriate to find that as the consensus from this discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

– etc., for all articles in the format "<Country> national football team". This is a follow-up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 163 § National team RfC and was requested at User talk:Ixtal by @Amakuru. Relevant links to previous discussions: Post-closure discussion at Ixtal's talk page and the post-closure discussion at WT:FOOTY.

Note: Some articles have been moved to the proposed title format before this RM was filed, like Brazil men's national football team and Portugal men's national football team, due to the RfC. If this discussion closes with a consensus not to move, those moves will be reverted. All moves have been reverted by Amakuru. Articles like United States men's national soccer team, which have used the proposed format before the RfC was closed, will not be affected. – Material Works 10:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Football has been notified of this discussion. – Material Works 10:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support - Same reasoning I gave in the RfC. I'd support most of these remaining as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT although I'd expect some to become disambiguation pages. My only query is should articles like Palau and Niue be moved? They are the only national football teams from those countries as there has never been a women's team so there is no need for disambiguation. That could obviously change in future but we can cross that bridge if we come to it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment - the alleged consensus to move all these articles and, in many cases, create new disambiguation pages, appears to have overlooked the broader consensus that those who want to move an existing article (in some cases, with thousands of incoming links from other articles) to make room for a disambiguation page are responsible for fixing the links to the existing article. In this case, that will also entail fixing templates that create links to the titles that are proposed to be moved; for example, {{fbicon}}. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I have noted, the Spain national football team now being a dab page has resulted in 6,000 broken links. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The vast majority of those incoming links comes from Template:Fb. St Anselm (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a moot point now as the moves have been reverted but I fully agree with the FIXDABLINKS consensus. Ideally, the pages which are not deemed appropriate as a PRIMARYREDIRECT would remain as redirects until the links are sorted rather than vice versa. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
StAnselm that was 6,000 excluding the ones from templates. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment - Just to add to what I said above as all affected pages have now been added, do we need to move some of the historical teams? For example, there was no corresponding women's team for Curaçao 1921–58 or Ireland so is it necessary to disambiguate these? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, sorry - due to the sheer numbers, I had to generate the above list in a bit of an automated fashion, based on outgoing links from List of men's national association football teams. Some of those indeed aren't likely to have equivalent women's teams. We could remove them, I don't know if the bot gets confused if there are missing numbers in the |currentN= |newN= parameters... — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, you were right to include them. It will allow a full discussion that way. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support in most cases, the coverage of women's national teams (e.g. live broadcasts on main network television channels) is sufficient to say in most cases that there isn't a primary topic now. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Withdrawn ~~Support - Per nomination. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 16:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)~~Reply
Comment re: primary redirects. Moving Foo national football team to Foo men's national football team while keeping a primary redirect from the former to the latter only creates unnecessary disambiguation. See WP:CONCISE. This proposal only makes sense if Foo national football team articles become dabpages, per WP:TWODABS. 162 etc. (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I think this is where I still fall on this. It feels like it might be creating a lot of unnecessary disambiguation pages when there is a clear primary topic for probably 90% of these teams, maybe more. I still think this should be done based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, but if we DO move these pages, almost all of them will have redirects to the men's teams, which is going to create a lot of edit warring. It feels like an attempt to right great wrongs in regards to male as norm, but that's not really Wikipedia's job to fix: it's up to the sources to make that change first. I would count myself as a weak oppose on this still. Jay eyem (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cautious support: I lend my support for this, but there are some necessary cautions. What happened in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup has shaped the changes. However, some nations like San Marino, minor Pacific Island states, and even Brunei, Yemen, Oman and Somalia don't even have women's national teams. Meanwhile, the popularity of women's football has risen but has yet to gain significant coverage the same way men's football is to become sufficient enough. I support this move but I advise you to take and include further details for the changes. HiddenFace101 (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as poorly planned example of righting great wrongs that creates unnecessary disambiguations for countries that never had women's national football teams. Killuminator (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment: This proposal seems to go only halfway to working out this issue. If all the moves are done, there is still a further decision to be made as to whether to have Foo national football team as a redirect to the men's team, or as a disambiguation page. Are we all going to come back here to debate that later? St Anselm (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose, men's teams are PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose all moves, the men's teams are primary (except possibly the United States but their page was already moved). O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If the US Women's team is primary, why don't we title the pages "United States national soccer team" and "United States men's national soccer team"? Wouldn't that be ridiculous? The men need specification that they are the men's team even if they are not primary. Every team needs specification. Wikipedia rules require it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well except that it isn't clear that there IS a primary topic for the United States, which is the reason they are titled the way they are. Theoretically speaking, if the US women WERE the clear primary topic, there could absolutely be a case for a primary redirect to the women's team. But that's just counterfactual thinking. Jay eyem (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am much less concerned with redirects as I am with the names of the titles. "England national football team" is a title that flat out breaks Wikipedia guildelines. It's unclear what the subject is based on the title. It needs to say England men's national football team. I do believe the page for "England national football team" should be a list of all England national football teams. But if that page redirects to the men's team, that is still a problem, but much less of a problem than the title of the men's team not even stating that it is the men's team. This conversation is a mess, with people arguing different topics, and the conversation needs to be redone. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose We do not say the men's World Cup, and it is clear that it is men's teams because its history is much older--Dl.thinker (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
History has absolutely nothing to do with it. We should indeed say men's World Cup, purely because there exists a women's World Cup, and with ever-increasing coverage and relevance regarding the latter. The whole concept of choosing a "primary" when comparing men's to women's football is skewed, as the manner of dealing with both types should be based on gender equality, which appears sadly lacking in many of the unenlightened comments being made here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weak support – There are specific restrictions against men playing for the women's team and vice-versa. The rise in prominence of women's football, especially at the highest level, means we should make the distinction in article titles now. – Pee Jay 20:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose (this and all suggested moves): my view is that we should follow WP:COMMONNAME, per respective countries. So, most common name for Croatia's men team is just "Croatia national football team", both in English and Croatian sources. I think we should stick to that principle. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
- That's not true. Most often these teams are referred to simply by the name of the country, not including the "national football team" bit. And if you look at https://hns.family/ under the "Reprezentacije" tab, you will see that a distinction is made between the men's and women's teams, both in football and futsal, and the under-19 futsal team is specifically denoted as being a men's team. They don't just say "we don't have a women's under-19 futsal team, so it should be obvious that this is the men's under-19 team". – PeeJay 21:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Let's stick to the topic - the football teams. From my point of view, it is obvious that the men's teams are primary teams, as they don't have special designation (A team, U-21, U-20 etc.), while the women's teams do (A (Ž); U-21 (Ž), U-20 (Ž) etc). Regarding the commonality, the most-read sports outlet in Croatia - Sportske novosti, makes this distinction as well: "Hrvatska ženska nogometna reprezantacija" for the women's team ([1]) and "Hrvatska nogometna reprezentacija" for the men's team ([2]). The news outlets in the Croatian language always emphasise when the news is about the women's team while the emphasis is lacking when the news are about the men's team. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  I don't know where you're looking, but if you mouse over the "Reprezentacije" tab on https://hns.family/, the teams are listed as follows:
  Muške
  A Reprezentacija
  
