Talk:China national football team

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Could somebody knowledgable on this subject check the accuracy of the midfield players listed in the current team? Sun Jihai is OK, but Li Xiaopeng and Yan Song link to a gymnast and 16th century Prime Minister respectively! -- Arwel 18:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i think we should delete the current squad section. national teams dont have current squads, they have player pools. the pools are big and change often (vs european club rosters which are small and change twice a year). if it's the 22 man roster from the last asia cup, we can start a Asian Cup 2004 (squads) page like we have for (some of) the world cups. Nateji77 13:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Zhengyu, Zuo Ya, they are also a good player in China and so famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.212 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the picture occupies two thirds of the screen area. Please fix soon. Meanwhile, it will be removed. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 20:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 20:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 24-man squad (Reuters) for the matches against Australia in Guangzhou on March 24 and Uzbekistan three days later in Macau:

Squad:

• Goalkeepers: Li Leilei (Shandong Luneng), Chen Dong (Dalian Shide), Yang Jun (Tianjin Taida)
• Defenders: Sun Xiang (PSV Eindhoven), Sun Jihai (Manchester City), Zhang Yao Kun (Dalian Shide), Du Wei (Shanghai Shenhua), Xu Yunlong (Beijing), Cao Yang (Tianjin Taida), Xin Feng (Shenzhen), Lu Jianjun (Harbin Yiteng)
• Midfielders: Zheng Zhi (Charlton Athletic), Shao Jiayi (Energie Cottbus), Yan Song (Dalian Shide), Sun Ji (Shanghai Shenhua), Yu Tao (Shanghai Shenhua), Zhou Haibin (Shandong Luneng), Wang Dong (Changchun Yatai), Zhao Junzhe (Liaoning)
• Forwards: Dong Fangzhuo (Manchester United), Li Jinyu (Shandong Luneng), Han Peng (Shandong Luneng), Mao Jianqing (Shanghai Shenhua), Du Zhenyu (Changchun Yatai) Lop.dong 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its worth mentioning that China has called up all their European-based players for these friendlies: [1] // Laughing Man 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the official short name of FIFA for this team is "China PR", wouldn't it be a good idea if this is moved to China PR national football team? --Howard the Duck 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it now since the country is officaly Peoples Republic of China, witch for short its China PR.--Someguyudontknow (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but it has been moved back without a reason being stated. FIFA uses PR as does other pages and articles when refering to this page. Move back? Transaction Go (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'v moved it to China PR national football team.--Lisan1233 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word punt has a specific meaning in American football and the various codes of rugby. It is not frequently used in soccer/football. A similar term that is used is volley. However, the phrase "long punt" here is clearly meant to refer to a long ball. (Herbert Xu) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for 2008-2009, China's national team has reversed the colors, making the white the home jersey and the red the away jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.62.205 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have these got a source? I only know that Hao Haidong's stats are right. - Nick C (t·c) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be named as "China national football team". Before the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the record of Republic of China is counted as the present "China PR" national football team. Also the article of other sports teams of China is named "China" instead of "China PR".--FootballHK (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion 3 sections above. The records and achievements before 1949 being counted towards today's team is irrelevant as the name is not. FIFA, the governing body of football, officially refers to the team as China PR. See: http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=chn/index.html As for other team pages well that depends on what their respective sports governing body refers to them by and if necessary the name will be changed accordingly. Transaction Go (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So should we move other national football teams of China to China PR?--FootballHK (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes now that you pointed that out that would be most appropriate. Transaction Go (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This proposal is moving into extremely controversial territory. On Wikipedia we do not express an opinion on which China has the right to refer to itself using that word. For anything after 1949 we refer to People's Republic of China and Republic of China. There is a good case for moving China PR national football team to People's Republic of China national football team however, as that would be more akin to common English, which we are supposed to use, rather than the somewhat convoluted and unnatural names that FIFA sometimes choses. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me disentangle the official status of the various matches involving the China national football team prior to 1948. I am slowly building the List of first association football internationals per country and have had some problems identifying the first "official" match for each particular country; hopefully, I've got it right so far. But I am hitting a wall with the Chinese. The article for the China PR national football team (People's Republic) lists their first match as taking place on 1 February 1913, with an alternative as 4 August 1952, whereas the article for Chinese Taipei national football team (Taiwan) also claims the 1 February 1913 match, with an alternative of 1 May 1954.

