Jump to content

Talk:Ireland national football team (1882–1950)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

NI as successor team

How can Northern Ireland claim to be the successor team ? They make up less than a third of the territory this team represented. It is a bit like Ukraine claiming to be the successor of the USSR. Djln --Djln 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The team is controlled by the same football association. And, most importantly, they are recognsied as such by FIFA [1] --Robdurbar 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

With or without FIFA recognition this is still a very dubious claim. Djln --Djln 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the articles stated 'is recognsied by FIFA as the sucessor'. This is a cold hard fact. Your, or mine, or anyone else's, opinion on this is irrelevant until we are given the role of organising world football. --Robdurbar 06:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Basis of article

I am dubious of the name and basis of this article. The date 1920 is chosen presumably as the foundation of Northern Ireland, but the FAI was not founded until 1921 and did not play a full international until 1926, and the IFA team continued to select players from the South until 1950. The identification of the two teams with North and South did not spring forth in 1920, it evolved in stages. The NI page gives the same "first game" (and "worst defeat"). The article might be renamed somehow and address the occasional efforts or dreamings for a revived all-island team. BTW the team kit was St Patrick's Blue with green trim. jnestorius(talk) 17:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as a comparison:
This is corrected. West Germany national football team redirects to the proper Germany national football team which exists since 1908. There was only a separate East Germany state and team from 1949-1990. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So it seems that the barrier to inclusion on other defunct teams has been dependent on the pedigree of the side, rather than on any other criteria. On this basis, then, if there is enough information for a seperate article on the all Ireland team, and the team has been shown to be of some notability (which as winners of the British Home Championship it probably was), then having an article on the team is reasonable; that said I can see an argument for merging, but I'm not fully persuaded.

The first games/worst defeats can be repeated over the articles; I don't see a problem there.

As for the dates - I agree that these could be altered. The creator clearly went by the date of independence, but I agree that it should probably be renamed to '1882-1950'? --Robdurbar 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Why 1950 date ? The dates are based on independence/partition as this was in reality when the two teams separated [2]. Although both teams referred to themselves as Ireland until 1950 and some players were capped by both sides, they were two separate teams long before then. Two seperate associations existed, choosing two teams from the 1920s onwards. Incidently, the Republic then known as the Free State, actually made their debut at the 1924 Olympics [3] Djln--Djln 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well if that's the case, then its fine. Robdurbar 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Title

My issue is more with the name than the content. At the moment, the final section (IFA v FAI) falls outside the timelimit specified in the title. It also conveys a misleading impression that in 1920, the IFA said: well, the country is partitioned, so of course we must have separate associations; it did not happen like that, as the body of the article makes (somewhat) clear. The RSSSF citation is a one-sentence summary of a complex issue, more a footnote on a site which is primarily a collection of results and tables, not an overview of the history of the organisation of the game. If you want a cutoff date, you could choose from:

  • 1920: Northern Ireland created
  • 1921: FAI founded
  • 1922: Free State created
  • 1923: FAI joins FIFA and IFAB
  • 1924: IFA (re)joins FIFA
  • 1926: First FAI international (1924 Olympics team was organised by OCI, not FAI)
  • 1932: FAI first play north-born player
  • 1936: FAI change name to Ireland
  • 1946: FAI last play north-born player, IFA rejoins FIFA again
  • 1950: FIFA split Ireland team's jurisdictions, IFA last play south-born player
  • 1953: FAI team renamed Republic of Ireland
  • 1954: IFA team renamed Northern Ireland
  • 1984: End of British Championship, where IFA team still played as Ireland.

I'm not suggesting 1920 is the worst of these candidates, though personally I would prefer 1922 or 1923. Really I'm suggesting picking one date is an unneccessary simplification of the process. How about All-Ireland national football team, or Ireland national football team (all-island)? jnestorius(talk) 17:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • My title preference would have been simply Ireland national football team but this title is already used. I added the dates primarily because of this. That said I believe these dates are correct. 1920 is when the partition occurred and the most significant date. After this date the two states had separate associations and separate teams. See my above message. The fact that the FAI did not get a team together until a few years later is irrelevant. This was probably due to the Irish Civil War. While the final paragraph does fall outside these dates, this was added only to explain the demise of the team. I not sure your titles would be politically wise as any reference to all Ireland might be taken the wrong way by Unionists. If you can think of better title, great. I would have no objection.
  • Also it should be noted that the Football Association of Ireland is the original name of this organisation. It was renamed the Football Association of the Irish Free State in 1923. Djln--Djln 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 1920 is when Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland were created; with hindsight this partition evolved into "Partition" but at the time this was by no means clear. One could no more have predicted the finality of partition in 1920 than state with certainty today that the Scottish Parliament will evolve into an independent body.
  • As for the FAI->FAIFS change, this was a condition of entry into FIFA and IFAB; prior to this the FAI was no more recognised than other splittist bodies; Athletics and Cycling had feuding partition/all-Ireland bodies for decades after 1920. This gives weight to the significance of 1923. If the Turkish Cyprus FA ever affiiliates to FIFA, will its previous matches against Turkey be retrospectively recognised? I doubt it.
  • If you're not adamant about the date, can we discuss possible non-date titles? I am aware of "All-Ireland"'s resonance; hence my "all-island" suggestion; what do you think of that? jnestorius(talk) 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not fixed to the dates but could not think of better title. Not particularly keen on "all-island" to be honest. Any more suggestions ? I don't really want to get bogged down in political debates about partition. This not the place to discuss these issues. Somebody had incorrectly changed FAI to FAIFS, that was the purpose of note.

Djln --Djln 00:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The FAI was the original name of this association when founded in 1921. It did not become the FAIFS until 1924. Please check your facts before making changes like this.
  • How about dates in title be replaced with IFA XI. The article could then be expanded to included history upto 1950s as has been suggested and would clear up successor issue. Djln--Djln 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would be quite in favour of an article at Ireland national football team discussing the 2 teams during the period when they claimed to represent the whole island. I do feel that the dates are a bit meaningless, and a lot of the importnat events resulting in the end of an island team happened well after the 1920 cut off point. This article couldn't really address the FAI's all-ireland dimension either, which I feel is slightly unfair.
Well how about moving 'Ireland national football team' to 'Ireland national football team (disambiguation), and move this article to 'Ireland national football team'. As long as we all agreed to this and don't think it would be controversial (I don't think it would be) then I could use my super admin powers to do this without needing to go to request a move. --Robdurbar 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I wouldn't advocate moving this article, I would
  • Merge this article into the NI one
  • Move the current Ireland national football team to disambig
  • Create a full discussion of the 2 competeing claims for Ireland teams on the Ireland national team page, and how we ended up with 2 teams Fasach Nua 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This article should not be merged with NI team. Why do think it was started in the first place?. This has already been discussed above. This is a seperate team in the same way that West Germany and East Germany are seperate teams from Germany. NI did not exist until 1920 and this team started playing in 1882, so merging it with NI team would be a nonsense and confusing to anybody not familar with Irish history. I think the solution Robdurbar suggested above might be best idea. Djln--Djln 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well its 'officially' the predecessor team of the modern Northern Ireland team. So, to a certain extent it is the same team - but its relationship to the modern Northern Ireland side is like West Germany to Germany, not like East Germany to Germany. And as I mentioned above, on other teams, the barrier for a seperate article on a predecessor team has been on notablity criteria e.g. there is an article on West Germany national football team and Yugoslavia national football team, but nothing on South Yemen national football team, even though all three are defunct teams whose results are now allocated to their modern sucessors.
I don't think the article on Ireland needs to explain how their were two teams in the 1920-50s era; its fairly clear in the articles as they are, and as its not a current problem, then I doubt there's much need in it. --Robdurbar 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This team represented all of Ireland, not just Northern Ireland and therefore should not be merged with NI article. In terms of territory represented Northern Ireland has more in common with East Germany than West Germany. I think IFA XI is still the best solution as IFA selected team throughout. Robdurbar solution would be my second choice. The FAI team was never really an all-Ireland team in the same way. Very few players born in Northern Ireland have actually played for FAI team. In fact I think more English-born or Scottish-born players have played for FAI XI then players from NI. PS Can all contributers please sign their comments. It is nice to know who I am talking to. Djln
    • Clearly discussing what the page should be called depends on what ground it should cover, and vice versa. I dislike the current name because I disagree with the current cutoff date of 1920. Czechoslovakia played as a single RCS, and likewise USSR as CIS, after they had split politically; those were deeper splits than Northern Ireland/Southern Ireland.
    • Fasach Nua and Robdurbar: I'm not sure which "Ireland" article you're each referring to, or whether it's the same one for you both. In any case, if the present article is kept (under whatever name), then it should not end at 1920, for the reasons I explained above. If it discusses what happened later, then naturally the bulk of discussion of the split etc will be here, with just a synopsis and wikilink on each of the NI and RoI pages.
    • IFA XI is clearly inadequate, as it applies equally to the current Northern Ireland team. I oppose moving this page to Ireland national football team as it is not the primary topic; other links in the current Ireland national football team will be searched for fairly often under this heading (see w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Ireland_national_football_team). I suggest Ireland national football team (IFA), which avoids having to be dogmatic about the end-date.
    • Regarding the East/West Germany analogy: USSR/Russia/Ukraine is another analogy. Russia is bigger, but Ukraine is better at soccer. By 1950, RoI was better, but before 1920 at least 7 of every XI were from the 6 counties (although that's partly what caused the split...). Anyway, that's all a side-issue; we should be able to write an article which states the facts without rubbing the True Line of Succession in people's faces. jnestorius(talk) 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. --Robdurbar 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That title isn't really accurate enough though - it could easily refer to the IFA's team at any point up until around the 1950's and '60's. Considering the content of the article at the moment I would support a move to Ireland national football team (1882-1920). --Kwekubo 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue with the date is that there really isn't one set in stone. The fact that it could refer to the IFA up to the 1950s isn't a problem really - it just helps indicate to the reader the cross over period that occured between teh old all ireland team and the modern set up. --Robdurbar 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 28/9/06

I've reverted the changes made today. I think the editor seemed to be mistaking this for Northern Ireland national football team. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the Queen's edit [4] to be a reasonable interpratation of the article title. There are elements in this edit I would disagree with such as dismissing the team as a 'branding', I feel was a bit harsh, and wether the away kit can simply be transposed is another issue. I do think it was an improvement on the article, and a welcome move away from the particular agenda that the article is currently pushing. I feel there are still issues surrounding the need for this article, and I don't believe that the content is compatiable with the article's current title. HammerHammerHammer 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the article to be less dogmatic about the dates. jnestorius(talk) 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Current Status section deleted

The IFA has retained the right to field a team, selected from players throughout the island of Ireland for non-competitive games against the other home nations, and to have these games appended to the record of it's international team. In practice the IFA has not selected a player born in the Republic of Ireland since March 1950, and has not fielded an international team designated Ireland in several decades.

