Jump to content

Talk:Philippines national football team

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

Opening heading

[edit]

Ok I'v been trying to add an edit by putting "AZKALS" as the official nickname of the Philippine National Football Team but you at wikipedia keep on deleting it!! WHY??

I've added it now with a reference. No way that's going away now. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, someone is hell-bent on removing it since it's unofficial. Breaking news: All football team nickname are unofficial. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all quit trying to be a smart ass. "Breaking news....." and all that. It's not a largely accepted nickname. And if you have a look at some fan sites. They even mention that it is UNOFFICIAL! Banana Fingers (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will adding the word "unofficial" make you happy? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you? Seriously? You're trying to be this smart ass and now you ask this question but then you go ahead and do it anyway. My answer is no. For the fact that it is unofficial, even to the people who have started that name. No need for unofficial content on here as well. And rightly so it's unofficial because what right mind would call their team stray dogs? That also means it's somewhat controversial. No need for that on here as well. Banana Fingers (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh no. Like I said all football team nicknames are unofficial, except for the likes of Total Network Solutions F.C. so any removal of cited content will be dealt with. Askals are not just stray dogs, they can be used for K-9 units too. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again!! Ya I know, you said that already and I know that as well but didn't you read what I wrote? It is unofficial even to the people who have started that name! You even wrote in the article, that "it has been unofficially adopted".... by who?? It's a small minority. Askal is commonly interpreted as stray dogs. So who cares if they can be used as K-9 units. That is not very common though let alone people associating askals to K-9 units as opposed to stray dogs just as the citation says.... street dogs. Which again, points to the fact that it is controversial, which is why it is also unofficial! I'm not removing cited content just for the sake it you know! Banana Fingers (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small minority? Adopted by whom? Eh... you said it, it's unofficial. Same with the German team, they have their own unofficial name(s). Who adopted those? Well, they're unofficial! Askals are any non-purebred dog in the Philippines. I have an askal pet and it is obviously not stray, same with my neighbor, that's not stray either. It has even made its way to the press. So much for "small minority."
IMHO, even if the PFF does issue a statement that they don't want to use "Azkals" as a nickname, even as an unofficial one, it should still stay as it has made it way to the press (more so if they do issue such a statement). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I dunno what the fuss is even about. Is there a reference for this? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know how this started?? I doubt it. The only reason it made it's way into news publications is because when these people started with this name, part of that minority was two people who eventually became journalists. Two journalists who writing for the Sun Star. And from there the only plausible explanation for it spreading to other publications is because they saw it from...... the Sun Star! And reference for what?? Banana Fingers (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of how it started (it doesn't matter now unless it becomes contentious later) it has now found its way to what Wikipedia treats as "reliable sources so whether we like it or not, the name has stuck. It's like Tory or Whig in the old days, both terms were used to disparage each other in parliament but later became accepted labels for each other.
If it makes a difference to you, I'm willing to compromise to move it to the "Team image" section. There's really no way it'll be removed now that it's referenced, no matter how it started. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No! How is that a compromise by only moving it to the team image section? As you wrote "it has been adopted...." by who?!? There are no sources that state that it's only been accepted by a certain amount of people. By saying what you did, it sounds as if it's already been widely accepted. The whole story isn't told about it and just because you referenced it, doesn't explain it in its entirety! It should be removed! Banana Fingers (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what, in your own words , "unofficial" means? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "compromise" since it is moved down to the main body of the article, away from the prominence that is the lead.
As for the whole story, any reliable sources? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since apparently you fail to understand what "unofficial" means, I had moved the "azkals" nickname out of the lead, placed it as the last paragraph of the "Team image" section, replaced "unofficially adopted" to "used by the press," and removed really bad references to the use of "RP XI" and "RP booters" (Google News searches are useful in looking for news, but they shouldn't be used per se as references). BTW, RP is being phased out and is currently being replaced by both "PH" and "PHL."
Any other issue with this has to be resolved with legit references. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since apparently Banana Fingers is hell-bent on removing validly cited information, I've listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
This statement is backed up by a reputable third party source, so I see know reason for it to be removed. However the part describing the word's derivation is not in the source, and should therefore be backed up by one. Welshleprechaun 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to put in the infobox? It has gone viral, it trended on Twitter, made it to primetime news and is now being used extensively to refer to the team? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article title