For Taiwan I have gone with the latter but for the People's Republic I have gone with the Olympic Games match on 2 August 1948, as per the RSSSF article[2]. RSSSF list three matches played in Hong Kong in 1949, 1950 and 1953 between "China" and South Korea which don't seem to have official status. The ELO website (which shows how the FIFA rankings are arrived at) lists the first Taiwan match as that on 1 May 1954[3] but for the People's Republic it shows all the matches from February 1913[4].

RSSSF does not list any of the "pre-war" matches for either country and for the earlier matches (from 1913 to 1921) in the Far Eastern Games, says that China was represented by a club side, South China A.A..[5]. China also played in the 1936 Olympics; and the FIFA match summary shows them as "China PR".[6]

Another website[7] lists all the matches from 1913, but attributes those up to 1927 as  Republic of China, those from 1930 to 1949 as  Republic of China Including both the 1936 and 1948 Olympic Games matches) with the first  China match as being that on 4 August 1952.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know how the template  China always hyperlinked China national football team? Help would be nice if it was sorted out.Mr Hall of England (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the recent scandal where players were literally just buying their spots on the national team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.198.255.246 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not USA 5-6 ChinaPR, it's : UAR 8 - 0 China PR ,(UAR is Egypt, it was called that back then) (Indonesia; March 30, 1963) source :[[8]] Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.125.221 (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

| name alias-football = China PR → | name alias-football = China

Now China's Country data football name alias is China PR. need fix name alias.--Fetx2002 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on China national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100907033410/http://uk.soccerway.com:80/national/united-states/major-league-soccer/2007/regular-season/ to http://uk.soccerway.com/national/united-states/major-league-soccer/2007/regular-season/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071209042529/http://www.gulf-times.com:80/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=221678&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606235528/http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2010-02/02/content_9417417.htm to http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2010-02/02/content_9417417.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018204326/http://www.skysports.com/football/world-cup-2010/story/0,27032,12098_6191736,00.html to http://www.skysports.com/football/world-cup-2010/story/0,27032,12098_6191736,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sourcing here is outdated and doesn't work. With the new attention to this article, I hope editors can review the sourcing and fix broken links. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentioned at these places:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#China_national_football_team
• Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Major_content_removal_of_China_national_football_team_article
• Wikipedia:Teahouse#Major_content_removal_of_China_national_football_team_article

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pestick talk or User talk:14.231.64.162 has been removing large amounts of content from this article, either referenced or not under Recentism. There has not been a consensus to do this and no attempt to try to fix problems or preserve appropriate text:

• edit 15:31, 25 April 2020 The removal of historical context opens this passage up to a distortion of the historical record.

• edit 13:38, 21 April 2020 Deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms. Concealing of relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to judge their value.

• edit 13:29, 21 April 2020 Information suppression by not allowing one view to "speak for itself".

• edit 13:27, 21 April 2020 Entirely omitting significant citable information in support by minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question.

• edit 08:59, 21 April 2020 Information suppression by concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

• edit 10:45, 29 April 2020 Section blanking, no consensus discussions with all concerned users, Appropriate text should be preserved, as much as possible, according to WP policy WP:EDIT and removing encyclopedic content without any reason.

Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai Lau, sorry for not replying to this for quiet some time. I'm trying to curtail the amount of un-necessary content, particularly in the history section of this article. As you can see, there is the template that i put there not long ago warning about the Wikipedia:Recentism problem of this section. My edits are mean to fix this issue and so then I can remove this template.

Even if cited, many content in that section are too detailed and not necessary/notable, it is making the section too long for this type of article about a football team and mean while, other sections are too short. Look for featured articles of the same topic like Belgium national football team and Peru national football team, you will see the history section is concise and well cut with a moderate length.