I deleted this section. I don't believe it's true and won't accept it without cited evidence. Perhaps the editor was confusing the name "Ireland", which was still used post-1950, with the remit, which was restricted to Nortehern Ireland in 1950. I have added citations in the article. jnestorius(talk) 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From page 108 of 'the IFA...125 year history', article titled "Northern Ireland International milestones" for June 1954;
FIFA ordered the Irish football association to name their international football team Northern Ireland. Although they were still permitted to play Republic of Ireland-born players in British International championship matches this situation was never availed again
I don't think this is the ideal reference, (a linked pdf from FIFA would be very nice!), the book was published by the IFA, with forwards from the the president of FIFA and the president of UEFA, so I wouldn't dimiss it entirely out of hand. HammerHammerHammer 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. A bit of google-booking throws up this, relating to 1950 (Source: Moorhouse, H. F. (1996). "One State, Several Countries: Soccer and Nationality in a 'United' Kingdom". In J. A. Mangan (ed.). Tribal Identities: Nationalism, Europe, Sport. London: Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 0-71464-666-0.)
FIFA...replied...: 'The Executive Committee consider it inadmissable to select players being citizens Eire for the representative teams of countries other than Eire.' The only exception allowed to this practice was in matches between the British Associations if no one objected.
The second sentence sadly is a paraphrase rather than a quote from FIFA. I guess FIFA was willing to go along with the Home-Nations-islandwide idea, but I'm sure the FAI would have objected, and I don't know if the IFA ever bothered asking. I'm not sure this subtlety is worth mentioning in the article. jnestorius(talk) 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Home matches

This article says:

All the IFA team's home matches were played in Belfast

as well as also saying

From 1900 until 1914, one home match was usually played in Dublin

anyone know which (if either) is true? HammerHammerHammer 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarified this. jnestorius(talk) 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Change of team name

So when exactly did the IFA adopt "Northern Ireland" for the British Championship? The evidence of this slideshow of old match programmes is mixed:

  • "Ireland" at home in 1967 [5]
  • "Northern Ireland" at home in 1975 [6] (no programmes for the few intervening home games)

But:

  • "Northern Ireland" for an away fixture v Wales in 1966 [7]
  • "Ireland" for an away fixture v Scotland in 1978 [8]

The patchy evidence of these programmes suggests Wales were the first to adopt "Northern", and Scotland the last, even later than the IFA itself. jnestorius(talk) 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I have thrown a proposal to change the naming convention up at Talk:Ireland national football team The Fashion Icon 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Players who played for both Irelands (North & South) in qualifying rounds of the 1950 FIFA World Cup

The aricle's intro states "As a result several players found themselves playing for two national teams in the same competition." Is there any firm evidence for this statement; if so, should there not be a section in the article listing who they were? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

These are the four players who played for both Ireland teams during the 1950 World Cup qualifiers - Tom Aherne, Reg Ryan, Davy Walsh and Con Martin. The articles on both teams explain how this happened in further detail further down the articles. This bizarre episode is documented by Sean Ryan which is in turn referenced in both articles. The articles on the individual players also contain links which list their appearances for both teams and which will prove they played for both teams in the same competition. This definitely happened. Djln --Djln (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


This Article

There is some discussion on the main NI page about linking to this article, could someone come up with a definition about what this article is about. As far as I understand there is no clear line of distinction between Ireland and Northern Ireland, meerly a gradual chipping away of one mandate resulting in another over a period of half a century. I think a clear definition of what this article is meant to be about would help both articles procede Fasach Nua 10:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the discussion mentioned by Fasach Nua from the Talk:Northern Ireland national football team page to here. It relates more closely to this article than that, and I want to avoid the danger of duplicating or splitting the discussion across two pages. The complete discussion to date follows. jnestorius(talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits were made to this article, by an experienced and capable editor on the grounds "History - shorten: avoid duplication/contradiction of Ireland national football team (IFA)" [9], which I think would normally be reasonable. However I am of the opinion that the Ireland national football team (IFA) article isn't mature enough to be linked as it's remit hasn't yet been defined [10], and the subject of that article has been deliberately left woolly because of this undefined scope. In my opinion the Ireland national football team (IFA) is largely there as an attempt to rewrite history and shouldn't be linked until it is decided what the article is about and why an article about this subject is needed. I have reverted the changes pending comments Fasach Nua 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the Ireland national football team (IFA) and am completely agnostic about whether it should remain a separate article or be deleted and the information presented on this page instead. I understand how this question may be infected with the same issues as so many others relating to Northern Ireland. I am happy to go along with what other editors agree either way. However, one thing that is unacceptable is to have two articles covering the same ground in parallel. This is a POV fork. It seems likely that editors will edit one article without regard to the other: possibly at random, possibly based on which view of history they subscribe to. The ways to avoid forks are:
  • to make one article the parent, the other the child, with a summary section of the child in the parent, linking to the child (this was what I did)
  • to refactor a common child article out of both articles, linked to from each (I doubt this applies in this case)
  • to merge the two articles (I don't mind if this is done)
It is not acceptable to refrain from linking to a relevant article simply because that article is of poor quality: after all, one call link to non-existent articles. The best solution when linking to a poor-quality article is tom improve it (of course I know from experience how easy it is to end up trying to fix some rubbish ten links away from the article you started at...) I have not undone Fasach's revert, but I think the current situation needs to be resolved promptly. Perhaps the next step is to add a merge tag to the 2 pages, message all relevant projects, and have a calm, amicable, well-informed discussion. jnestorius(talk) 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you have said, but I don't think it is simply an issue of linking to a article of poor quality, it's linking to an article that, I for one don't know what it's about! I suspect this is a question for the other talkpage. I think covering things in parallel is undesirable, but is acceptable in the early stages until it can be sorted out what should go where (although this has dragged out too long in these articles). I will put a note on the other talkpage Fasach Nua 10:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Northern Ireland did not exist as a national football team until 1950. Before that the team organised by the IFA was an all-Ireland team featuring players from throughout the 32 counties. It would be incorrect to refer to IFA teams selected before 1950 as Northern Ireland when as late as 1946 the IFA selected a team featuring seven players from what is now the Republic of Ireland. In fact the IFA was organising an all-Ireland national team over 40 years before Northern Ireland existed as a legal entity. The IFA itself referred to the team as Ireland into the 1970s.
Many books and statistical records have simply just back dated the name Northern Ireland and incorrectly applied it to the teams selected by the IFA. I can only guess that this is done to help people distinguish them from teams organised by the FAI, without giving a lengthy explanation. This is why there should be two separate articles – the Ireland (IFA) for the pre-1950 team and the Northern Ireland article for the post-1950 team. Of course their will be some overlap between both articles because both teams were organised by the same body and have a common history. The Ireland (IFA) article finishes by explaining that the team became the modern Northern Ireland team. This is where the Northern Ireland article should begin. A short paragraph explaining the connection with the earlier team should be enough. The current one is too lengthy and just repeats info already included in Ireland (IFA) article.
I think the fact that the Ireland (IFA) article has already been translated into two other languages also justifies its existence and demonstrates a wider interest. It has also been rated as B class and has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale. Yet it has been described here as not mature ! Djln--Djln (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, what I wanted to know was what this article is meant to be about, there was an extensive discussion about dates above, and the decision was made not to use dates as it was too complex. Certainly these are two different teams, and this article is possibly justified, however there needs to be a specific scope for this article, along the lines of "Irish FA national football team pre 19XX", "Ireland at the british home championships". The easiest thing to do would be to merge the two articles, however I could understand how that would be unpalitiable to some, but we need a clear definition to disentangle the two. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Many books and statistical records have simply just back dated the name Northern Ireland and incorrectly applied it to the teams selected by the IFA. I can only guess that this is done to help people distinguish them from teams organised by the FAI, without giving a lengthy explanation. Can you name any non-Wikipedia source that does distinguish the pre-1950 IFA team from the post-1950 one? The only one I can think of is eloratings.net which, even more incorrectly, gives the FAI side the IFA results up to 1923. This suggests the distinction is Original research. jnestorius(talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


On an aside the German WP [11] appears to be talking about this issue too, I dont speak German, so I'm not in a position to gain any incite from it Fasach Nua (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The IFA itself, the actual body that selects the team, referred to the pre-1950 team as Ireland and began to use the name Northern Ireland after 1950. FIFA also distinguished between the two teams by insisting on the name change. You can’t get much more relevant then that. If its good enough for these two governing bodies then it’s good enough for me and it should be good enough for Wiki. No way is this original research.
  • The article is clearly about the pre-1950 Ireland (IFA) team. 1950 was the last time the IFA fielded an all-Ireland team so I believe that is date we should work to.
  • There is no justification for merging the articles. It would be ridiculous for an article about the Northern Ireland national football team to start its history over 40 years before Northern Ireland itself existed and nearly 70 years before the team itself first played using the name Northern Ireland.
  • It should be noted that I began the Ireland (IFA) article for the simple reason that the Northern Ireland article basically ignored the pre-1950 team and failed to explain why over 30 players from the Republic of Ireland turned out for it after 1920. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


  • On point one The IFA continued to field a team called Ireland until 1984,and I dont think name should be the discriminating factor, we dont have seperate articles for Burma/Myamar Egypt/United Arab republic SPR Yugoslavia/SFR Yugoslavia or any name changes, Germany and West germany are the same artilce
  • It is certainly not clear that this article is about the pre-1950 team, the mess in the info box confirms this
  • It was done was done with Germany and West Germany, what is the difference here?
  • Your fourth point seems to suggest that this is a deliberate WP:POVFORK, and a very good reason why the articles should be merged Fasach Nua (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Jnestorius made a very valid point about OR, perhaps a reference would be useful and we could look at how the other differentiate the teams, and possibly use their criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking again at point 4, it would appear that this article was designed, intentionally to white wash over the history of the IFA team [12], [13] & [14] Fasach Nua (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article was intended to fill a gap in the history of Irish football that was not covered by any other article. How exactly is this white washing the history of the IFA team ? If anything it has expanded on it. The article is clearly about the pre-1950 team. After 1950 no player from the Republic of Ireland played for the IFA team so it cannot be accurately described as an Ireland team after that date.
  • It is not "clearly" about the pre-1950 team. The 1950 date is buried in the second paragraph. There was earlier debate about end-date to pick; originally 1922 was used in the article title, and this was changed and deliberately kept vague because there is no single incontrovertible date. I supported that vagueness then, as being a way of avoiding Original Research; but now I think it's made the article's remit confusing.
  • Any gap in the information in Northern Ireland national football team could alternatively be filled by expanding that article, or by refactoring both into History of the IFA national football team.
  • Exactly what is the problem with the info box ? The information here is correct.
  • The "most caps" and "most goals" figures give two sets of figures. The shirts were blue till 1931, but green thereafter. The same first/best/worst results are given in the Northern Ireland article. Confusing at the very least.
  • What distinguishes Ireland (FAI) from West Germany, Yugoslavia etc is no player from those teams played for other national teams at the same time. This situation is unprecedented.
  • Do not exaggerate the extent of the uniqueness of the situation. Many players played for multiple countries. The qualification criteria for many countries has changed: Eusebio would now play for Mozambique rather than Portugal. It may well be true, as you say, that there is no other case of players representing 2 FIFA member countries at the same time. (Though even that would need citation: I can conceive of players playing for New Caledonia and France, say, or for Puerto Rico and the USA. Further, I would be surprised if there were no other instances where one or both countries were non-FIFA members). However, I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether to have one or two articles for the IFA team; after all, the players concerned will still be wikilinked to 2 pages in either case. It seems more like an interesting titbit to mention within an article than a key justification for the existence of an article.
  • The POV accusations are a nonsense. It is not my opinion that over 30 players from the Republic of Ireland played for the IFA team. This is a fact. It is not my opinion that the IFA organised an Ireland team. This is fact.
  • Of course nobody is questioning the factual content of the article. What is being questioned is
  1. the presentation as a separate article, under the particular title, with the implication that this was a separate team from the post-1950 IFA team
  2. the vagueness of the terms of the article. In earlier discussion, I supported vagueness given that no single end-date for an Ireland-NIreland switchover can be uncontroversial. Now I am suggesting it might be better to explain the switchover explicitly in one article rather than implicitly (and vaguely) by having two articles.
  • Nearly 500 articles have been linked to this article which in my opinion, if that is allowed, more then justifies its existence.
  • I don't deny that a few editors have been diligent in linking to pre-1950 or post-1950 as appropriate. I imagine a change that made that careful work redundant would be somewhat exasperating; so be it. If this article were replaced with a redirect to the Northern Ireland team article, that would not harm the existing links.
  • That's a rather vague accusation. I think any change would involve wholesale move or copy of pretty much all the article's text to another location; that hardly constitutes "pulling apart". Please Assume good faith. I am willing to be convinced that the present setup is optimal, but for the moment it looks to me like the existing distribution of information is likely to be confusing for uninformed readers, and a change of presentation might be less so. I am not trying to whitewash history, still less to appropriate Jackie Carey et al for the Six Counties. The present article is a good article considered in isolation; the problem is integrating its information smoothly with other articles.