[edit]

Shouldn't the article be named Philippine national football team instead of Philippines national football team? Just my 2 cents. -Jjmontalbo 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The nation is the "Philippenes". Look at any of the other national football teams. (ex:Finland national football team, Cuba national football team, etc) 74.137.230.39 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "Philippine National Football Team" and not "Philippines National Football Team". The word "Finland" in the Finland national football team acts as an adjective (not a noun), the same goes with in any other national team. On the other hand, the Philippines is an exception. The word "Philippines" can only be a noun, and it can't act as an adjective, thus, "Philippine" is used which is an adjective. You can look for the word "Philippine" in the dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.152.108 (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's the "Philippines" not "Philippenes" --peads 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title should indeed be "Philippine national football team". Moved article accordingly. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay something is wrong with the Phil. National Team wins section. It is full of bloody lies!! Arquenevis 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Arquenevis[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines national football team → Philippine National Football Team – The word "Philippines" can only be a noun, and it can't act as an adjective, thus, "Philippine" is used which is an adjective like what 112.210.152.108 said. (eg. Philippine National Police, Philippine National Red Cross, Philippine National Railways, etc) Thinkbeforeyoupost (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:FOOTBALL -- all national football articles are named this way. Rename one, rename all. –HTD 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ralph Kock really a player in the national football team? I never heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.247.131 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kock isn't a player in the national football team but RALPH KOCH is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.52.158 (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

The image Image:Philippines FA.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

Is the flag listed next to the first international and biggest win, etc intended to be the flag of the period? If so, the first two should be Philippines instead of Philippines. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be the one used at the game, see something like Germany national football team chandler 10:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dubious U.S. flag in the information box, what is that all about? perhaps Nuetral Point of View/colonial stuff. Deleted that out of here, other countries have their current flags on. Putting back the current flag of the Philippines in the information box. Please stick to facts please. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.199.144 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the short discussion directly above you? There is nothing "dubious" about the US flag. It was the contemporary flag (in other words the flag that was used at that time) used in the dates mentioned in the infobox (1913 and 1917). See Flag Of The Philippines Flags Used and the non-editable Template:Country Data Philippines Flag Variants. These are the neutral facts.
Note as per the discussion above that other pages also follow this consensual format. Examples including but not limited to Hungary national football team (including one that has a Nazi Germany flag) or Ghana national football team which was known has the Gold Coast at the beginning and had a Union Jack in its flag.
Transaction Go (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this disturbing, the U.S flag in the information box, however were are not talking about history, or is it just excuses for colonialism by the U.S. Lets be logic shall we, i put back the current flag of the Philippines and corrected the wordings and such. Keeping it like an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.190.87 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are historic events and should adhere to historical accuracy and historical integrity as per an encyclopedia as you put it. What you are doing is similar to rewriting history but out of good faith I would say you have no intentions of doing such a thing. If anything it is you who is infracting on the neutral point of view issue. Your reason for removing it is because you "feel disturbed" by it and that you think it is the view of US colonialism and those who support and enforce it. This in itself is your feeling, your view and not neutral. I assure you it is not about US colonialism. This is not the 19th century. The flag is there because it is historically correct and such a format is reflected in the non-editable Template:Country Data Philippines Flag Variants and most importantly in the consensus of the wider community on the many similar (as well different) pages as given in the many examples in this section (please try clicking and viewing a few of them). Here are so more examples and note that that I am only using football and sporting pages for continuity but the same concept and format applies in other pages.
Alot of African teams have Union Jacks from British colonialism in their flags but the contemporary and historically correct one is still used regardless.
They have alot of flags including ones that represent Communism. Using them does not mean being sympathetic or supportive of the Communism view point.
Big one here is the 1936 Olympic Games in NAZI Germany. Even this flag is used and it does not mean being sympathetic or supportive of Fascism, Hitler, anti-Jewish or whatever bad things that the Nazi view point stood for.
It is a bit long but please take the time to fully read and understand the difference in the misunderstanding. Thank you. Transaction Go (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The country that gave us free speech, the U.S., banned the use of Philippines until 1919 (when the Sedition Act was repealed) so there's no way Philippines would've been allowed to be used when the game was played. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Supplies