  U-21
  
  U-20
  
  U-19
  
  U-18
  
  U-17
  
  U-16
  
  U-15
  
  Ženske
  A Reprezentacija
  
  U-19
  
  U-17
  
  U-15
  
  Futsalske
  A Reprezentacija (M)
  
  A Reprezentacija (Ž)
  
  U-19 (M)
  
  Sve Reprezentacija
  
  The fact that they refer to men's and women's teams here (not "the national team" and "the women's national team") supports the idea that we should do the same. Your claim that the women's teams are noted as A (Ž), U-21 (Ž), etc. is clearly wrong. Furthermore, as I said, looking at the Futsal section suggests to me that it is perfectly acceptable to specify the men's team as the men's team and the women's team as the women's team. The U-19 futsal team is not a unisex team, it is a men's team, and is designated as such. – Pee Jay 09:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  I looked at it here. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  The distinction is made because they list all their teams. The men's team is still the primary topic. Killuminator (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Do we not list all of a nation's teams on Wikipedia? – Pee Jay 09:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  We do but we don't call the men's team ''21+'' either. Killuminator (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  So what if we don't call them 21+, what is the point of this argument? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose for Mandatory Palestine national football team, since I don't think a women's team existed. AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose for Chameria national football team as there is no women's national team. BalkanianActuality (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose for Ireland national football team (1882–1950) as there was no women's national team at that time. ManiacOfSport (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
One of the options being discussed is the possibility of not implementing the name change if no women's team exists in the relevant country. Which would answer your opposition, I feel. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose, the official tournament for the men's senior team is called FIFA World Cup, that means all the national teams (except some countries which called the sport "soccer") don't need to put men's there. Some of the countries like Brunei and Oman don't have a national team for the women, Afghanistan had a women's national team until 2021, due to the takeover of the country by the Taliban. So, the men's team are PRIMARY.