So let me suggest a rejigging of the current arrangement for your consideration:

  • move this article to History of the IFA national football team
  • replace the Ireland national football team (IFA) infobox with the one from Northern Ireland national football team
  • rejig the intro of History of the IFA national football team to reflect its broader remit
  • copy the post-1950 history Northern Ireland national football team to History of the IFA national football team
  • the major championship summaries and coaches list could also be copied to the history
  • Perhaps edit the intro of Northern Ireland national football team to give more prominence to the all-Ireland Ireland historical period, or a bit more detail about the transition.
  • edit the Northern Ireland national football team#History section, to be a summary of {{main|History of the IFA national football team}}
  • possibly redirect Ireland national football team (IFA) to Northern Ireland national football team; which will be a more appropriate link for the 500 links?

jnestorius(talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The dual internationalists are unique. None of the players listed at the RSSSF link, except for the Irish ones, played for two different national teams at the same time. Jackie Carey and Jimmy Kelly even played for both Ireland teams within the same week. Tom Aherne, Con Martin, Davy Walsh and Reg Ryan then played for both teams in the same competition. Can you show me any evidence of anybody else doing this or similar ? This would be an interesting titbit if it was just one or two players, but in this case there are at least 38.
  • I would hardly describe the 1950 date being in the second para as being burried. Why are you hung up on Original Research. Everything here is supported by a reference. There is no OR here.
  • I am not trying to say the Ireland (IFA) and Northern Ireland have no connection. The connection is made clear throughout the article.
  • I concede that the info box might need some changing regarding kit, caps, goals but the results belong to the pre-1950 Ireland team. It the Northern Ireland results that needs changing not these ones.
  • You said yourself this is a good article, so why are you intent on wrecking it ? I am against any so called rejigging, redirecting, merging or name changes. The article is clear enough as it stands. Do we really need to dumb down articles so the so called uninformed can understand ? Wikipedia is here to improve knowledge, not appeal to the lowest common denominator. Help improve the article if you wish but please do not start vandalising it. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Absolutelly the the dual internationalists are unique, and is definietly noteworty! As to whether an article about a "seperate" IFA team is the best way to note this is questionable.
  • The choice of a date is OR, no other organisation (that I am aware of) differentiates between the two temas on the basis of this date.
  • I think connection is a very weak word, I wouldnt say Republic of Ireland national football team and Republic of Ireland national football team (post granney rule) have a connection, I would say they are the same team, and the same goes for the IFA international team.
  • I dont think caps, goals or anything like that should be included, to have a top scorer over an arbitrary period is noncence
  • You said yourself this is a good article, so why are you intent on wrecking it? A good question, this article has some very good content, the problem is the context this article makes it look like a seperate team, when it is just a period in history, the text Djln has written would be equally as good, if placed in another article.
I had previously proposed an article on the concept of an "Ireland football team", discussing the two claims, and why the current status evolved, this would involve partially merging this artilce into NI, then creating a new article with merged content of the Ireland(IFA) and Ireland(FAI), it would preserve the dual player info in a seperate article, avoid parallel coverage in RoI, NI, Irl(FAI) and Irl(FIA). I think these articles would have a clear remit, avoid the confusion of seperate(sic) teams, and leave this article largely intact with the exception of a few stats to be removed Fasach Nua (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Ryan book identifies 1950 as the last time the IFA fielded an all-Ireland team. That is why 1950 is the most important date. After 1950 no player born in the Republic has played for the IFA team, so they cannot really call themselves Ireland after that. FIFA decreed the IFA team was to become Northern Ireland in time for the qualifying rounds of the 1954 World Cup.
  • There is no comparison between pre-granny rule and post-granny rule. Every team in the world has used or abused this rule. The Republic are not an exception.
  • It is not just a separate era. The jurisdiction of the team changed significantly. For the first 70 odd years of its existence it was called Ireland and represented the 32 counties. However after 1950 it only represented Northern Ireland.
  • There are articles on the Czechoslovakia national football team, the Yugoslavia national football team and the USSR national football team. So why not the Ireland team ? The current Czech Republic national football team is organised by the same association that organised the Czechoslovakia team. When the jurisdiction of the association changed, its team name changed also. This situation is very similar to the one here. If they have separate articles why can’t the Ireland teams.
  • I would be in favour of expanding Ireland national football team into more then just a list. This could feature a brief explanation of any team that might use this name and could then contain a link to the more detailed article. Djln--Djln (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I would propose that we start an article Ireland national football team (initially not at that location) clearly giving context of the competing claims, pre-1922 arrangements and what ever else would be appropriate. Then having done that we go back to both Ireland IFA/FAI articles and review their remit at that point Fasach Nua (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm unclear on this proposal: are you saying we should retain all the existing articles, and add an extra one? I strongly oppose that. That will make things more confusing. Having a article called Irish national football team legitimacy controversy or the like will exaggerate the extent to which these issues are the subject of debate. jnestorius(talk) 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Djln: Accepting your theory that the pre-1950 IFA team is as different from the post-1950 one as the USSR team from the Russia team, then you need to modify both articles to make this much more explicit. This would involve changing the NI infobox, and changing both intro paras to something like...
The Ireland national football team represented the island of Ireland in international football (soccer) between 1882 and 1950. It was organised by the Irish Football Association (IFA), based in Belfast, and competed exclusively against the other "Home Nations" of England, Scotland, and Wales. During the Partition of Ireland in 1920-22, the rival Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established in Dublin, and after 1936 the FAI international side also competed as "Ireland", against teams from mainland Europe. After 1950, FIFA restricted the IFA to selecting players from Northern Ireland, and the modern Northern Ireland national football team is recognised by FIFA as the successor to the original Ireland team. The FAI team now represents the Republic of Ireland.
...and...
The Northern Ireland national football team represents Northern Ireland in international football (soccer). It is organised by the Irish Football Association (IFA), based in Belfast. From 1882 to 1950, the IFA had organised the Ireland national football team, selecting players from the entire island of Ireland. Since then, only the separate Republic of Ireland national football team selects players from the Republic of Ireland. The Northern Ireland team is recognised by FIFA as the successor of the original Ireland team.
otherwise we have a bit of a WP:POVFORK. jnestorius(talk) 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Djln, it's not acceptable to modify someone else's post on a Talk: page. I've reverted to my suggestion above and put your rewrite below. jnestorius(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ireland national football team represented Ireland at international football (soccer) between 1882 and 1950. It was organised by the Irish Football Association, based in Belfast, and competed exclusively against England, Scotland, and Wales. Following the Partition of Ireland, the rival Football Association of Ireland was established in Dublin. From 1924 they starting playing as the Irish Free State but after 1936 also competed as Ireland. After 1950, FIFA restricted the IFA to selecting players from Northern Ireland, and the modern Northern Ireland national football team is recognised by FIFA as the successor to the original Ireland team. The FAI team now represents the Republic of Ireland.
...and...
The Northern Ireland national football team represents Northern Ireland in international football (soccer). It is organised by the Irish Football Association, based in Belfast. From 1882 to 1950, the IFA had organised an Ireland team, selecting players from throughout the isaland. Since then, only the separate Republic of Ireland national football team selects players from the Republic of Ireland. The Northern Ireland team is recognised by FIFA as the successor of the original Ireland team.
I'm really not happy about the new intros (I didnt like the old one, but this is worse), I think the problem is with the MOS, not with either of you two
The X national football team represents X in international football (soccer)
is wrong, really all the team does is represent the association, not the country. I dont like the idea that the 4th oldest team in the world being described as starting in 1950. I'll have a think and try and get back with sommething coherent later. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The Irish continued to field an Ireland team long after 1950, until 1984, and this is not reflected in either opening Fasach Nua (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Could we also hold off any major changes until they have been fully discussed? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Presumably the RoI article should be modified to reflect it coming into existence in 1950 too? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If we are proposing 5 seperate Irish teams should we take this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree the current intro paras are worse, Fasach. Given the underlying assumption of a 1950 split, they're about the least worst possible, as they highlight that assumption. Perhaps your unease is because, like me, you regard that assumption as spurious? I can't agree that all a national team does is represent the association, but if you accept that then the only acceptable structure should be a single IFA-national-team article; an outcome I would agree with.
I think it needs discussion not just at Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football, but also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. There is a small group of editors trying to represent their interpretation by splitting two articles into several, with copy-paste duplication, preposterous infoboxes, and a plethora of categories. It's a big pointless mess. The information should simply be presented in two articles, one for the IFA team and one for the FAI team.
I only noticed the existence of Ireland national football team (FAI) in the course of the present debate. It's a runt of a page that duplicates about three other pages. It should simply be zapped. I notice there is no article Irish Free State national football team: the redirect I added over a year ago is still there. There should be just 2 pages, one for the FAI team, one for the IFA team. Everything else is Original Research.
Let me re-ask a question Djln has not yet answered: Can you name any non-Wikipedia source that does distinguish the pre-1950 IFA team from the post-1950 one? jnestorius(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right it is the underlying premise I don’t like! However it does fix the undefined remit problem. The NI article is now conflicting with itself, this following suggestion is verging WP:POINT for me, but we’ll see where it goes
If we follow the Czech model, the following things need changed in the NI article:
  • First International
  • Largest Defeat
  • Biggest win
  • ELO ratings will be wrong for all teams, as this should have been reset in 1950
  • The international records are wrong (it is the complete record from 1882 is printed in the home match programs)
  • Danny Blanchflower’s caps need reduced
  • The Danny Blanchflower article needs an extra international team listed, with the revised caps
(presumably this will need done for a lot of players)
  • Most of the home championships in the honours section need removed
  • Billy Gillespie's goal scoring recors is invalid
Similar changes still need made to RoI, Irl(FAI) an addition of a new article IFS, alterations to the players articles that have played for these team, who may be erroneously recorded as playing for the RoI Fasach Nua (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

