Talk:Kit (association football)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleKit (association football) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 28, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 31, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

History of Kit

Shirts of different colours were used by public school football teams pre-1840. I have added this to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yj 188.29.202.254 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article states "Organised association football was first played in England in the 1860s, but at this time the concept of standard team colours had not come about. Teams would generally play in whatever clothing they had available". I will bet that there are contemporary examples where specific shirts were used in the 1860s by football clubs... but I do not have time to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Association football headgear

I have recently added an article about headgear in soccer, titled Association football headgear. As it is a form of equipment for the sport, if any of the users and editors of this page could look it over and give me feedback, that would be very helpful! Thanks! Swanyk (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge replica shirt into kit (football)

Replica shirt seems more of a section of the kit article than a free-standing article, at least at the moment. Feedback welcome! --iamajpeg 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Kit (football) → Kit (Association football)- The move would be in-line with the recent moving of the page Football (soccer) to Association Football.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per request, as I don't see how this can be controversial. Dekimasuよ! 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But not with a capital A, I'll move it back to Kit (association football) thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, put here to avoid cluttering the FAC page

Very good article, but I have concerns about its Anglocentric nature. I'm not entirely sure how this ought to be rectified, so opposing the FAC would perhaps not be actionable. However, some comments and suggestions:

  • Sponsorship: Given that shirt sponsorship was commonplace in continental Europe at the time, its not that relevant that Liverpool were the first English club to do so.
  • Also on the theme of sponsorship, I'm fairly sure that Adidas were the pioneers of paying players to wear their boots, and the feuding Dassler brothers (who owned Adidas and Puma) started the bidding wars and advertising associated with the practice. Pele stopping to tie his Puma laces in the 1970 World Cup being a notorious example.
  • Perhaps where possible national teams should be used as examples to replace some of the English ones.
  • One thing which don't know whether to consider worthy of mention or dismiss as trivial: the trend of players revealing slogans under their shirts, and the subsequent IFAB decision to ban them. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's quite relevant - Robbie Fowler (?) supporting dock workers (?) seems to stand out in my warped and tired mind? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm surprised this article is highly regarded as I agree that it is very anglo-centric. It almost assumes the reader watches English football and I think it needs to be rewritten (which I'm not qualified to do). I think it is especially laddish to include the referee chant 'Bastard in Black' when describing referees' kits - almost just including the chant for the sake of it as it plainly doesn't add anything. This should be removed and - if worth keeping anywhere - belongs under English football crowd chants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.145.69 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the bit about bastard in the black, that was added after the article got Featured status and I agree it doesn't belong. I thought I'd done a pretty good job of toning down the Anglocentrism during the FAC process, but if you could point out what you feel are any remaining serious issues in this area, I'll be happy to look into amending them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women's kit in muslim countries?

Am I allowed to add a section about the kit for female footballers in muslim countries? Obviously there are some major differences visivi the players' kit in other countries...... [1]

83.178.19.203 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's appropriately written and reliably sourced then go for it ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goalkeeping gloves merge

The current article on goalkeeping gloves in small poorly sourced and creates a disparity of information. The two articles should be merged to give a complete picture of all kit worn by all players on the pitch.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the only info in the goalie glove article which isn't already in this one is the stuff about different "cuts". I will have a look to see if a condensed, sourced version of that info could be added here ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goalkeeping gloves article definitely needs to be merged. You could make a sub-section of the Kit (association football) article called goalkeepers, and also talk about why the goalies jersey is different.--Weisebar (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.73.209 (talk) [reply]

The very first paragraph already mentions that the Laws of the Game say that "goalkeepers must wear shirts which are easily distinguishable from all other players and the match officials" - there isn't much to say beyond that on the subject of "why the goalies jersey is different"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National colours

I don't like this:

National teams generally wear colours based on those of their national flag, although there are exceptions. The Italian national team wear blue as it was the colour of the House of Savoy,[1] and Scotland wear dark blue as their first ever team was made up entirely of Queen's Park players, who wore their dark blue club shirts for the match.[2]

If I could find a cite I would prefer something along the lines of the following:

National teams generally wear national colours.

I admit the national colours article is currently rather poor, but it's undoubtedly the case that football strips are normally the same colours as the strips a country uses in other sports. That's true for Italy, and even for Scotland (pace Queen's Park) depending on the shade of blue in St Andrew's Cross. One exception that might fill up the space is New Zealand's All Whites, from the days when only the referee wore black. jnestorius(talk) 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true, though, that the colours were generally chosen first for football and then spread to other sports later? So it's important to indicate how/why they were originally first chosen. I think at worst we should say:
National teams generally wear national colours, which in most cases are based on those of their national flag, although there are exceptions. The Italian national team wear blue as it was the colour of the House of Savoy,[3] and Scotland wear dark blue as their first ever team was made up entirely of Queen's Park players, who wore their dark blue club shirts for the match.[4]