Guyrichtheman (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even if it's true that that is the official name of the world cup, it is still name for the world cup event and has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is to create proper distinction between the men and women teams' article titles in encyclopedia (which is supposed to be read by everyone, not just football fans). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per Guyrichtheman and others. St Anselm (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE.--Island92 (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, then let's use logic and ask that "women" teams' title get WP:CONCISE treatment and rename since "women" teams' title is longer than "men". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment: why is it almost all "men's" team of basketball, volleyball, netball, and some other sports are named accordingly "men's" to specify gender in their articles, while the "men's" teams in these association football articles are not? Are all national association football teams here specifically for men to play, or are some gender-unspecified (means men and women can both participate, but in de facto, men are almost always are chosen)? Kpra Ishil (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC) — Kpra Ishil (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Albertpda (talk · contribs). Reply

There usually aren't any rules that say women can't play on the "men's" teams. It just happens that most women are unable to compete against men at the highest level of sports. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect. The English Football Association, and many others, specifically exclude females from partaking in post-ten-year-old matches in their rules (and the English FA always have done). That's why women-only football evolved, not because of any perceived physical differences. Mixed hockey is allowed up to a certain skill/age level, but there are very few popular organised team games that mix the sexes. To be honest though, this discussion is supposed to be about naming of national association football articles, for which I would support the change to "men's" and "women's". The talk that I've seen here of men being "primary" in any way does not fit with the modern perception of equality. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment - I see some oppose vote citing COMMONNAME but the common name for the Scotland men's team and the Scotland women's team is just Scotland (see examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). I don't know if that is the case for every country on the list but does that mean that, for examples like Scotland, the page should be moved? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. ManiacOfSport (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose – Hello! I oppose to the name change for the same reasons other editors above opposed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per the reasons mentioned above. Ben5218 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 13:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - sigh; what a clusterfuck, what an ill-thought out nomination, what a waste of time for all involved. As some have noted, some of these countries listed have no women's team (so the move is pointless), and PRIMARY/COMMON applies to probably most of the rest. Deal with, over time, on a county-by-country basis. Giant Snowman 13:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
But they have "men's national teams", and although there is no reason to skip over those countries without women teams, we can do exactly that and leave article's title as it is. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - All has been said. Bakir123 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose at least for Sudan. Most searches and FIFA ranking just says Sudan national football team ...FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Darfur national football team doesn’t have a women team FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. For the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and precision. For articles about all teams, for WP:CONSISTENCY. Of course mentions in articles can use a shorter version when the context makes it clear, and this won’t be any kind of burden. For those claiming RGW, the guideline says “finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do,” so I’m not sure whether it’s yes or no votes that are supposed to be contrary to that guideline. —Michael Z. 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per COMMON. - J man708 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose- Men football is more notable and important than women. - Sadsadas (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You still have much to learn about equality, obviously. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

He isn't wrong stating that men's football is more notable. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reality isn't always equal though. Ortizesp (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Project pertaining to be serious encyclopedia has to seriously care about it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose- no one refers to the men's teams this way and and the mens teams are far more popular and known. reports say england woman vs spain women, etc, but they dont say england men vs spain men. also seems like needless work to change millions of pages for something so minor. also curious to put this on one of the lesser known teams in the hopes of sneaking it in? one of the bigger teams like france or england would get more attention.Muur (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe the discussion is here purely because Afghanistan is first in alphabetical order. Anyone who watches any of the "bigger teams" articles will have seen the notice of this discussion being added to them. Describing this as "sneaking it in" is inaccurate and does not assume good faith. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reports don't say "england woman vs spain women". The BBC, The Independent, Reuters, The Guardian, Sky News, Bloomberg, The Mirror and El Pais all refer to them as just England and just Spain. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

they do say womens world cup though, so still specify whilst they dont say mens world cup for men.Muur (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

We're not proposing to move FIFA World Cup so that's irrelevant. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually, everyone refers to all sport teams where women and men teams exist this way - UEFA[12], FIFA, all serious media outlets - you can see some of the links already posted here. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose this mass rename, as "men's national team" is not the WP:COMMONNAME in most of these cases, not least for some of the former/partially recognised states which haven't ever had a women's teams. No objection to some of these being nominated individually if sources refer to the men's team as "X men's team" as was suggested Scotland does, but this mass change would be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME for most articles listed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Per above. There are countries where there is no primary topic but not everywhere so this should be done case by case. Kante4 (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support. The vast majority of countries included in the list have a women's team and the change would eliminate ambiguity.. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weak support: except change Papua New Guinea national football team and Papua New Guinea women's national football team to Papua New Guinea men's national soccer team and Papua New Guinea women's national soccer team, respectively. I say this because the term "soccer" is more commonly used in Papua New Guinea due to Australian influence and to distinguish it from rugby and Australian rules football. The PNG national Aussie rules team is the second-most successful in the world (behind Australia, but technically Australia does not compete in the International Cup for obvious reasons). Even PNG's top soccer league is called the Papua New Guinea National Soccer League. A Google search gives soka as the Tok Pisin word for soccer, ragbi for rugby and futbol as a general term (e.g futbol bilong Ostrelia = Aussie rules footy, futbol bilong Amerika = American football).