After all this talk of Czechoslovakia, I was looking at SK Dynamo České Budějovice, which has had ten name changes! Would eleven seperate articles be appropriate :-) Fasach Nua (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting datapoint: Search Northern Ireland results on FIFA's site from Jan 1920 to Dec 1925 (you need to fill these in "Customise search", they're not set by my hyperlink) The first match is 1924 (with the Ulster Banner flag, to reopen another recent debate). Search England results, earlier IFA matches are called "Ireland (all-Ireland pre 1923)" prior to 1923, with a blank flag, and a broken link URL (you get the same broken URL for other defunct teams like...em..."Germany FR"). I consider all this more evidence of FIFA crapness than anything else. jnestorius(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Already answered the question about non-Wiki sources. The IFA itself, the actual body that selects the team, referred to the pre-1950 team as Ireland and began to use the name Northern Ireland after 1950. FIFA also distinguished between the two teams by insisting on the name change. If its good enough for these two governing bodies then it’s good enough for me and it should be good enough for Wiki. Getting very bored with this debate, jnestorius and fasnach need to try writing articles instead of aggressively attacking, criticising and undermining other editors work. What gives you the right to decide what articles should be deleted and what articles should exist. I am happy for this to be settled at WikiProjectFootball as I am confident common sense will prevail. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


First, the lesser issue: Your assertion that FIFA insisted on the name change in 1950 is incorrect. The name change was in 1953, appealed by IFA till 1954. It was the eligibility that was decided in 1950. This is what Ryan's book says, pp.57-59 & pp.68-71. I like your caveat that the IFA "began" to use the name in 1950 (well, 1954 actually), as you are aware that it continued to use "Ireland" in the Home internationals for decades afterwards. There was an unresolved debate above about whether the IFA also retained the (unexercised) right to select 26-county players for Home internationals after 1954. The only source we found said they did, though I'd welcome a source to the contrary if you have one. So should we use 1953 or 1954 instead of 1950? If it's good enough for FIFA...
Second, the bigger issue: There is a difference between insisting on a name change and declaring that the body with the new name is different from the body with the old name. As I've said, FIFA allowed 2 "Ireland" teams for three years after disallowing dual players. That suggests they didn't care much about the name; forcing both teams to change their name was a diplomatic way of not favouring either. You have produced zero evidence that either FIFA or the IFA (or even the FAI) regard the pre-1950 IFA team as distinct from the post-1950 team: can you give a book, magazine or weblink? Your attempt to construct such a case is at best Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position which is not allowed. jnestorius(talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The exact date when the IFA stopped using the term Ireland is not really the issue. I don’t know why you are getting hung up on exact dates and stats. The simple fact is that the IFA did not field an all-Ireland team after 1950. The question you asked was which bodies distinguished between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have answered this twice now and you keep going off the point with crap about dates. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This link Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats regularly distinguishes bretween Ireland and Northern Ireland when you cross refernce articles. For example article on Peter Doherty who won all his caps before 1950 refer to team as Ireland while article on Danny Blanchflower who won most of his caps after 1949 refers to team as Northern Ireland. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's a good site. Possibly not strictly citable (see WP:SPS), but I'd argue for it if needs be. However, I don't see it suggesting two distinct teams; the subtitle "Biographies and features on the Good, the Bad and Iain Dowie of Northern Ireland football since 1882" might suggest the opposite (Northern Ireland and 1882?!). As you say, that site refers to the IFA team as "Ireland" till 1950 and "Northern Ireland" thereafter; I endorse that, Wikipedia does that, and we should continue to do that. The question is whether the team changed or just the name (well, not just the name: also the eligibility criteria). We know each other's opinion on that question; what do published sources have to say? jnestorius(talk) 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely if Ireland and Northern Ireland are two seperate teams, then Danny Blanchflower should have two distinct set of caps, one for one team and one for the other, to lump all the caps together regardless of which "team" he played for would imply that theey are both the same team Fasach Nua (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There seems to be no pleasing you . I cited a book which says when the IFA last fielded an all-Ireland team , the names of two official bodies who distinguish between the two teams and now a website which does the same. How much evidence do you want ? Djln --Djln (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those Articles

The above thread appears to be going nowhere, perhaps it might be better looking at this the other way, what should the Northern Ireland national football team & Republic of Ireland national football team articles be about, in order to avoid covering things in parallel? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this be used as a new opening in the RoI article?
The Republic of Ireland national football team represents the Republic of Ireland in international football (soccer). It is organised by the Football Association of Ireland, based in Dublin. From 1926 to 1936 the FAI had organised an Irish Free state nationall football team, which drew players from the Irish Free State, then from 1936 to 1950, the FAI had organised a seperate Ireland team, selecting players from throughout the island. Since then, only the separate Northern Ireland national football team selects players from Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland team is recognised by FIFA as the successor of the FAI's Ireland team and the FAI's Irish Free state national football team.
Should it exclude pre-1950 matches?
Should they exclude pre 1950 players?
Should any history before 1950 be included, if they are sepreate teams?
Fasach Nua (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland opening intros and the articles as a whole need considerable improving. Neither of them do their teams any justice and both are guilty of recentism. Nice attempt at Republic of Ireland intro but unfortunately it is not true about only the IFA team being permitted to select Northern Irish players before 1936 and after 1950. At least one Northerner, Harry Chatton had played for the Irish Free State by 1931. Under both the Irish Constitution and the Good Friday Agreement any one born in Northern Ireland can claim citizenship of the Republic and thus represent the Republic. See for example Darron Gibson, Tony Kane and Saul Deeney. I wish there was a simple solution to all this. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of citizenship does not define what team you are eligiable for (at least not in the Irish sence) see [[15]], but I think we have enough on our plate without adding this discussion Fasach Nua (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a need for a general article about FIFA international eligibility rules, and also about what counts as a full international; the Irish history will be an interesting case study within that. jnestorius(talk) 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

I was looking at the selected players, and clicked on this one Ireland Northern Ireland England George Gaukrodger this seems to be using flags for the sake of flags, he died before the NI flag was created, and using the St. George's cross as the country of birth was England is nonsence, should we extend this and refer to the members of other teams by their country of origin in an encylopedic context? Should Andy Townsend be tagged as an Englishman in the RoI article? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This link [16] gives Gaukrodgers birthplace as Belfast, hence the Northern Ireland flag. He represented the all-Ireland team at football and England at cricket hence the other two flags. Djln--Djln (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


The Ulster Banner only came into existance in 1953, therefore it can't be used on this article which deals with the period prior to 1950.--Padraig (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unique?

Regardless of the arguments below the situation of the Irish FA, fielding an Ireland and a Northern Ireland side in paralllel from the 1950s is unique. Is there an analogous situation in which any sporting team alternates its name depending on the competition it is playing in? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

I have proposed the following mergers:

The arguments leading up to this proposal are contained in the above sections of this Talk: page. Let me acknowledge that the debate has got a bit heated in the past few days. I wish to state that I accept whatever consensus is arrived at and intend to continue to contribute to the articles, however many there will be.

The background is explained in the 4 relevant articles, as well as Irish Football Association and Football Association of Ireland. Basically, from 1921, both Associations existed; from 1926, both played internationals. For internationals after 1950, the IFA only selected players from Northern Ireland and the FAI from the Republic of Ireland. The IFA before 1950 selected players from southern Ireland; the FAI from 1936-1946 selected players from Northern Ireland. There are currently 4 separate articles:

I feel there should be a single article for each association's team, merging the historic article into the article relating to the modern-day team. My reasoning is:

  • the difference is not great enough to merit separate articles
    • of course, the history is important and must be treated thoroughly within each article; the articles are to be merged, not deleted
  • no external source distinguishes the 2 FAI teams.
  • few external sources distinguish the 2 IFA teams
    • those that do do so based on a cutoff date of 1922-23 rather than 1950
  • the 1950 cutoff date is the date of a FIFA ruling that restricted the eligbility of players; other dates could plausibly be chosen, as outlined above
  • having separate articles will make difficult the populating of infoboxes: do you include the old team's first game, worst defeat, etc, in the records for the current team? do you include the most common shirt colour or the last-worn shirt colour? jnestorius(talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification of this proposed merger has been listed at the following projects Football, Northern Ireland , Irish Football and Ireland Fasach Nua (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not entirely set on a location, but I think Djln has done some excellent work on documenting the anomolous situation in which Ireland found itself, there is a reasonable argument in favour of such an article. I like you wouldn't keenly support such a page, but I wouldn't oppose it either, and it may be a compromise position that could lead to a consensus Fasach Nua (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the term dispute is a tad extreme, I think the situation is more akin to the rugby situation between Ireland and the Lions, with an overlapping remit, yet not really conflicting to any great deal Fasach Nua (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against any merger - We could debate this topic forever and never agree anything between us. I think the best think would be bring the debate to WikiProjectFootball as has been suggested before. Thank you Fasnach for praising my contribution. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I already added a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Ireland national football team: proposed article mergers; is there another procedure to follow? jnestorius(talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's that simple. Yes, it's true that Ireland (IFA) became Northern Ireleand and that Ireland (FAI) became Republic of Ireland, but that does not make it appropriate to talk about Northern Ireland playing football in 1882. Both the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles date themselves properly (i.e. the Northern Ireland articles placing its start date as 1882 and showing records for Ireland (IFA), while the Republic of Ireland article gives a start date of 1923, both using proper naming conventions i.e. "Ireland" and "Irish Free State". The problem here is really the Ireland (FAI) article, which deals only with a period in the Irish Free State/Ireland/Republic of Ireland teams history.
My suggestions:
  • Limit this article to the date of the split (i.e. 1882-1923).
  • Rename it to Ireland national football team (1882-1923)
  • Merge the Ireland (FAI) article into Republic of Ireland.
  • Be careful to use appropriate naming conventions in every case (i.e. we have three teams: Ireland, Ireland/Northern Ireland, Irish Free State/Ireland/Republic of Ireland)
  • Discuss the teams selection issues appropriately in the articles.
  • Keep Ireland national football team as a dab page.
This is what is common practice in published literature, no? --sony-youthpléigh 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't know that it's common practice in the literature to distinguish the pre-1923 IFA team from the post-1923 team. That's really the nub of the matter. We all agree the team underwent significant change; but I haven't seen definitive evidence for either 1923 or 1950 as the pre-eminent transition date. I understand the arguments being put forward here for each, but it's not up to Wikipedians to adjudicate; we must see what the sources say. I will be happy to find anything definitive, but so far nothing has ben produced. In the absence of any single cutoff date, I think the NPOV thing is to have a single article, with sections, and a clear exposition in the intro. The name "Northern Ireland" in the title would reflect the current name, as per convention. jnestorius(talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally feel that the situation is notable but the teams that played during this period are not notably distinct from any of the modern teams, and if there is a seperate article it should be about the situation. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that there are two schools of thought (outlined here): one starting Northern Ireland in 1882 (of course still using the correct names), the other marking a split between Ireland -> Northern Ireland + Republic of Ireland. The date for this varies. I'd suggest that we don't make a choice between which school is "right" and just give equal credence to both but starting the Northern Ireland articles at 1882, but having an all-Ireland article also running up until 1921/'23/'26 (won't actually matter which we choose, 1926 is the date of the first international for the Irish Free State). That article could also discuss the split. --sony-youthpléigh 14:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That's similar to the current arrangement, expect with 192x instead of 1950. The problems are: contradictory infoboxes and duplication of text about the history. Anyway, I've said more than enough here, I'm signing off for Christmas. This had better be sorted when I get back :) jnestorius(talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Sony, welcome to the debate. The all-Ireland article has to run up until at least 1950. The IFA and FIFA did not start referring to the team as Northern Ireland until after that date and between 1924 (when the Irish Free State made their debut, not 1926) and 1950 at least 32 players born in Southern Ireland / Free State played for the IFA team. These players obviously considered this team as an all-Ireland team. Just because Northern Ireland itself came about in the 1920s does not automatically mean the national football team did as well. [17] Here is another article that mentions the 1950 as being significant. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is there is that there is no one place to draw a line as to when NI starts and IRL stops, and apart from here on wikipedia no-one (to my knowledge) has really tried. This article quotes the most capped Ireland player as "Elisha Scott 31", is there anyone else who says this? Ireland won the home championship in 1984, yet this has been excluded, does anyone else quote this seperately from the 1903 win? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • After 1924 there were in effect two Ireland teams. Both the IFA and FAI claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland and selected players from the whole island. The situation remained unresolved until 1950 when both teams entered the qualifying rounds of the World Cup - the first time the two teams had competed in the same competition. Four players actually found themselves playing for two national teams in the same competition. FIFA intervened and in 1953 decreed that for future World Cups, the IFA team would compete as the Northern Ireland national football team. They were also restricted to selecting players from Northern Ireland. This team is recognised by FIFA as the successor to this Ireland team. The FAI team now competes as the Republic of Ireland. Djln --Djln (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you are putting into this, but before the issue of the intro is discussed, we need to know:
  • What this article is about
  • Why there is an article about this subject
I think once this had been decided then everything else should fall into place Fasach Nua (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Are we writing an article about all IFA teams fielded under the name Ireland? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Bear with me, we are starting to get somewhere! So this article is about every IFA international up to 1954, and then only the teams fielded in home internationals thereafter? There was lots of talk about cut off dates earlier. Fasach Nua (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
We are looking for an intro along the lines of below?
The Ireland national football team is the name applied to the international side of the Irish FA when it plays in the home nations competition. The team consists of players from across Ireland however it's results are appended to the international record of the Northern Ireland national football team and no player from the Republic of Ireland has been selected to play since 1950.
Fasach Nua (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If the stats in the infobox were dropped, I could almost buy into this Fasach Nua (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If this article is about the IFA team up until 1954, does that mean that the Northern Ireland article starts at 1954? If so then the Republic of Ireland articles has to start at 1954 also going by the same logic. Clearly that completely artificial: Irish Free State/Ireland/Republic of Ireland are all one team. For that reason too, I'm starting to go with the idea of just losing this article.
We cannot agree on a start date for Northern Ireland because there is no start date for Northern Ireland. The FIFA imposed name changes and territory eligibility rules were placed on two associations whose "national" teams are today called Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. These associations were established in 1882 and 1923 respectively. One is called the IFA and the other is called the FAI.
The secret is in the association, not trying to figure out wavy ideas of nationhood from team names. The names were changed, restrictions were placed on eligibility, but that didn't change the team, just it's name and who played for it. --sony-youthpléigh 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fasach, maybe we are getting there at last. However not exactly correct on only playing in Home Championship. An IFA XI also competed in 1950 World Cup and played some friendlies against non-British oppostion. Which particular stats are you against ? They are all correct for this team.Djln--Djln (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sony, the name Republic of Ireland was first used by the FAI for their team in 1954. However the FAI XI played as the Irish Free State from 1924 to 1936 and represented the same territory. That is why that article goes back to 1920s. Also articles are referred to as national teams, not association teams Djln--Djln (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Ireland is that they have no records of their own independently of the main NI team. I think jnestorius made a very valid point about just copying the info box from the NI article and using it word for word, all records that apply to NI also apply to Irl
I agree with Sony's interpretation, but I am willing to work on these articles, as I feel for it may be possible to turn this article into something compatiable with this view Fasach Nua (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree with your argument about territory, but it should be noted that the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland do not constitute the same Geographic Territory, just in the same way the Republic of Ireland and Ireland do not constitute the same geographical area Fasach Nua (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry Fasnach, but you are being ridiculous. To say Ireland have no records of their own does not make sense. Of course they do. It would be extremely confusing and misleading to have the exact same infoboxs in each article. Neither David Healy or Pat Jennings ever played for the IFA Ireland team, so how could they be listed as top scorer or most capped player. The kits have also changed considerably. Any difference territory wise between the Republic of Ireland and the Irish Free State is minuscule compared to difference between the Republic of Ireland and Ireland as a whole. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
okay then Ireland has no records of its own recognised by FIFA or UEFA. I can quite confidently say that Pat Jennings did play for the IFAs Ireland team on a regualr basis in the Home championship. On the issue of Healy, one could argue that Billy Gillespie having never played for Northern Ireland should not have been recognised as their top scorer for seventy years, yet FIFA were quite happy to recognise this fact. The IFA international team always used the same kit regardless if they were playing for NI or Irl, so the current kit worn by the NI team is the same for Ireland. I dont agree with the argument about territory, but what is your definition for the "minuscule", if you are going rule out one territorial change, and use another, without a clear definition form an external reliable source, it seems very much like OR. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
They wouldnt be identical, the name at the top would obviously be "Ireland" in one and "Northern Ireland", but I can't see a reason to change anything else Fasach Nua (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is principally about the pre-1950 IFA team Ireland. It covers the fact that that the IFA continued using the name until the 1980s but that is all. Post 1950 stats should be confined to the Northern Ireland article. I have no issue with Northern Ireland inheriting / using the stats of the pre-1950 team. However imposing current NI stats and new kits on an article about the earlier team is just stupid and will be confusing to readers. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • According to their wiki articles, the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland are territorially the same, consisting of the 26 counties. This was a simple name change on leaving the Commonwealth and becoming a republic. The state did not gain or lose territory. This is not my POV. This a historical fact. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
So we are now reintroducing a cut off date? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the territory argument is a complete load of nonsence, however, a few question,
  • There has always been a cut-off date of 1950. The Treaty Ports between them constitute a few square miles and that is minuscule as I suggested before and is nothing in comparison to the difference between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This is an example of hair spilting beyond belief. Get a grip. Djln--Djln (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did this 1950 date come from and who decided it? Ireland continued to field a team called Ireland until 1984, with players selected from across the country to quote the previous part of this debate:
Are we writing an article about all IFA teams fielded under the name Ireland? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please could you clearly state what you think this article should be about, and it will make this whole process so much easier Fasach Nua (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasnach, I am sick and tired of this debate. You are nothing but a time waster. I am fed repeating myself. The article is clearly about the all-Ireland team that was organised by the IFA between 1882 and 1950. The 1950 date is when the IFA last fielded a team featuring players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This fact is clearly stated in the Sean Ryan book. Although the IFA continued to use the name Ireland until the 1980s, not one single player from the Republic played for the IFA team after 1950. If you think different then prove it. I am no longer taking part in this debate. Discussion ended. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no external sources to say the 1951 team is a different team to the 1950 one. RoI has not fielded a player from Leitrim in years and we dont have a seperate article about the FAI team which fielded Leitrim players and one about the team that didnt. Your arguments are completely incoherent, you are only using one external source, which is essentiall of pulp quality with little academic merit, and even that source does not support your position. I will revert to my previous position and throw my lot in with jnestorius and Sony-youth and support a merger of alll FAI teams into the Republic of Ireland national football team article, and all IFA teams be merged into the Northern Ireland national football team article. The consensus of the editors who have partaken in this discussion is three in favour of merging and one against, I will post a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to close this discussion and to see if this is an acceptable consensus to procede with the mergers. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fasnach, once again you have resorted to ridiculous hair spilting with your Leitrim suggestion. Leitrim is a single small county compared to the 26 counties the IFA did not select a player from after 1950. And you have the cheek to say my arguments are incoherent ! I will concede that the Ireland national football team (FAI) can be merged into the main Republic of Ireland national football team as this covers a relatively short period in the teams history. The issue of the dual internationalists could be solved by a separate article on that specific topic. However the Ireland national football team (IFA) has to stay. For the reasons below.
    • Ireland was a separate national territory disitinct from either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. Separate nations should have articles about separate national teams.
    • This article is not unprecedented. This team existed the best part of 70 years. Other former nations/territories that existed for less and similar such as Czechoslovakia, the USSR, East Germany, Saarland and Yugoslavia have separate articles from their successor teams. There is even a Wiki category for the subject.
    • The article has nearly 500 links and has been translated into two other languages. This clearly demonstrates an interest. It is also a B rated article and has being supported by both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football and has been rated a high-importance on the priority scale. Djln--Djln (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
My principal objection has always been that I dont know what this article is about (althought I do have other objections), I would very much like it if you could state what you think this article is about
I don't have an objection to an Ireland article, but it needs to cover the full remit of the team unless there is compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, covering foundation to the present day, the team has ALWAYS been called Ireland and ALWAYS had a pool of players from across the island, as to why no RoI players have made the cut since 1950 is purely speculation as far as I can tell.
Indeed an historic article is not unprecedented, (I will ignore Saar and GDR as they are not analogious). Although the Irish situation is analomolous, as the Irish FA have a dual mandate. One of the big issue with this article is the stats, I have yet to see one external reference for the statistics quoted in the infobox.
It is bad form to quote wikipedia, if you are going to justify something here you need to provide, external reliable sources Fasach Nua (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry Fasnach. I am not going to explain the article to you again for a fifth or sixth time. Are you eleven or what ! It is clear from your comments that the IFA team has always been called Ireland, even after 1950, and that you don’t know why players from he ROI have not made the cut just reveals your prejudices and lack of knowledge of the topic. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The IFA team has not always been called Ireland the IFA team has ONLY fielded an Ireland team up to 1954, and after that in the home championship
If you know why players from the Republic have never played for Ireland since the 1950s please add the reason to the article, and if you have evidence from an external verifiable source then please supply this information as well.
I notice you have removed the merge tag on the article for the fifth time, I think it is premature to stifle this discussion, but as the majority of editors support a merge, I have changed this article to a redirect.
I dont want you to explain what this article was about to me for the fifth or sixth time, I want you to explain it to me once Fasach Nua (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fasnach, you have absolutely no authority to merge this article. A simple majority doe not entitle you to do so. If you do, you will leave me with no option except to report you to a Wiki administrator, request protection for the page and get you sanctioned. The reason no ROI-born played for the IFA XI after 1950 is because FIFA did not allow them to. Have you actually read the article ? It seems to me that you have'nt or you would not be asking the same question over and over again Djln--Djln (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have as much right to merge the article as you do to repeatidly remove the proposed merger tag. I would welcome a complaint to an admin, as it would clearly expose how ridiculious you really are. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could supply a reference for your claim "The reason no ROI-born played for the IFA XI after 1950 is because FIFA did not allow them to", it certainly contrary to the stated 2005 position of the Irish FA, UEFA and FIFA who claim that the IFA had the right to field any Irish player they choose in a team called Ireland in matches against home nation teams. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of setting a terrible precient of quoting external reliablee sources, references can be found further up this page at Talk:Ireland_national_football_team_(IFA)#Current_Status_section_deleted Fasach Nua (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this a different way, If we were writing this article in the 1970s, when the IFA international teams matches were split approx 50-50 between NI/IRL, would we say that one was the main article, and the other was the daughter, would there be an equal case to merge NI into here? I think im getting dizzy Fasach Nua (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Third Opinion

As there are several other editors involved (thus far, I see at least 4 that have expressed their opinion one way or another) this is really outside the scope of WP:3O. I think the best step would be to post this at requests for comment to get more input from the community at large, and perhaps requests for mediation if the issue remains unresolved. Justin chat 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin thank you for taking the time to look at this, I think given the strengh of feeling, an RFC would be an appropriate course of action (possibly delayed to after the Christmas period?) Fasach Nua (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside sources from Padraig These outside sources stress relevance of 1950 date.