The section need to be made shorter and more concise/comprehensible, that's all. Of course, there will be certain content I removed that you may not agree, but I will discuss any content to persuade you that it should be removed. By the way, too many sources are not needed, there's no guide that says you should add more than one source. One reliable and objective source should be enough. This article also contains too many sources compared to other articles of the same type.Pestick (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pestick

Your content removal on these: edit 15:31, 25 April 2020, edit 13:38, 21 April 2020, edit 13:29, 21 April 2020, edit 13:27, 21 April 2020, edit 08:59, 21 April 2020, edit 10:45, 29 April 2020 do not show "an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events" and they are not "documenting breaking news reports." They are written from "a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included." Each of the edits shown above is content or sources that are all about information before 1980 and provide "consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight" to the entire article. As described in the WP Recentism article you provided. More importantly they abide by the WP Five pillars of Wikipedia, especially in ensuring the content is "written from a neutral point of view" because it provides historical context. In comparison your last edit on this article 15:23, 3 May 2020 does the oppersite, you've provided only two subsections and the section People's Republic (1950–) has now created an article imbalance. More importantly your content removal has lead to Information suppression, a distortion of the historical record and a partial point of view.

The featured articles of the Belgium national football team and Peru national football team both employ splitting the article, and as the recentism article states on What to do about it "an article might need to be split into multiple articles in order to achieve a balance not readily attainable within a single article." Why is it that you decided not to employ the same technique for the China national team article and instead skip any attempt for a consensus, not make any attempts to try to fix problems or preserve appropriate text and go against WP Editing policy? As for adding more then one source then WP Multiple sources states "no fixed number of sources [are] required .... but multiple sources are generally expected" and before you edited on 04:23, 20 April 2020‎ 14.231.64.162 this article had 93 references compared to the 144 for Peru and 228 Belgium.

As I've stated to you before, please read a translated version of the featured Nederlands: China national football team article. Once you've read it I think you understand where the majority of my arguments about your edits come from. After you've done reading it please contact me so we can figure out how to translate it and make this article a feature article. Kai Lau (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai Lau. Firstly, I have to say that I tried to, but can't understand most of what you have written. Please, try to write shorter, and just use simple words.

You accused me of Information suppression. This is not true. I have no agenda to selectively choose certain information and remove other information just because I want to make this article bias in a point of view. Of course not, for what?. Condensing isn't information suppression. The information that I have removed are insignificant and not notable. They are redundant and should be removed from the article and just mention the main events only. There are Wikipedia guide rules on that, read it.

Your current version of this article isn't neutral. There is a lot of bias tone in the current version. In fact, I'm the one who is trying to make it neutral through my edits.

About splitting the article, with the Belgium and Peru football teams (examples). I'm trying to improve this article only. If the section is long and have Wikipedia:Recentism issues, it doesn't matter if there is a detailed article of that sub-section or not, the section's information must be curtailed to improve this article only. I don't care about splitting the article, if you want to split the article/ create a new article about history, that is your job/ your interest. Now my job/ my interest is to improve this article's quality, that's all. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says you have to create a detailed article regarding a sub-section's topic if you want to reduce that section's amount of information.

Furthermore, I actually haven't finished my editing of this article at all. Because you are obstructing me in the process. Wait until I finish editing this article to an extent, you will see that the article will be a lot better.

Do you have Facebook account, or something like that? We can make friend and talk in there. This is optional, It's easier/smoother to discuss via chatting rather than talking here (waiting for you to reply here is too long for me). Pestick (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pestick

I have written clearly and concisely the issues with your edits but you "can't understand most of what I have written" so here is me "writing shorter":

You refuse to read the Nederlands version that would help improve this article, you refuse to make any attempts to try to fix problems or preserve appropriate text, you refuse to go and do any extra work that might reach a consensus, you accuse other editors of bias, yet provide no evidence of such accusations and you persistently and flagrantly go against WP Five pillars and WP Editing policy.

Finally you want me to give up my personal details, well here are "simple words so you can understand," No. Kai Lau (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai Lau

• Firstly, stop accusing me of things I didn't do, I did not "refuse" anything that you are accusing me of "refusing". I also did not accuse anyone of doing anything. Where is the proof? Perhaps you are misunderstanding "accusations" with "citing problems".