As a request for comment, does this also apply to other representative teams (e.g Hawaii soccer team)? What about futsal and beach soccer teams? QLDer in NSW (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It applies only to the above mentioned teams. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Well, if we're moving them then we should still change "football" to "soccer" for Papua New Guinea. QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is not part of this discussion. Giant Snowman 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can we make it part of the discussion? QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support they are usually classified separately on team’s websites, except in cases where it is clear they are talking about the men’s side, but the same is true for when it is clear they are talking about women’s side as well.Yoblyblob (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per above statements. The men's teams are the primary football teams and will remain so for a while. UltraBlazer 20:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
This UEFA.com article ([12]) specifies the Poland men's national team. There is no assumption that just saying "the Poland national team" automatically means the men's team. Usually that is done by context clues, but without context, there is no reason to assume just saying "the Fooland national team" means the men's team. – Pee Jay 09:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are no "primary" teams in any sport. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strong support - I think we kind of need to scrap COMMONNAME here. WP:NORULES tells us that it is our duty to improve Wikipedia. At the same time, we need to advocate equality in naming if we are going to talk about a specific national team. However, I would oppose moving to "men's" if there is no existing "women's" national team article, because then it is clear that there is only one team that is even notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as some countries like Brunei has no women's national team. かぴさん Kapisan (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Kapisan2016: and others, I think it might be nice if people vote on the principle of naming them "men's national football team" in the cases where there is a women's team only. This is partly my fault, as I wanted to include all affected pages in the RM and ended up adding a few where there isn't an ambiguity, but I think we can accept that we might move most of them while leaving a few like Brunei as is. — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment This feels like a slippery slope. will man united become man united men next? will half the pl teams be named man united men, chelsea men and then lower leagues as bolton men, wigan men, and even further down oxford city men etc...most teams dont even gave womens teams and so you end up with made up team names?Muur (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
No one is proposing to move any of those articles. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't even been a discussion about renaming club articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. RavenRTC (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose all per above and commonname. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I oppose this mass move as overly broad in scope at this time. We should review this in much smaller batches (possibly no more than 15) and take time to ensure that any templates – e.g. {{fb}} and {{nft}} – are not broken in the process. This would require a HUGE amount of work to also ensure that any presently existing wikilinks are updated, though a bot should be able to handle that task. We also need to consider whether the same should apply to all the youth teams (e.g. U-15 and U-20). I do concur with all previous users who have stated that there is no need to create a men's team article if that nation does not have an official women's team. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strongest support Changing the names to men's football team and women's football team is sheer common sense. People have been begging for this change forever. It is downright confusing and a disservice to readers of Wikipedia to not state which football team the article is talking about. I like to use Wikipedia for knowledge, and I have very often been trying to find information on a women's football team, only to later realize I was accidentally reading the men's team page because the article title was horrifically unclear and against Wikipedia guidelines. For people who are trying to oppose it using the common name argument, this is purely wrong. You do not hear people say out "England national football team" when talking about the England men's team. People will leave out CRUCIAL adjectives when commonly referring to the team, because it is already implied in their discussion. They will say England, England team, England men, England national team, England football team, England men's football team, England men's national team, etc. It is NOT commonly called England national football team. You VERY rarely hear it called that. Why are we pretending something it is basically NEVER called is the common name? "National," "football," and "team" are ALL extra words we put into the Wikipedia title to specify what we are talking about. "Men" is absolutely a crucial word we need to have in this title to specify what the article is about. Without saying which team it is, men's or women's, you do not know what the subject of the article is by reading the title, which is completely against Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia titles need to be precise. Importantly, the official name of the England men's team is "England". Just England. NOT "England national football team". If Wikipedia is choosing to add extra adjectives ("national, football, team") to the most common name of "England" so we can specify which England we are talking about - as opposed to the country England or the band England - we can certainly add that this is the men's team to clarify it with the other England national football team (the women's). "Men" is a much more crucial word to have in the title than "national" and more important to the reader's understanding. The men's team is often called the men's team, but people don't commonly use the word national. We need to have the word national in the title for precision, and we have an even greater need for the word men in the title for precision. For people using the primary topic argument, this is incredibly confusing because the primary topic changes frequently depending on who is playing. This summer, England national team meant the Women's team because they were in the World Cup. Reliable sources would just say England team when they meant the women's team. Furthermore, there is NO primary topic here. There is a men's team and a women's team. There are two topics. It is easy to state the teams in both titles. It is not a competition to be the genderless team who "gets" to be called just team. There is a men's team and a women's team, simple. Two topics that each need to be specified for what they are. This is a straightforward precision issue. It has clearly been bothering Wikipedia readers to no end, because this problem has been brought up countless times. It is truly a disservice to anyone using Wikipedia to not specify the subject of the article in the title. I used England as an example, of course. I support all the countries being labeled men's team and women's team, if there are two national teams in that country. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but so little of this makes sense. There is absolutely a clear primary topic in probably >90% of cases as men's sports are far more popular than women's sports, and that extends to football. It is completely absurd to think that "national" is somehow less relevant to the conversation than the sex of the players when there is a clear distinction between international competition and club competitions. As long as we are talking common parlance, you absolutely will hear "Country X national football/soccer team" just as much as any of those shortened versions, and arguably more frequently than the use of the sex of the team. And while it is increasingly clear that media is trying to avoid male as norm in the conversation, using a recency bias like during a Women's World Cup as opposed to most of the rest of the time is disingenuous. I think there is a compelling argument for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but there is absolutely a primary topic for the vast majority of these cases. Jay eyem (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
National is repetitive when the nation is already in the title. England is a nation, not a club. I am NOT arguing to get rid of the word national in the titles. It's good to be extra clear these are national teams of the nations. That's my point. National is by far less important to the title than sex of the team, but we still have it. National teams are more popular than club teams, yet you still want to specify this is the "nation national football team." National teams are the primary topic, yet you specify. Your point still doesn't make sense, because national teams and club teams are two separate topics, so there's no need for a popularity contest between them to chose which is the primary topic "deserving" of a short imprecise title. Just as men's and women's teams are two separate topics that both need precision. There will ALWAYS be a question of "men's or women's?" when discussing a national football team. This predominant question needs to be addressed in the title.