[edit]

Is it possible that Nike will supplied Philippines with their jersey and uniform?? As like in 2008 AFF Cup, Vietnam change their kit supplies and replace it with Nike. Could it happen to Philippines??? Andy4190 (talk)

It could happen to anyone, even you if Nike contacted you. Druryfire (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Philippines changes their kit mizuno to Puma ?? The Azkals who trained in Germany wear Puma as their kit. Andy4190 (talk)

No. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information about the new kit sponsor of Philippines since Puma contract is ended this year 2015 ? Is it possible that Philippines FA will renew their contact with Puma ? Wester. Inc (talk) 15:33, 8 Feb 2015 (UTC)

Azkals U23

[edit]

Azkals U23 (Philippines national under-23 football team) should have it own page since they will play at SEA Games. If it have own page, can someone put a references and link. Thanks. Andy4190 (talk)

Article name

[edit]

ALL national football teams are under <country name> national football team. Please do not ever move this until a change in naming is agreed upon in WP:FOOTBALL. Thanks. –HTD 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Philippines national under-23 football team

[edit]

Suggesting to merge the Philippines national under-23 football team on the section in this article. Bonvallite (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The practice here is that the under-x teams (such as the U23 or the Olympic team) get their own article. –HTD 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azkals brand

[edit]

User:Banana Fingers is insisting that the name/trademark and logo "Azkals" is just a fan made. You can find out more of our discussions here: Banana Fingers talk page -HollycK (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is. That's not a good reason to censor it in the article. It has to be emphasized that while it is fan made, it has became so pervasive, it's even more recognizable than the PFF logo. –HTD 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your neutrality regarding this matter but my only stand here is that no one has ever proven yet that it was a fan made while me, personally had been backing it up with support. Tangible and objective evidences, not that opinion nonsense Banana Fingers had been answering me, the tone of his/her tirade is just nonsense, it just doesn't bring this discussion anywhere. If she/he wanna make this over then she/he better prove that it is a fan made. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear as day that it's fanmade. You disagree. Banana Fingers wants it removed because it is fan made. I disagree. The thing is whether or not it is fan made, if BF wants to remove it, he should nominate the image at WP:IFD instead of reverting you and me on this article. –HTD 16:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I have no option but to respect that, but with regards to BF, it's still not over until it is proven. But just to give you an idea of the premise i'll give you a situation.
Let assume that I am a big fan of Azkals and again let assume that I happen to be a free-lance artist, then suddenly, I decided to create an iconic logo for the football team. The logo was created and then I released it to the public for the sole purpose of supporting the team of course under fair use (It doesn't necessarily have to be registered but it will still be protected under unregistered trade mark that may vary from country). I slept then I woke only realizing that my creative work has been used extensively and commercially. Well I do not know with you but if it's not fair use, it's copyright infringement (there's no doubt on that.) and most especially if you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. Well it is not likely for established companies like Amazon, ABS-CBN Licensing, etc... to sell intellectual property of others and so is the PFF because it is a respected organization. When it was televised worldwide by TFC then it becomes more complicated since it will be covered by laws of other countries specifically United States. I'm talking about millions of pesos worth of intellectual property from merchandising, (stuff toys, t-shirt, bags, rain coat, notebooks, etc...) printed materials, websites, television airtime and most especially using it on a photo backdrop in a press conference with hundred's of media men. Now tell me if i'm making this out. -HollycK (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your story, while it'll make a dramatic telenovela, is irrelevant. The issue here is whether the logo should be displayed here or not. True, its licensing while being used here in Wikipedia is important, its use and potential violations of fair use regulations elsewhere is irrelevant, as far as Wikipedia and this article, is concerned. Unless of course the original artist of the logo speaks up, presses royalties, and gets to be covered. –HTD 01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't think if I got you right... It is clear to me that your only concern here is to whether the logo should be placed in this article or not, well I have no problem with that because I know that any image could be placed in encyclopedia as long as it illustrates a point in an article, same things happen to any encyclopedias in the world even Britannica to it and there is no doubt on that. But since BF here has challenged me to prove my stand, then so be it. I am even willing to take this to the next level by probably contacting ABS-CBN, PFF, or maybe Dan Palami himself. I know that Wikipedia doesn't permit e-mail as a source of citation but i'll figure it out later. Thank you. God Bless. --HollycK (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sense arguing with BF; as long as the logo stays here it should be OK; that's the root cause of the ruckus. Everything else is just like picking up a fight. Well, I won't stop you. –HTD 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

biggest defeat

[edit]