IFA website, or FAI website

At the time, both the FAIFS and IFA selected players from all over Ireland meaning that many footballers won caps for both Associations. It wasn't until 1950 that FIFA intervened. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Irish FA doesnt make any note of the 1950 date, in fact it would appear that nothing happened between 1921 and 2007, so I dont know why you have raised this article! The FAI site is correct and is consistant with the two references in the current status section above. However it ignores the appeal by the Irish and the fact the FIFA intervention was partially over turned. The site in no way supports the assertation that the 1950 Ireland team and the 1951 Ireland team are seperate teams Fasach Nua (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, everybody. I think it's best to keep all the merge-debate posts in the one section, so I've moved the latest discussion above the unrelated logo section. Here is another proposal to throw on the heap: simply rename this article to something like "History of the IFA Ireland team to 1950", and remove the infobox (which BTW currently has incorrect colour details, AFAIK). Pretty much everything else can stay as is, though maybe the flags-for-players and Category:Former national football teams would be fuel for a minor sequel debate. jnestorius(talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, I have no problem with that suggestion, preference would be for "History of the IFA International team to 1950", but as long as History and date are used, the rest is just tinkering, no flags, an Irishman playing for Ireland is an Irishman(still tinkering) and as it would not technically be about a team, then cat should not be an issue. To update you on goings on there is another new article Dual Irish international footballers, which depending on any changes may be merged in (I have no strong feelings one way or the other) Fasach Nua (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fasnach & Jnestorius, I’ll try to keep this simple.

  • I am strongly opposed to any name change or merger and neither of you have the authority to just go ahead and do it despite the fact you are discussing it as if you have. The article is just as legitimate as any other article in Category:Former national football teams and this team played as long, if not longer, then most of them. The team is place appropriately placed in this category, because there is no longer an Ireland national team, just like there is no longer a USSR, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia national team.
  • I am in favour of a more detailed paragraph explaining the IFA usage of the name Ireland after 1950. Their rights to use it, their rights to select ROI players for BHC. However it should be made absolutely clear that not a single player from the 26 counties played for them after 1950 and not because they were not good enough as Fasnach has implied. This fact alone diluted their claim to be called Ireland after 1950.
  • As far as I am aware the blue and green colours in the infobox were the most common colours used by this team. If this is incorrect or you feel the colours should be swapped around then fair enough, but the infobox stays.
  • The Irish Football Association article could be expanded to include a history of both teams with redirects to this article and the Northern Ireland national football team.
  • The use of flags is another hot potato. I am not sure what is the best solution.
  • Without offending either of you, I am concerned that you are both letting your political opinions colour your attitude towards this article. You seem to be in denial that an all-Ireland team ever existed and I get the impression you are trying to erase it out of history. I cannot understand why you want to do this. Even a die hard anti-communist would not deny that the USSR and its team existed. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Djln on this, the team existed and deserves it own article.--Padraig (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Padraig, Thank you for your support. I was beginning to think I was on my own. Djln --Djln (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The big problem with this article is it is impossible to draw a line between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the problems or more obvious when trying to edit the NI article than this one. Unfortunetly there is no prescident for the changes in Irish FAs international team, we can look at the breakup of Eastern Europe's soccer teams, which have some commonality, but they are not the same. This is a realtively good article if looked at in isolation, but it makes the NI article a nightmare, and the goal is to create an encylopedia, not individual articles. I have no objection to an article about the Irleand team, but it should cover the full remit, including the 1984 home championship win, and the article needs to meet WP:Notability. As for denying history, we dont have to look beyond the first thread on this page. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If we keep the infobox, I think the following are non-contencious
  • Info on matches, which are correct regardless of using FIFAs interpretation or the 1950 cut off date is used
  • Kit - a single green shirt, which is correct regardless of using FIFAs interpretation or the 1950 cut off date is used
(although from the 192X school of thought they are all wrong)
The contencious issue are the player stats, can we get an external source for Ireland having these records independently of Northern Ireland. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A query on the most capped player, Pat Jennings played against England/Scotland and Wales 48 times before the home championship ended, does anyone know how many of these appearences were for Ireland? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fasnach, I disagree that it is absolutely impossible to draw a line between Ireland and NI. This FAI link [18] and the Ryan book both identify the 1950 date as the last time the IFA XI featured players from Southern Ireland. I appreciate that the IFA continued to use the Ireland name into the 1980s but the IFA team that won the 1984 BHC was entirely made up of NI players and firmly belongs in the NI article. This article could be concluded by a explanation of the IFA continued use the Ireland name.
  • I would start the NI history section with a paragraph about this team, explaining the difference between Ireland and NI, explaining that the IFA picked both teams, explaining that NI is the successor team and that it inherited the records of the earlier team. The para would then also contain a redirect to this article. The NI history section would then begin properly after 1950. I am more then willing to help out with NI article.
  • On the notability issue. As a national football team, only England, Scotland and Wales are older and the team were British champions in 1914. Surely this makes them notable ?
  • This link [19] clearly identifies blue as a significant colour in teams early history. It needs to be included in infobox.
  • If the stats really bother you, then add a note explaining that the record finishes at 1950. This should not really be an issue as no record holder played for both the pre-1950 Ireland team and the post-1950 NI team. This is bad case of hair-spilting on your part.
  • This link [20] might help with your Pat Jenning inquiry. Can’t help but notice that it says Northern Ireland Cap Details. No mention of Ireland at all.

Djln--Djln (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Regardless of your opinion, the team that won BHC in 1984 was called Ireland and run by the IFA, if you want to exclude it then the article title is wrong and needs changed
  • Your second point, while sensible, we really cant decide anything until the bigger issue is dealt with.
  • I think you misunderstand notability, at least the WP definition of the word, it requires an external source to treat the subject as WP is treating it, WP:NOTABILITY would explain it better than I. An example might be that the Charlton era RoI team is notable in the normal sence of the word, in that it was the most successful Irish international team ever, but it is not notable in the WP sence of the word, and hence does not have a seperate article independent of the RoI team.
  • Kit- It's not a huge issue, green in the infobox as the most recent, and blue and white in the kit section, I could be persueded otherwise, but its not a big issue (on an aside the blue is in part attributed to Linfield influence, but Linfield didnt have an international player until 1887)
  • Its not hair splitting, the problem is that Ireland and NI operated in parallel for 35 years and all results went into the same international record, if the article meets wp:notability, then the stats should as well
  • On your last subtle point, as you stated earlier "Many books and statistical records have simply just back dated the name Northern Ireland and incorrectly applied it to the teams selected by the IFA"
basically the key issue is WP:NOTABILITY Fasach Nua (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fasnach, Have you got an on-line source showing the use of the Ireland name by the IFA after 1950 and into the 1980s. The NIFG site for example does not use the Ireland name for either the 1980 or 1984 teams. [21] [22]

Unlike other sources the NIFG site is not guilty of backdating the NI name. If you check other bios at the site, you will see that pre-1950 players, such as Billy Gillespie, are listed as playing for Ireland while post-1950 players, like Jennings are listed as playing for NI. Even more evidence of the 1950 date !


One of the better online source for examples of Ireland usage is ebay match programmes here, although they are a little bit populist, and you cant get a long term link. The BBC would have referred to the team as Ireland, poking around youtube might reveal something (I dont have access to it at the moment).
My personal opinion as to why is not important, whether the subject of this article is more or less noteable than another is not important, what is important is whether or not a distinct Ireland football team ending in 1950 meets the Wikipedia:Notability criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fasach, this article is as notable as any of the other former national teams article, or for that matter the current national teams.--Padraig (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Or this Article here.--Padraig (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Equally as notable as the former team Republic of Ireland national football team (13th August 2001-18th September 2001) is not a valid argument Fasach Nua (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Djln --Djln (talk) and Padraig (talk) on this surely they are as notable as any other team. BigDunc (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of terms of the debate

I notice that Ireland national football team (FAI) and Republic of Ireland national football team have been merged. There was almost no discussion of it here, and I was going to suggest that there should be a separate debate for that half of the original proposal; but I won't bother if everybody has already acquiesced to that merger.

On the other half of the proposal: it seems that everybody is content in principle to have an article dealing with the IFA team prior to some cutoff date, separate from the Northern Ireland national football team article. After all, there is an article History of the England national football team; if that gets long enough it may be split into articles defined by cutoff date. What is contentious about this IFA article is:

  • the title
  • the cutoff date
  • the infobox

So I think we can close the merge debate, and agree not to merge; though of course the debate will continue on those issues which are contentious. My suggestion then for a next step in this process is:

Would anyone object to such a course? jnestorius(talk) 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A merger would not be my first choice, however I still think there are a number of possible outcomes one of which is a merger, and I would not want to take that possibility off the table. I think we could get somewhere examining the article with reference to the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, however {{pov}} and {{Misleading}} tags would not be out of place Fasach Nua (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of the closing of the merger debate and agree with the above proposals. Of the tags suggested, I believe the Controversial one seems to be the most appropriate. Djln --Djln (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of building a consensus, I will agree to the above Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Restructure

I think we all agree on the facts (although Padraig hasnt said much), it is just the interpretation that is the issue

We could change the opening paragraph to

The Ireland national football team represented the Irish FA in international football competitions, from 1882 to 1950 it fielded players from throughout Ireland, but since 1950 has only fielded players from Northern Ireland, and it is the Northern Ireland national football team with whom it shares it’s international record. It principally played in the British home championship, winning the competition outright on three occasions, once before 1950, and twice after.

A second paragraph briefly describing the split

  • A section describing the team to 1950 (football only!)
  • A section describing the 1950 split(sic), dual players, Ireland terminology usage after 1950 etc
  • A section describing the post 1950 team (football only!) (possibly discuss the end of BHC)