You do not usually hear "England national football team" laid out like that. Other names are more common. You do very often hear the women's team referred to as just "England", though. The easy solution is just to tell readers which team you're talking about in the title. I don't see your reasoning for being against much needed precision. I'm a football fan with a ton of knowledge of the game, and even I was confused by the titles numerous times. There are Wikipedia articles with much lesser need of specification that still do specify. Men's and women's national football teams are in GREAT need of specification. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
This sounds like a bit of a Eurocentric view then, because in the US you absolutely always emphasize the "national" portion of the name just as much as the sex, and that is done in part to distinguish it from club teams; it definitely sounded like you were in favor of removing "national" from the article titles. And I disagree that there will ALWAYS be a question of "men's or women's" because the conversation doesn't come up all that often unless you actively follow the women's game. For the vast majority of cases and national teams, the men are the clear primary topic. When I hear "England national football team", unless the women are actively playing in a tournament like the Women's Euros or Women's World Cup, I NEVER think of the women's team, and that is true for the vast majority of people and countries. That being said, I am not against the precision per se or the change using a primary redirect, I just disagree that it is a "much needed" change. Jay eyem (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am from the US, so I don't know what you mean. I made it clear that since the title needs to have extra words that are not part of the official name, which is just "England", to clarify what England we are talking about, "men" is a necessary word to have in the title. You thought I was in favor of removing national from the titles when I said, quote, "We need to have the word national in the title for precision"? I think you misread my entire argument.

The men are not the clear primary topic. The women's national team of England is very popular. However, that is not the point, and the notibility of women's teams do not need to be stated, because there is NO primary topic of some imagined genderless national team. There are TWO senior national teams. These are two separate topics. It is not a fight to be recognized as the genderless one. When discussing a sports team, men or women is something that needs to be stated.

What sports you are personally interested in does not matter. Reliable sources CONSTANTLY refer to the women's team as just England. Neutral conversation requires Wikipedia to state which team we are talking about in the title. Maybe you personally can take a guess and think the title might refer to the men's team, but Wikipedia is not for guessing. And not everyone will guess the same as you. The subject of the article should be stated in the title. No one should have to guess what the topic is.

This is a very simple precision issue. Which of the two England national football teams this is needs to be addressed in the title. It's getting ridiculous at this point to say the least. Countless people have said the title is unclear to them. There is no reason the title shouldn't state what the subject is. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The men for England are absolutely the clear primary topic, I don't know how you can even possibly debate that. The pageviews for the men absolutely blows the women out of the water, common parlance when discussing national teams will generally specify sex if talking about the women but will not for the men, media still frequently will drop "men" far more often than they will drop "women" when discussing national teams (even when that is heavily influenced by a recency bias), etc. There are only a few nations where this might not be the case, like the United States or Canada. Again, I think there is a compelling argument for a primary redirect, but you are simply wrong on the matter of a primary topic for England. (And to be fair, your first post was a giant block of text, making it difficult to follow, so thank you for breaking up subsequent responses across multiple paragraphs) Jay eyem (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Those page views are often from people searching for the women's team but being given the men's page. Yet another reason to fix the title.

Again, there is no contest to be the genderless team. There are two topics. There is a men's team and a women's team. The men's team needs to be stated that it is the men's team. We are not arguing for it to say "England national football team (women)", which is the title format in cases where there is a primary topic. We are asking for it to be changed to England men's national football team because this is talking about the men's team.