The page previously listed the biggest defeat as 15-0 against Japan on Sep 27, 1967. However there is no record of this on the FIFA website, which lists all recognised matches [1]. Accordingly I have replaced this "result" with the 15–1 loss against Malaysia. Feel free to revert this if there is a reliable source. Cloudz679 10:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an Olympic qualifier! So its obviously not recognized by FIFA. Banana Fingers (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source offered, so I am restoring the last version by me. Cloudz679 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!! A person of WP:FOOTY, showing a lack of knowledge both in the sport in general and in sources for Wikipedia. Aren't you familiar with RSSSF? One would think you'd at least be familiar with it and would be a pretty basic source of info for the project! Here you go then [2]!! Banana Fingers (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puma SE releasing

[edit]

Anyone know when willPuma release Azkals' home and away jersey ? If someone know the date of the release or launch of the football Azkals' jersey please give us the link. I really want to design the Azkals' home and away jersey in here. Wester. Inc (talk)

Here are some links of the azkal's new jersey for the 2013 Peace cup that I found. Here and here.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badge Size

[edit]

I just changed the badge size from 125px to 200px to make it bigger as, when I compared it to other national football team pages, the 125px setting was too small. 112.205.10.133 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was reverted, but I would've supported this if the badge was intricately detailed. As it is, it's quite boring and a lot of real estate was wasted on a large logo. –HTD 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be boring, but at the end of the day, it's the federation's logo. Much better than that thing you call a logo with a random cartoon-like dog akin to Hong Kong Phooey which you keep pushing for!! Banana Fingers (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case you were wondering, we were talking about the PFF badge on the infobox, which he made it a bit bigger, but you had reverted. –HTD 12:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the logo is boring and in my opinion out of date. The typeface of the 'PFF' logo looks like it's from the 80's. But aesthetics of the badge not withstanding, would it not be more uniform with other national football team pages if the badge was a bit bigger seeing as the others' are? Or are we not striving for uniformity here? Xavelibardo (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about intricate details. There are no intricate "drawings" to merit a large logo. If it's like the Garuda emblem of Indonesia which is intricately designed I could perhaps support easily. This is one is quite simple and you could quickly understand what's in the logo (this isn't bad in itself; simplicity is beauty). It also pushes down the more important stuff in the infobox below the fold. –HTD 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Players Guideline

[edit]