(this wouldnt preclude subsections) Fasach Nua (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The NI article has a section on BHC, which will summmarise sections 1 and 3, and reference this as the main article (not strictly accurate, but it is gonna be messy whatever is decided). Fasach Nua (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason I haven't said much is I have no real interest in football or sport in general, my reason for supporting the retention of this article is that because it is factual and the team is of historical interest to sport fans. As for the changes to the structure proposed above, I will a wait to see the reaction of others first before commenting on them.--Padraig (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Until there is hard evidence of the IFA using the Ireland name on a regular basis after 1950, we should leave the core of the article as it is and a detailed post-1950 history should be confined to the Northern Ireland article. However, as I have said before, we can still acknowledge the IFA rights to use the name Ireland and the rights to select players from thru-out Ireland, but at the same time acknowledging that did not necessarily take up these rights, in particular the last one. Fasnach, I fear you will just add to the confusion by insisting on including 1980s history here. I should also point out that the article is about the Ireland national football team that represented Ireland between 1882 and 1950 and NOT specifically about the IFA which has an article of its own. The main reason the IFA tag was added to the title was to help distinguish it from the teams selected by the FAI. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As I've said already, I dislike the article's current assumption that the Ireland team ceased to exist in 1950 and the Northern Ireland team sprang into being to take its place. However, I dislike Fasach's proposal even more: if I understand, it suggests that between 1950 and 1984 the Ireland and Northern Ireland teams existed in parallel, one playing in the BHC, the other in remaining fixtures. Whatever the flaws of separate infoboxes for Djln's version, the infoboxes for Fasach's will be worse -- Pat Jennings will have 43 caps on one and 76 in the other, and what about the 1966/7 and 67/8 BHCs which doubled as Euro68 qualifiers?
  • The problem I have with both these options is that they attempt to impose a neat clean-cut division which is an artificial imposition onto the situation. The FAI and the IFA gave conflicting analyses. FIFA tried (sensibly) to keep its involvement to the minimum necessary. Therefore there is no agreed or neutral exposition of all the issues. Wikipedia for WP:NPOV must not impose an interpretation but rather reflect and describe the lack of consensus.
  • As regards the theoretical availability of RoI players for BHC matches, I would suspect that, if it hadn't been de facto stillborn in 1950, the FIFA changes of 1964/5 which included the "granny rule" would have ended that de jure. Those changes were designed to crack down on team-swapping and stop things like Italy's poaching of Argentinian oriundi. This speculation is WP:OR of course, but so is any contrary intimation that the RoI-selectability right existed right through to 1984.
  • Djln has, very reasonably, suggested the comparison with other teams listed in Category:Former national football teams. While there may be some dodgy inclusions (I've flagged Alsace), Czechoslovakia, East Germany, USSR, and Yugoslavia are unexceptionable. However, in the case of each, the end of the team coincided with the end of the polity it represented (though the CIS and RCS played out the tournaments already qualified by the USSR and CSSR). That suggests an end-date for Ireland of 1922 or thereabouts (which was what the article originally had).
The most instructive comparison is perhaps with Yugoslavia: the Talk page there and at Serbia and Montenegro national football team (which currently redirects to Serbia national football team) show a deal of controversy, and the infoboxes are not very clear -- Apparently, Serbia played its first game in 2006 but had its best World Cup in 1998. This reflects the slow death of Yugoslavia: when did the old team end and the new one begin?
The other former teams' infoboxes:
  • have a "Last international" to mirror "First international" -- I really don't see Wales v Ireland 1950 sitting easily in that space.
  • use the last-used strips, which for IFA-1950 would be green home, with no away kit as they never needed it in the BHC. Earlier kits belong as Fasach says in the Kits section. Having blue as "home" and green as "away" is just plain wrong.
  • As regards use of "Ireland" post-1950: if you want citations, Djln, then I agree, we need citable sources: Fulton, pg 146. If you're actually personally sceptical, there are always some pictures in ebay; search "ireland football programmes" (Currently, SCO-IRE 1973, WAL-IRE 1960). Or The Irish Times archive search gives some results. I don't subscribe but can glimpse "Against France in Paris next Tuesday Ireland show one change" (Thu 06 November 1952 - Page 3 - meaning IFA); but "Northern Ireland side chosen" (Wed 27 October 1954 - Page 3) and "Tully back on Northern Ireland XI" (Wed 26 October 1955 - Page 2). Note also "Wales may beat I.F.A." (Wed 11 April 1956 - Page 2) and "F.A.I v Argentina" (Sat 12 May 1951 - Page 3). I suspect UK papers might have used "Ireland" more often post-1954 than Irish ones.
  • While I like the nifootball blog, use of "Eire" for the FAI team suggests it is not a reliable source for nomenclature.
    • In my defence (as editor of NIFG) I have had a great deal of difficulty diferentiating between various stages of "(Northern) Ireland" (my preferred term for the overall historical NI Football team) and the Republic of Ireland football teams. I have tried to use the Irish Free State (up to 1937), Eire (up to 1954-ish, and then only to distinguish between that and the use of "Ireland" as was used in the UK media of the day) and Republic of Ireland thereafter - there may however be inconsistencies. Generally I would not consider that pre-1950s "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" are different teams in a footballing sense, but can see that a seperate article on Irish football history would be a good idea. --Nifg (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)::nifg(talk) 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Djln that we don't want to repeat all the controversy across multiple pages. Some duplication is inevitable but let's not labour the points. The current intro to this article IMO goes into too much detail better left to the main body.
  • I don't want to overstate the extent of the disagreement that exists. The core article presents the facts clearly. The problem is the framing of the article. I'm content to discuss this at a leisurely pace -- if I thought it was seriously flawed I'd be more frenetic. Here's a mockup for your perusal with my "problem" sections reworked. It's not that radical -- see if you can spot the differences :)
jnestorius(talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I give up, delete this ridiculous article Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Jnestorius, like your mock up with kits, infobox etc. Slight disagreement over wording in opening paragraph but nothing that can’t be sorted. Disappointed to see Fasnacah has nominated arrticle for deletion. Very petty. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

okay, I threw the head up, I feel Jnestorius summed things up quite well at the afd,

In brief, there has been debate about whether "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" should be treated as (a) two different (albeit related) teams, or (b) one continuous (albeit evolving) team. My position has been that the question is unanswerable; that Wikipedia should not take sides; that the article(s) should reflect this; that we should attempt to create an article that can be read equally as either (a) "the history of the defunct Ireland team" or (b) "the early history of the Northern Ireland team" depending on which viewpoint a reader has

I think this is what should be worked towards Fasach Nua (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the changes to the info box, I think it is strange to have somethings to 1950, and others to different dates. I have made a new one where the date is in the title field, so the entire box relates to 1950. The badge should be dropped, I don't know what it was in 1950, it was either a celtic cross with a harp, or something similar to the rugby logo. As the infobox is of a historical nature, I would propose reducing the prominence, and moving it to immediatly after the contents, into the history section, I have a mock up at User:Fasach_Nua/irl
Fasach Nua (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fasach, every other national team has the infobox at top of the page and this is were it should remain here. U have tried to get the article merged and deleted and now this seems to be your latest attempt to undermine it. I think the notability of the article was clearly established by the failed deletion vote. EIGHT editors voted to keep the article and not one editor supported your stance. Nice picture though, very good contribution. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My problem is that the infobox isn't for Ireland it is for Ireland to 1950, I dont know what the solution is, but I think it has undue prominence, I'll think it over and maybe a come up with a better solution. Glad you liked the picture, I have the three 1914 team pictures, two brilliant ones, and the blurry one with players cut out is the actual team that lifted the trophy! Fasach Nua (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the tags now be removed from the top of the article.--Padraig (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Fasach Nua, why are you insisting on reverting the removal of the tags from the top of the article, there is no justification for them.--Padraig (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Northern ireland national football team logo without the NI Text.JPG

Image:Northern ireland national football team logo without the NI Text.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have added a properly formatted Fair Use Rationale to the image in question. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Should anybody feel like developing this article, below are some general references that might be helpful. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Richard Cox, Dave Russell and Wray Vamplew, Encyclopedia of British Football. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0714652490. p. 189
  • Paul Brown, The Unofficial Football World Championships. Tonto Press, 2006. ISBN 0955218314. pp. 36-37
  • Bill Murray, "FIFA", in The International Politics of Sport in the 20th Century, edited by James Riordan and Arnd Krüger. Taylor & Francis, 1999. ISBN 0419211608. p. 32.
  • Peter J. Beck, Scoring for Britain: International Football and International Politics, 1900-1939. Routledge, 1999. ISBN 071464899X. p. 102
  • H F. Moohouse, “One State, Several Countries: Soccer and Nationality in a ‘United’ Kingdom”, in Tribal Identities: Nationalism, Europe, Sport, edited by J. A. Mangan. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0714646660. pp. 55-74.

Completely different proposal

Now that the FAI article has been merged with the IFA article, I think we are missing something having only this page. The full story isn't being told. I think what is important is the story of the split, not who scored what and when. We aren't writing about the teams really, the real story is the the split. Therefore, how about resurrecting the IFA article, merging it in here and changing the topic of this article to "FAI/IFA schism" or some other such title? --sony-youthpléigh 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree.
jnestorius(talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with that idea of renaming this article, I think it is justified as it is, although I agree their should be either a section on the split or even a seperate article done for it and could explain the history and reason for the split.--Padraig (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem with the Irish articles is/was we had multiple versions of the story NI/Irl(IFA)/RoI/Irl(FAI)...and they didnt always match. A possibility might be to put this on a template, and insert the template in the articles, so when one is updated the others are, however anything of this type is a long way off! A seperate article would probably only be referenced from the articles that contain a discussion already, so wouldnt give a great deal of extra info. If an article was created I think the term used at the time was breach. Dont be put off by the negative feedback, this is not a simple issue and this page is littered with rejected proposals, and we are short of contributors in this article. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay - that ain't gonna fly. I had a a {{main}}-like idea leading out from the NI/RoI articles into this one. In any case, no go, eh? --sony-youthpléigh 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the articles are and should be crosslinked, but a {{main}} type relationship doesn't really apply. BTW, Fasach, your Template idea is against policy WP:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." jnestorius(talk) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also an article at Dual Irish international footballers which might interest you Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I forgot about that article, it would be a ideal to have the detail of the split, with links back to this and the other articles.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure "the split" is a coherent topic, but I'll watch that article's development with interest. jnestorius(talk) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, we still need a Football in Ireland/Soccer in Ireland article, I would suspect this would be the primary vechile to discuss the split/breach Fasach Nua (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags for misleading and POV

Can we stop the revert wars please? For now, I suggest leaving the hatnote tags on the article: the recent delete debate was quickly aborted, but the earlier merge debate was not closed so much as recast as a debate about, well, allegations of misleading and POV statements.

Having said that, I think it's up to Fasach to provide a bit more information about what problems you have with the current version: there have been a few changes since the original issues, and something more specific pointers about what's wrong might grease the wheels, which currently seem to be grinding nastily. jnestorius(talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Fasach a few times to justify the tags remaining both here and on his talk page, he has yet to respond, but continues to reinsert them anytime they are removed.--Padraig (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. It's clear from the preceding discussion on this page, something has not been resolved to Fasach's satisfaction. Assuming some elaboration is forthcoming here from Fasach, the tags will be restored pending subsequent discussion. jnestorius(talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
His problem is simple he dosen't like this article, so he tried to have it merged and failed, then he put it up for AfD that also failed, so now he is being disruptive to make a WP:Point, he is refusing to justify the tags yet still reverting when they are removed.--Padraig (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is reasonably factually accurate, and it has certainly improved in the past few weeks. I think this discussion has become volatile, and I think it is worth remembering the goal is to properly document the subject, and bit of WP:AGF goeas a long way, after all we all have the common goal of properly documenting Irish international soccer.

I will discuss the article to the end of the intro, which should cover the majority of my misgivings.

  • The first is the title, I think this is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Name, at an article entitled “Ireland national football team (IFA)”, I would expect an article about “Ireland national football team (IFA)”, not “Ireland national football team (to 1950)”, and I think someone could be misled to believing the two are the same thing, which they are quite clearly not.
  • The 4otheruses states “For the team since 1950, see Northern Ireland national football team” is incorrect, the NI cover the scope of the international team, and could mislead that the team only came into existence in 1950 (the name NI wasn’t even used until 1954)
  • The opening sentence states “…between 1882 and 1950”, but excludes what the Ireland national football team (IFA) did from 1951, which could mislead the reader into believing it ceased to exist at that point
  • The opening paragraph states Ireland won the 1914 championship, but neglects that Ireland has actually won three titles, this could mislead the reader into believing they only won the competition once.
  • Giving such prominence to the IFA/IFSFA breach, is misrepresenting it. With the exception of the 1950 world cup on the whole was not significantly more controversial than the Lions in rugby competing with any of the home nations.
  • The intro states that “for future World Cups, the IFA team would compete as the Northern Ireland national football team.”, but makes no mention of the team competing as Ireland in the BHC as they had been for the previous 70 years.
  • The intro also states “This team is recognised by FIFA as the successor to this Ireland team”, the immediate successor to the 1950 Ireland team is the 1951 Ireland team, and I believe jumping straight to NI is misleading.
  • The infobox is a still a mess, if it is a historic infobox then it goes in the history section, if it is to located at the top of the article it should contain current data
  • The FIFA code is listed as N/A, which is incorrect, it is NIR, I would be happy to omit the code altogether, but if used it should be accurate (that’s only a small thing).