Every single time you have mentioned the men's team, you call them men. Men is the word you can't leave out. Men is one of the absolute most important details to identifying which team we are talking about. It strongly needs to be in the title.

The England men's national basketball team, England men's national field hockey team, England men's national lacrosse team, and England men's national squash team are all properly labeled with the subject of the article in the title. The England men's national football team should follow this consistency and precision. It's a really simple fix. I'm honestly failing to understand why this is controversial for some. Why does it hurt to put men in the title? It's simply telling what team it is. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Those page views are often from people searching for the women's team but being given the men's page."

I am sorry, but using this as an argument to show that there is no clear primary topic is an argument that is not based in reality. Unless you can find some way to prove that definitively, I see no reason to consider that a valid argument. Every single other example you provided does not show a clear primary topic; that is not the case for the football team. I am honestly failing to understand how you can possibly think there is no clear primary topic for the vast majority of these teams. And absolutely nobody else is saying anything about a "genderless team", that has been exclusively you this entire time (especially since FIFA is pretty rigid about sex separation of teams). Jay eyem (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is a men's team and a women's team. You need to simply state which team you're talking about in the title. This is a necessary change so people can be aware of what the subject of the article is based on the title. "England national football team" breaks Wikipedia rules. We are NOT arguing for it to say "England national football team (men)" which would be the case if we were arguing about a primary topic. We are saying this needs to state that it is the men's team, just like other men's sports titles do.

Primary topic means virtually no one would be looking for Cauliflower (film), and they are almost certainly researching Cauliflower the vegetable. So we do not need to title it "Cauliflower (vegetable)". The film is named after the vegetable. There is one cauliflower (the vegetable) with other things named after it. It would be nearly impossible to confuse the movie article with the article about the plant. None of this applies to sports teams. We aren't asking for men's sports to have "(men)" at the end. It simply needs to have men's properly placed in the middle of the name because that's what the subject of the article is. It's literally about the men's team. Let readers know it's about the men's team.

There is no problem whatsoever with labeling football teams like the basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, and squash teams are labeled. There is no problem in telling readers what the article subject is. There is a VAST problem with making the subject of the article objectively unidentifiable based on the title, with people merely guessing what the topic is based on what they personally believe. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support (for the cases where an article exists on the women's team) - there is no harm in being clearer here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Per WP:UCRN. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is there anything more "common" than when UEFA make distinction [12] and specifies the "Poland men's national team"? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the number of oppositions are more common! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 03:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The number of chauvinists and unenlightened are even greater than that! Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
And those who reply to others' comments without any meaning are the greatest chauvinists! Trying to prove themselves enlightened but no one cares about them! At least I don't... – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 15:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Men's team are the primary.→ Tanbiruzzaman 💬 18:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
According to whom and according to which criteria ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
According to all chauvinists, obviously, and the less enlightened. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh, hail to you the Enlighted one. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support - This is more than just common sense, more than just finding some policy or guideline to quote and link; it is needed for average reader - we don'r do this for our pleasure or preference, we do it for people to find information easier, and anyone seeking info will need to continuously put in extra effort to distinguish between the two different team depending on gender if we don't do the change per nom. This is needed.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Additional comment - this Pee Jay argument is bottom line: "This UEFA.com article ([12]) specifies the Poland men's national team. There is no assumption that just saying "the Poland national team" automatically means the men's team. Usually that is done by context clues, but without context, there is no reason to assume just saying "the Fooland national team" means the men's team." means the men's team." So, since we are here to make encyclopedia for readership that include anyone able to read English, PY argument about criteria beats personal, usually male editors' preference, which, by the way, is not grounded in WP:Common Name guideline for obvious reason stated in PJ remark with the link to UEFA. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - The concept of SJW should not take over wikipedia.--Sabri76'^talk 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a political discussion. Nobody is saying anything about SJWs. If it did then I would be opposed to it. But it doesn't. QLDer in NSW (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nobody is supporting this for political reasons. Some are opposing for political reasons though. Lack of specification which team it is is a serious problem for people trying to use Wikipedia. I have been confused by the poorly worded titles countless times. Sometimes I was reading an article for several minutes before I realized it was the men's, not women's, team. I found multiple instances in articles where someone was trying to link the women's team page, but accidentally linked the men's page because the neutral title is so easily mistaken for the women's team. (I took care to edit the links.) It's sincerely a problem. There is straight up no reason to be against this. It's a needed fix. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to the user's use of the term "SJW". QLDer in NSW (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I support the changes when there is a need to distinguish though I have made it clear that I would prefer to have Papua New Guinea national football team moved to Papua New Guinea men's national soccer team and all PNG soccer-related articles to be renamed to say "soccer" not "football" because (like in Australia) "soccer" is the most common term in PNG. QLDer in NSW (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment Relisting this was a mistake. It will not reach consensus and it had plenty of participation. It's only inviting low effort and low quality participation at this point. Killuminator (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support per nom — there's no harm in clarifying. But, regardless of the outcome of this move, the redlink redirects should still be created. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support England national football team (e.g.) seems ambiguous. WP:NATURAL would also suggest changing the lede to "England has been represented in international men's football ..." but that's another discussion. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose as a possible WP:TRAINWRECK. As someone has mentioned above, some countries have no women's teams, so it is not ambiguous. And having 276 pages to sift and sort through to judge isn't particularly helpful to that. S5A-0043^Talk 05:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Careful editing would prevent such a trainwreck in this instance, national team by national team over time. Not a strong reason for opposition really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
A careful move proposal would have avoided a trainwreck altogether. Killuminator (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment I have already put my opinion on the matter here, if this does end up happening, how hard would it be to create a Wikipedia bot to sift through pages and edit links accurately? Yoblyblob (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Like it or not, when people refer to the Foo football team without further qualification or context they're almost invariably referring to the men's team. This is not chauvinism but simple fact. Women's football may be getting bigger all the time, but it'll be a very long time before it eclipses the men's game or its long history. I speak, incidentally, as somebody who cares nothing about football. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The women's game doesn't need to "eclipse" the men's game, it merely needs to reach the point where there is some ambiguity as to which team is being referred to. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