The Notable Players section was blanked by AndaleCaballo because of concerns of a lack of clear guideline. In my defence, apart from Paulino Alcantara which is cited by many sources as a football legends, all other players are Mr. Football Awardees which was conferred by the Philippine Sports Association, an award giving body to sportsmen in the country not only in football, established in the 1940s. It is given that all national players are notable to have their own articles. However some will be cited for their contributions the key players. I also propose adding players who made an appearance to top and second-tier fully professional leagues abroad. The UFL is still semi-pro. AndaleCaballo you are invited to contribute in establishing a clear guideline or to comment on the discussion.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have two lists of top 11 in caps and goals; that should remove questions on "guidelines" or "who gets in". If someone has those lists it'll be great. –HTD 16:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. No such list exists right now for Philippines. It supports idea that not enough of history of team is known. Establishing clear 'guidelines' to include such players is very difficult. Some will be added while others who might deserve to be in it won't get mentioned. I say not to include such a section. AndaleCaballo (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, under current "guidelines" notable players, especially goalkeepers such as Neil Etheridge and Roland Muller won't be included. --Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, AndaleCaballo said there "Establishing clear 'guidelines' to include such players is very difficult", which implies there are no guidelines at the present. Then you said there were "current 'guidelines'." What is it? Is it really that hard to create some standards? –HTD 13:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think AndaleCaballo may be saying that there is some sort of guideline already for players but is not yet clear. As noted, no source for the list of top 10 players with most caps/goals is available yet. At least it is clear that Mr. Football awardees by the PSA is included in the notable players section lists. Other than that a clear guideline must be made for players to get mentioned in the list. Such as more than "n" number of goals or caps as long as backed by references. It must be made clear that not all players that may meet such guideline may not get mentioned due to lack of sources hence the usage of "among". However I am inclined to make a section on "honored players" which primarily list recipients on awards (Mr. Football).--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams doesn't have guidance on what to do with a "players" section, in fact it doesn't provide for one. With that said, and with the lack of all time goal scorers and caps (where goalkeepers can easily get in) perhaps top scoring in a tournament would be a good enough metric. We could also have a top ten "From 2007" (or earlier) list as we should have stats for matches. I'd be weary with a "Mr. Football" award though as it may include performances outside the national team such as clubs. –HTD 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, outside of friendlies, the Philippines has scored 85 goals from the of World War II until 2007 (according to the goals scored stats from this very article). Most tournaments have the goalscorers recorded. If someone can add those up we could have a partial list. The eloratings website records about 250 international matches for the Philippines, a majority of the goals came in the Far Eastern Games and post-2007. Obviously, it'll be very hard to look for goal scorers in the pre-war matches but for a post-war list a definitive, if partial, list of goal scorers can be constructed. It's a different thing for caps though. –HTD 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Players may be listed if they have more than 'n' number of caps or goals with each entry backed up by references. Phil Younghusband, the top scorer of the 2010 AFC Challenge Cup, meets the proposed guideline. However, I think top goalscorers in major tournaments, the AFC Challenge Cup, SEA Games, AFF Suzuki Cup should only be included. Top scorers in friendly tournaments such as the Long Teng Cup and Philippine Peace Cup are most likely not to be notable enough. PSA awardees may only be mentioned if said player is established to be part of the national team backed with sources om their respective articles. The only problem is if said player was named Mr. Football before their participation for the national team especially pre-1990s players.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I dunno if there should even be a "past players" sections. Several well developed articles don't possess one, even top 11 in caps and goals. Seeing those don't have one means we should not deviate from the "standard". –HTD 14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should forego with this kind of section as per this discussion for now.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philippines national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have no coach between 1934 and 1954?

[edit]

And during other intervals too. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They probably did, but it is hard to find resources regarding who was coach between those period. Also football really ins't that big in the country until recently.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Kits

[edit]

Can someone updated the kits? Current one not relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.97.246.210 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unattached"

[edit]

Please do not use this term in replacement of "free agent", as the latter is perfectly fine in Philippine English. This article uses Philippine English as per above, and WP:ENGVAR applies. "Unattached" most likely means unattached limbs or parts, and that's not what the article is trying to convey. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Player records section

[edit]

@Gilaska Ace:,

You've deleted the Player records section again stating that the information is not correct as it doesn't display historical data but that is addressed in the note I affixed to it. The data provided is accurate, as shown by the source and it should be updated by anyone with access to a more complete database. I'm not sure how this is not a correct use of a missing information tag!

How would you like the section to be improved in order for it to remain?

I've linked the section here: Special:PermanentLink/1020546196#Player records

Felixsv7 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilaska Ace:: Before removing data, please discuss your reasoning here to form a consensus. I have included the section as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. Thanks Felixsv7 (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus to be had. NFT is NOT accurate due to missing data! Because there is missing you can't say that player x is 3rd or 4th in the all time list! It's that simple. End of discussion! Gilaska Ace (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The missing data is flagged on the section to ensure readers aren't mislead. Do you have any evidence that there are other players that are not accurately represented on the list? Felixsv7 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!!! Historical players where there is no data!!! That's the point!! It doesnt take into consideration these players!! Yet here you are going against guidelines just to fulfill your want to add this section! Its not just before 1991 as your idiotic little disclaimer points to. But the lack of data includes the 90s and even a few matches in the 2000s. Congrats on adding data based on incomplete data! Gilaska Ace (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"fb" makes the flags of the teams to the other side of the name.

[edit]

@Engr.Smitty look at the flags and the names of the teams. It's on the other side compared to the 2022 ones. Look at it: Philippines national football team#2023. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines_national_football_team&oldid=1209103026"