• Secondly, watch your tone and the way you talk, I did not mean to be negative to you but you, on the other hand, is being agressive.

• Thirdly, I'm not "wanting you to give up your personal details". No. I'm looking for us to have a different forum/website where we can "chat", or a different way of discussing which is quicker. A Facebook account does not required you to give up your personal details, you can just create a new one and it does not show any of your details other than an avatar and a fake name. You understand it now?

• Fourthly, this is English wikipedia. You don't have a mandate to tell me to go reading a whole long article in a different language, which is very time comsuming (you didn't give specific guidelines so that is why I haven't done it). You will need to give clearer outlining reasons for why I ought to do so, or I'm not gonna do it.

Pestick (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pestick and Kai Lau: Thank you for coming to the talk page. This is a real start. I do not recommend trying to talk off-wiki about this article. From the essay called WP:OFFWIKI:

As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon (see the guidance Consensus-building pitfalls and errors). This is particularly true if discussion fails to take place on the wiki as well, to allow people to participate equally even if they were unaware of the off-wiki discussion. In general, a consensus must be built on Wikipedia to indicate that the community supports an action. However, as a place to get questions answered or have a wide-ranging discussion that may not be specific to a particular encyclopedia article, an external forum can often be useful.

Also, if the conflict escalated, there would be no record of what happened.

Both of you please read WP:INDENT.

I suggest rather than speaking in generalities about ALL the edits to work on one edit at a time, making a separate subsection for each. I will make subsections below to show you how you can do it. I might weigh in on some of the edits, or some of the others watching the article, so we might find consensus on at least some of these edits.

Some of the disputes you to have are common in contested articles. You both might benefit by looking at contested articles you have no investment in to see what happens. It might help you both to gain perspective and see what works towards resolution and what doesn't.

Also, I think you are both good faith editors who want to improve the article. I see merit in both positions, but it depends on the particular edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pestick: I broke the edits up with comments by Kai Lau. Can you please respond to each of these edits individually? If there is more than one thing happening in a particular edit, try breaking it up. I will look at some of them too, and may break them up further. Also, regarding your request

Furthermore, I actually haven't finished my editing of this article at all. Because you are obstructing me in the process. Wait until I finish editing this article to an extent, you will see that the article will be a lot better.

As part of WP:BRD, when Kai Lau reverted you, it is not "obstructing", as long as Kai Lau gives sufficient reasons in the edit summary and/or on the talk page for disagreeing with your changes. To achieve your goal of making multiple modifications without interruption, you could:

(1) copy a paragraph or section of the article to your sandbox

(2) make edits until you like the improved version

(3) copy the revised paragraph or section to replace the existing version with appropriate edit summary of everything that you changed and why

(4) If you get reverted, or expect to be reveted:

(5) Open up a new section on the talk page

(6) Copy the (proposed) revised version you want -or- if you were reverted, you can give a WP:DIFF of the change you tried to implement.

(7) Say why you think your version is better and ask if other editors agree with you -- but don't WP:CANVASS.

Does that all make sense? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Shared preface comments at top of the section]

• edit 15:31, 25 April 2020 The removal of historical context opens this passage up to a distortion of the historical record. --Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Shared preface comments at top of the section]

• edit 13:38, 21 April 2020 Deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms. Concealing of relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to judge their value. --Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal, because the reference is WP:PRIMARY and does not refer to the team at all. Hence it is WP:OR. Therefore, I am removing it. If you (or anyone else) can find WP:RS that says this in referring to the team, it can be restored with the new reference. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be restoring this edit with this reference: FIFA and the "Chinese Question", 1954-1980: an exercise of statutes p81-83 as it directly states that this act was the instigating factor on why the team rejoined Fifa. Kai Lau (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pestick if you disagree with an edit please go to this talk page to discuss it before deleting the content. As you wrote "differentiate between an association and a football team. You know that the CFA join FIFA, not the team right?" on the edit summary I will add another reference(s) that expressively states China national football team rather then CFA. [9] and [10] Kai Lau (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Shared preface comments at top of the section]