And as I have said, there generally is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

First it is irrelevant for entry in encyclopedia - we have both women and men football and titles should reflect that; second, how you know all that data, you didn't do any research I suppose ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose There are obvious errors with this page move including the many redirects with many of these articles linking to thousands of other articles, some countries not even having their own women team and the fact that for nearly all of the articles mentioned, the men's teams are more frequently discussed and as aformentioned, violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UCRN. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose, I agree with the points above as the move is against Wikipedia's guidelines on common name due to the men's teams having by far more page views and historical significance. Sahaib (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. If the result is "Not move", which is rather likely, I would suggest we move Sweden men's national football team back to Sweden national football team, since there is no fundamental difference at all between Sweden and the countries listed above. Sadly, not many people engaged in that discussion. // Mattias321 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The RM for Sweden reached consensus to move and (after briefly double checking) had greater participation than the RfC that brought us here. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Same as the RfC for the Australia men's national soccer team. As an Aussie I can confirm that we love both of our national teams and they are both quite good, therefore it is harder to distinguish between the two and it depends on the timing. In Australia we normally just say the "Socceroos" for the men and the "Matildas" for the women. QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

When I think of Sweden national football team, I think of the women's team. They are significantly more successful than the men's team. I've heard the Sweden women's team talked about much more in the media. They are certainly way more popular in my country at least. Keep it consistent and title all the men's teams with men's in the name. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it really doesn't matter what you think of. The men's team is more popular. I just don't see any difference between Sweden and the other Nordic countries here. Consistency is key. // Mattias321 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which consistency - consistency is useful in our project, but at no costs should accuracy be sacrificed for consistency. It really doesn't matter which sport is more popular, they are two different sports, and the difference is in gender which should accurately be presented in the title. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment - I suppose this matter has gone beyond the usual editorial Wikipedia channels for discussion, and that this has become a systemic and issue of principle for higher instances. starting with initiating a discussion on Meta. (This may be of some interest to Stevie fae Scotland as primer(?) initiator of this discussion). This is because I believe guidelines most often quoted, like WP:PRIMARY and WP:COMMONNAME simply do not cover this very specific problem in any let alone sufficient way.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes I would (I'm sure others would be interested too tbf). Do you have a link? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't have some specific link; what I meant is that issue reached some threshold in nature of the problem that could and probably should be raised on Meta, say, at Requests_for_comment ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support For all countries with both men's and women's national teams. It's about accuracy, not RGW. Furthermore:
Oppose/Not move !votes that wholesale reject based on something like "significance" are ill-considered: in the United States, Australia, various East Asian and Scandinavian countries, women's football is considered (or has been before) more popular than men's football.
The presence of nicknames for national teams probably discounts any COMMONNAME !votes, as we aren't going to be moving "Argentina (men's/women's) national football team" to "La Albiceleste" anytime soon.
Spain and England, for which the official style guides of the national associations either do not disambiguate either (Spain) or disambiguate both (England), and any other countries with similar guidelines, should probably be given the men's/women's treatment as a matter of process. This is something new for Spain – although Spanish media has for a while referred to both teams by the nickname La Roja – but has been done in England for several years (before 2020). English media also gives both teams neutral and nickname treatment. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree no one here is using common name or primary topic correctly. The common name of the Spanish men's team is obviously not "Spain national football team." It's not even common to say that phrase. And primary topic is a question of having parenthesis after the title to clarify what it is. It's not an argument for being ambiguous in titles because you expect people to guess what it means. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's common name in English-language sources. Which is not La Albiceleste or any other nickname. The common name would be "Argentina" if one was specifically talking about football or the "Argentina (or Argentine) football team" if one was not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nicknames are hardly ever used for sports teams, regardless of if WP:COMMONNAME applies (for English-language sources, as for national sports teams that only really applies to Australia). QLDer in NSW (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment - It's very important to remember when thinking of the common name, men's and women's are sometimes dropped from the title because you don't need to repetitively say men's and women's when it's obvious in the context. When talking about both, you ALWAYS need to differentiate which one you are talking about. Wikipedia has articles about both, so Wikipedia needs to specify which one it is talking about. The common name of the men's team when there is a men's and women's team ALWAYS includes men's. Primary topic is used to help avoid confusion. Spain (country) is so overstated it's actually more confusing than Spain, and it's nearly impossible to confuse it with Spain (instrumental). England national football team is EXTREMELY confusing, and it's so easy to confuse with the women's team it's basically asking to be confused. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Helpfulwikieditoryay: please read Wikipedia:BLUDGEON before continuing to add large comments/replies. Sahaib (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