I think most of these problems could be solved by a move to Ireland national football team (1882 – 1950) Fasach Nua (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

After my proposal above, Djln spoke of a "Slight disagreement over wording" over the revised intro. This was IMO an important part of my proposal and has been completely unimplemented in the current page. I strongly dislike the current intro.

Current text:
Ireland national football team (IFA) represented Ireland at football (soccer) between 1882 and 1950. It was organised by the Irish Football Association, based in Belfast, and together with England, Scotland and Wales, competed regularly in the British Home Championship. In 1914 Ireland were British Champions. Following the partition of Ireland, the rival Football Association of Ireland was established in Dublin. From 1924 they starting playing as the Irish Free State but after 1936 also competed as Ireland.
In subsequent years there were in effect two Ireland teams. Both the IFA and FAI claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland and selected players from the whole island. The situation remained unresolved until 1950 when both teams entered the qualifying rounds of the World Cup - the first time the two teams had competed in the same competition. Four players actually found themselves playing for two national teams in the same competition. FIFA intervened and decreed that for future World Cups, the IFA team would compete as the Northern Ireland national football team. They were also restricted to selecting players from Northern Ireland. This team is recognised by FIFA as the successor to this Ireland team. The FAI team now competes as the Republic of Ireland.
What I dislike about the current version:
  • it is dogmatic about 1950 as the end date. Even if the article adopts 1950 as its end date (for infobox etc), it cannot claim this is when the team ended.
  • the end of the first paragraph and most of the second are about "the split", not the IFA team. If there is to be an article about "the split", this should not be it. "The split" should be alluded to briefly in the intro of this article, discussed in WP:SUMMARY style in a section of the body of this article, and described in detail in its own separate article.
  • Winning the 1914 BHC needs a bit more context; it's not the only thing the team did.
Proposed text:
The Ireland national football team organised by the Irish Football Association (IFA) represented Ireland at football (soccer) from 1882, mainly in the British Home Championship against England, Scotland and Wales. Though often vying with Wales to avoid the wooden spoon, Ireland did win the Championship in 1914, having shared it with England and Scotland in 1903.
After the partition of Ireland in the 1920s, although the IFA's administration of club football was restricted to Northern Ireland, the IFA national team continued to select players from the whole of Ireland till 1950, and did not adopt the name "Northern Ireland" till 1954 in FIFA competition, and later still in the British Home Championship. The IFA's modern Northern Ireland national football team is recognised as the successor to the original Ireland national team. A separate Republic of Ireland team, organised by the separate Football Association of Ireland, represents the Republic of Ireland.
I assumed the {{otheruses4}} hatnote was sufficient indication of 1950 as the cutoff date for the article. Perhaps an explicit paragraph at the end of the intro would be better:
This article deals with the IFA team up to 1950, when it last picked players from outside Northern Ireland. The post-1950 IFA team, which sometimes played as Ireland, is described in Northern Ireland national football team.
This then would simply be a statement about the organisation of Wikipedia articles, used for the orientation of readers; it would not claim to make any statement about the objective reality of the team(s) under discussion.
Could Djln (and Fasach, and anyone else) be more specific about the points of contention in the proposed version?

jnestorius(talk) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of issues to deal with, to make it simple I will keep them in same place.

  • Introduction: this should mention competitions played in (BHC) and notable triumphs (1903, 1914). Not sure if it’s absolutely necessary to mention wooden spoon though. Other articles on football teams don’t mention their failures so early on. To avoid confusing readers unfamiliar with the subject, it should also be made clear that this is the predecessor of current NI team and is also distinct from any FAI team, especially the one that also briefly played as Ireland. I agree with Sony that it is not just about football. The spilt plays a major part and it is integral to history of this team and should be mentioned in opening para. It explains why there is now two separate NI and RoI teams and how this team came to an end.

Not sure it warrants a whole article of it’s own though, but it also could be covered at Dual Irish international footballers and the Football Association of Ireland in more detail.

  • Other uses header: I am in favour of this wording proposed by Jnestorius being used.

This article deals with the IFA team up to 1950, when it last picked players from outside Northern Ireland. The post-1950 IFA team, which sometimes played as Ireland, is described in Northern Ireland national football team.

  • Name Change: I would support a name change to the one Fasach has proposed. Not sure if Jnestorius would agree with a rigid date but it would clear up a lot of issues and end tag/edit war. Post 1950 use of Ireland name by IFA could be included in this article but all post 1950 history should be included in NI article.
  • Infobox: We are dealing with a team that no longer plays so there is no current data ! The majority of the time this team played they were not even members of FIFA so code should go. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont think the date is a problem, we are describing a team through an era which ends on a date, not a team which ends on a date.
The infobox for Ireland (to 1950) should contain details of Ireland to 1950, current one does that (need a shamrock badge though)
In the other use I would support the above, but would prefer "modern" to "post-1950" Fasach Nua (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry being I'm very rude in ignoring jnestorius, If the article is about the team during the period to 1950,the proposed new intro is fine, as much as it would be nice to gloss over the wooden spoons, it would be "misleading" so keep it in. I dont know much about the split in the domestic game, so I cant comment on that one way or the other but it looks plausiable, although a reference for the RoI Ulster counties coming under the FAI may be in order. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented the intro suggested above, although not perfect it is probably a better starting point from what was there before, and its a wiki, there is nothing that cant be undone. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kit

I was looking through some photos for a good badge picture, I think the kit had a white collar (it did in '38 and '54) Fasach Nua (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

see this image [23] Fasach Nua (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloomfield Park

I am trying to add images to this article per the request at the top. I would assume there is something to commemorate where Ireland made their international debut, but I have no idea where it is, anyone know anything about this ground? (I am assuming someone has built houses on it) Fasach Nua (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well after running round Bloomfield, this was the best I could manage Image:Bloomfield park sign.PNG, but if the IFA have to fly out to Zagreb to talk to the FAI, you can hardly expect them to have money left over to pay for a sign commerate something like their first international! Fasach Nua (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Status

I was looking at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and I think djln has laid excellent groundwork to getting this up to GA.

(Ignoring the intro) (yikes!!!)

I think the GA failings are

  • 3(a) lack of coverage of football(not other stuff) 1919-1950
  • 3(b) unnecessary details with the disputed internationals, could be reduced to one sentence
  • 6 Images - The badge is from the 70s, in keeping with the 1950 infobox theme I would suggest the shamrock badge (I don't have an image of this), The Blue plaque at Bloomfield park would be nice, if anyone knows where it is!

Anyone else think this is feasible? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article is shaping up well, kudos Djln. A couple of points:
  • The name should be Ireland national football team (1882-1950) but guidelines are unclear whether it's a hyphen or endash separator Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates). I'd favour endash with redirect from hyphen equivalent.
  • I've got a bit more info for the 1950-54 split which I will add when I get time -- a bit pressed at the moment.
--jnestorius(talk) 10:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of images, I think the article is a bit bare, anything pre-1923 is usable via Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. Is there a photo of of the meeting at which the FAI was establishment? There is an iconic picture of Merrion square, but that was only used after the 1930s, and probably isn't very relevant. Windsor Park is another possibility, but whether a stadium full of plastic seats is relevant to an era ending in the 1950s is questionable Fasach Nua (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the comments in other football FA and GA reviews, and the criteria covers being "broad in its coverage", which seems to mean relating to areas outside the topic seems to be something that gets picked up on. The UK and RoI relationships are covered thoroughly. I think a bit more background to the players might be needed, eg relating to their club performance, (without going into excessive detail)
In other stuff, nifg thinks they might know where Bloomfield park is, so I will try and run down there at the weekend and get a photo. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Where I think we are at is:
There are two automatic fails on this article
  • A citation is needed for the 1910 date on the kit
  • The Former Coaches section is tagged for expansion, I dont know if it can be expanded but if the tag is left in it is an automatic fail.
On the would be nice improvements
  • there is a reference "an, op. cit. pg 59." which I think was Ryans book, but the Ry got chopped off.
  • A shamrock badge for the infobox (might have to crop a photo)
  • Jnestorius has some more history on the 1950-1954 period to add
  • I want to get a photo of Bloomfield Park
  • A good copy edit from someone outside this article, possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors
Aside from that a submission to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Sports_and_recreation Fasach Nua (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Good work by Fasach on providing pictures and on his attempts to find out more about Bloomfield Park. However I have some concerns about the downplaying of some important issues. The fact that the FAI also referred to their team as Ireland should be at least mentioned in opening section. It is unusual for two rival associations to claim simultaneous jurisdiction over the same territory and Ireland (IFA) needs to be distinguished clearly from the Ireland (FAI). I have come across dozens of articles were players have been linked to the wrong Ireland team. It is misleading just to say the Republic of Ireland team also existed as the FAI did not refer to their team by this name until 1953. It should also be mentioned why this team evolved into Northern Ireland and why the FAI team became the Republic (i.e FIFA ruling). Regarding the kit, I don’t think it is necessary to include an exact date in box title. Maybe just replace it with just Early Ireland kits. Not sure were 1910 date came from ? I am not sure it is necessary to expand the list of coaches other then add more coaches and add/write separate bios on those mentioned (i.e. removing the red links). Regarding the missing Ryan link. I think it is not wise to include exact page numbers as the book has been reprinted at least once and page numbers change with reissues. If Fasach could identify exactly which info they think came from Ryan and is now missing a reference, I can check it out. Please do not give reference number as these change every time someone adds a new one. Djln--Djln (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I have no objection to the FAI Ireland team being mentioned in the intro, but I think it needs kept short, the old intro was too long, I think the whole of the FAI coverage should be no more than one sentence in the intro.
The date needs to be in the info box for the stats, I think I know where to get a picture of the badge, hopefully I will have it over the weekend.
I dont think it is worth metioning why the team became NI in the intro, it is very complicated and very difficult to summerise, I like the shorter punchy intro. I think its enough to say that it is a fact and let the reader find out more in the article,
The 1910 came from here if that is any help, the IFA brought out a blue shirt for the 125th aniversary, which I had assumed was the original one from 1882, thats why I tagged that date.
On the issue of references, the cite book gives a version and year, so pagenumbers should be used, and they will be needed if this is to progress to Featured status
I have never seen any list of coaches prior to 1950, so I dont know if anyone even bothered to keep a record of them, so it may not be possible to expand the section. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I have put in a request for a copyedit at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Copyedit_request, the league of copyeditors has a serioooouuuuussss backlog Fasach Nua (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Im having trouble getting the logo (assuming that it's use even meets wp:nfc), the current logo is from the BHC team of the 1970s, and therefore wrong anyway, so I have swapped it with an Image of Ireland. This at least lets a nomination procede for GA, and if they pick up on (which I dont think they should) then we can deal with it. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ireland_national_football_team_(1882–1950)/Archive_1&oldid=1136824855"