• edit 13:29, 21 April 2020 Information suppression by not allowing one view to "speak for itself".--Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question has no WP:REF. It could be deleted, but I have added a Citation needed tag, to allow Kai Lau to add a citation if it can be found. If none can be found, the sentence can be deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will use this reference taken from Sports around the World [4 volumes]: History, Culture, and Practice.^[1] Kai Lau (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pestick Why did you remove a clearly referenced source without any explanation? Kai Lau (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai Lau Huh? I did explain. Did you not read the edit summaries? Or did you not understand them? Because either the referenced sources are not related to the main topic, or they cited events that are not notable enough. Wikipedia's article does not need to include all events, just to write the important ones.Pestick (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pestick your edit summary was only for Edit 2 with no explanation to this edit. As for this edit, Help:Your first article clearly states "the topic should be notable and be covered in detail in good references from independent sources". This edit is notable and detailed as it explains the hostilities between the two teams, why there were two teams using the same name for years and the origins on why this team would isolate itself from the footballing community. The reference is directly related to the main topic and it is a independent source. Kai Lau (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Shared preface comments at top of the section]

• edit 13:27, 21 April 2020 Entirely omitting significant citable information in support by minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question.--Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Shared preface comments at top of the section]

• edit 08:59, 21 April 2020 Information suppression by concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.--Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Shared preface comments at top of the section]

• edit 10:45, 29 April 2020 Section blanking, no consensus discussions with all concerned users, Appropriate text should be preserved, as much as possible, according to WP policy WP:EDIT and removing encyclopedic content without any reason.--Kai Lau (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is China national football team First sentence says China PR national football team First match is of Republic of China And so does it include info of ROC history. There was a move in 2013 which caused this, and that was right, but it Now also includes info that really shouldn’t be here, rather at the Chinese Taipei page. We could also have a disambiguation page. If I don’t hear any arguments against, I’d start editing in a week. EnTerbury (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA on their website recognises the 1931 affiliation of Republic of China to China PR: FIFA website China PR

While the term China national football team was discussed several years ago and concluded that it is the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for China PR national football team. Kai Lau (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be shared. Taiwan/Republic of China and China PR both inherited that because the current Republic of China still considers whole mainland as theirs, so it is legal. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my objection, I found that people listed Taiwan here before it was locked to prevent outsiders from making vandalism for a year. Taiwan however is not well-known in football, the Taiwanese (or Republic of China) football team isn't known to the rest of the world. Current People's Republic of China (or mainland China) and Taiwan has a tense relationship, but it has never extended to football level because of lacking popularity of football in Taiwan. Like the case of India and Pakistan where football rivalry isn't common here. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last update was on 21 December 2020. Source:^[1]

  Best Ranking    Worst Ranking    Best Mover    Worst Mover  

England's FIFA world rankings
	Rank	Year	Games Played	Won	Lost	Drawn	Best		Worst
							Rank	Move	Rank	Move
		2020
		2019
		2018
		2017
		2016
		2015
		2014
		2013
		2012
		2011
		2010
		2009
		2008
		2007
		2006
		2005
		2004
		2003
		2002
		2001
		2000
		1999
		1998
		1997
		1996
		1995
		1994
		1993

Request for correction of the Chinese football team's uniform for 2020/2021 | pattern_la1 = _chn20H | pattern_b1 = _chn20H | pattern_ra1 = _chn20h | pattern_sh1 = _chn20h | pattern_so1 = _chn20h | leftarm1 = FF0000 | body1 = FF0000 | rightarm1 = FF0000 | shorts1 = FF0000 | socks1 = FF0000 | pattern_la2 = _chn20A | pattern_b2 = _chn20A | pattern_ra2 = _chn20a | pattern_sh2 = _chn20a | pattern_so2 = _chn20a | leftarm2 = FFFFFF | body2 = FFFFFF | rightarm2 = FFFFFF | shorts2 = FFFFFF | socks2 = FFFFFF

The venue of China national team's matches in June 2023 is wrongly indicated (in the drop-down details) as Barracuda Bay Stadium in Dalian. At that very time the named stadium was under construction still.

2A02:A31A:C246:2700:A46E:248:3E2C:6F7C (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]