People should be allowed to discuss the topic. Bludgeoning is pestering someone to answer and repeating the same argument. This is my first comment. My comment was short. I had something new to say. Many times, I chose to not reply, even when I had something to say. I've been careful not to respond to more than a few people in this giant discussion. I think I should be allowed just one comment. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. :What do you mean men's football is primary? Shouldn't both of them be at equal level?Kxeon (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If some of the countries don't have women's team, it's still gonna put men's there right? Guyrichtheman (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is being discussed as some countries have a men's team but not a women's team (e.g Tuvalu). QLDer in NSW (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why shouldn't they ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. Wikipedia has had gender bias against women from day 1 (ref). It's time for gender equality to take over misogyny. Sofeshue (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support, for the sake of clarity and consistency + as a bonus, to make all the worst people mad. The existence of a women's team or lack thereof is absolutely irrelevant to the issue, unless there are countries that have only one national team that features both women and men (I don't know of any). --Sviraman (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose Poorly planned example. Creates unnecessary disambiguations for countries that never had women's national football teams in the first place.Afrique0512 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 October 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments14 people in discussion

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 - consensus to speedy close (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

– Previous consensus had strong opposition due to unnecessary disambiguation pages. There are mistakes here please correct me on proper usage of soccer/football or on pages that are already labeled men’s/don’t have a women’s team to begin with. Yoblyblob (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note: four redirects had to be removed from the list because redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. Also had to remove Canada national soccer team → Canada men's national soccer team because the proposed new title is already used. The RMCD bot might find more problems with this multi-requested move proposal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose moves again. Same reason as before; the men's teams are the primary topics. O.N.R. ^(talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Speedy close the last discussion was closed yesterday (around 19 hours ago), way too soon to be discussing the same moves again. And contrary to the user starting this RM, redirects weren't the only issue for not moving all these articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Unlikely that this discussion moves closer to a consensus than the last one. 162 etc. (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose/Speedy close - Same reason as before (WP:UCRN). – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 15:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strong Oppose – Unnecessary at all. Per all the reasons given above. Fma12 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment - Although I support this (my reasoning is in the above discussion), it's clear that there are strong feelings on this on both sides and the previous discussion resulted in no consensus. I don't think anything has changed since the last discussion (mainly because there hasn't been any time between the two) that will result in anything other than no consensus again. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The last discussion is not even 24 hours old, so there is no need for another one. Can be speedy closed, imo. Kante4 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Nothing changed after the previous discussion was closed--Noel baran (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Speedy close I evidently misunderstood the administrators message who closed the previous one. Yoblyblob (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strong oppose / Speedy close. A discussion regarding the same request was closed just yesterday with no consensus. Ben5218 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aside from checking the teams individually, do we have a good page listing which teams do and don't have women's teams? I think confederation pages tend to be a decent source. Jay eyem (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jay eyem: I've made a list by intersecting the teams in List of men's national association football teams and List of women's national association football teams (that had the format <Country> national football team); give it a look. — Material Works 21:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update the head coach: it is now Ashley Westwood (footballer, born 1976). ^[1]

The previous manager has been expelled. ^[2] Hnfus43 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fixed Have updated the article to reflect this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

Add topic

[1] ttps://talksport.com/football/1634161/man-utd-academy-graduate-ashley-westwood-afghanistan-manager/

[2] ttps://www.khaama.com/afghanistan-national-football-team-expels-coach-ahead-of-crucial-mongolia-match/

[1]

[2]