.......thoughts? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true, though, that the colours were generally chosen first for football and then spread to other sports later?
Possibly, but I certainly don't assume so with no evidence. England wore white playing rugby in 1871, before the first soccer international [2]. Not sure what Scotland wore. Many other countries would have done athletics or other sports at the Olympics before football took off. And national colours are often not specific to Sport. If it were true, I would suggest:
National teams generally wear colours derived from the national flag. In some cases, different colours were chosen, which have often been adopted as the national colours used by the country's teams in other sports. [...examples...]
but that would need some extra-strong references.
Your rewording doesn't make clear that the exceptions are "national colours that, exceptionally, are not flags" rather than "football colours that, exceptionally, are not national colours". I think the latter would be more interesting and specific to the article; hence my New Zealand suggestion. The Scotland example is confusing at best. Even if it's true (the sources are a bit vague about the connection) the fact is that Scotland's football colours are the same as those used in other sports (e.g. rugby) and as the national flag; so even if the origin is different and the sameness is a coincidence, it's not the clearest example of an exception. jnestorius(talk) 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I will have a think about how to reword it, and have a look for some extra references..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "National teams generally wear the official or de facto national colours of the countries which they represent. Such colours are usually shared by all the sporting teams of a country and are often derived from the national flag, although in some cases different colours are used. The sporting teams of Italy, for example, wear blue as it was the colour of the House of Savoy.[5]" - would you say that in that example I'm just missing a reference on the first sentence to support the existence of the concept of "national colours"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Unfortunately I can't find any reliable source that specifically states that NZ had to wear white because in football only the ref wore black at that time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "What's in a name? Part II". FIFA. 2000-02-05. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  2. ^ "The first international football match". BBC. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  3. ^ "What's in a name? Part II". FIFA. 2000-02-05. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  4. ^ "The first international football match". BBC. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  5. ^ "What's in a name? Part II". FIFA. 2000-02-05. Retrieved 2008-09-01.

Scottish Kit

"Scotland wear dark blue as their first ever team was made up entirely of Queen's Park players, who wore their dark blue club shirts for the match"

I thought Scotland wore blue strips with white because its the colour of the Scottish flag. The reference provided states that Queens Park wore blue shirts for the first match, but it doesn't say this is the reason for Scotland continuing to wear blue shirts. Anyone albe to cast some light on this? --Neldo (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there appear to be differing opinions on this, I've removed it from the article, at least for the time being -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I did put the following text in about this issue, but it was deleted. Not exactly sure why.

The first international football kit comes from the first rugby international of the 27 March 1871. In this the English team wore white with a red rose and the Scots brown[1] with a thistle. It is possible, however, that similar soccer kits conveying national identity were also worn at the first ever international Association Football matches of 1870 and of 1871 at the Oval, London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because firstly any statement starting "it is possible" is clearly unverified speculation, and secondly because there is no evidence that the first international kit "came from" the first international rugby kit - if it did, then why did the Scottish association football team wear a completely different colour scheme to their rugby equivalents.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Glasgow Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), Tuesday, March 28, 1871; Issue 9746

Disambiguation

Why is there no disambiguation link to Kit at the top of the page? Many, many uses of the term and for a FA users might be confused about other uses. Keegantalk 05:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because this article isn't located at Kit? chandler ··· 05:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the "For other uses" template. Keegantalk 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strip/uniform

The article claimed "A kit (also known as a "strip" or "uniform")..." This is obviously incorrect, because a strip doesn't include boots, shin-pads etc. I hope I have clarified this important distinction in the lede. Ericoides (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of the term "kit" in much of the article seems wrong to me, because the less inclusive term "strip" is what is meant. An example is under the heading Modern era which states "In the 1970s clubs began to create strongly individual kit designs." Surely this should be "clubs began to create strongly individual strip designs" (or better still, "clubs began to create strongly individual strips") as only the shirt, shorts and socks were part of the design. I am not going to make wholesale changes to the article, but is this not worth considering? Ericoides (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably. I'll have a skim through and see which might need changing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All changed where required, I think, although to be fair many sources do use "kit" to refer to just the shirt/shorts/stockings, even if it isn't technically accurate...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good stuff. I've never heard anyone say "Have you seen the new England kit?" Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This Times article refers to "kits" when they are clearly only considering shirts, shorts and stockings...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • ....and here's plenty of Google results for "new England kit"............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah well, I guess I talk to people not newspapers or Google. Still, I take your point. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "kit" is different than "strip" or "uniform", then why does "Football strip" redirect to this page? It seems contradictory. Could it be clarified with: "The term "kit" should be distinguished from a "strip" (in North American English a "uniform"), which refers to just the shirt, shorts and socks, although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably."? Hyena MN (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard plenty of references to the xxxx kit (including England). I think, like so much else in football, this is a regional thing. When I was a teenager, I met a Mancunion, who talked about playing "in goals" when they were using "a casey". I hadn't ever heard either term before. --Dweller (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kit? or "A" kit?

The wiki page begins by specifying " 'A' kit" . . . is this correct, to use the article "a" as part of the term? Or should it begin with just the the word "Kit"? Ed8r (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Kit" is better than "A kit" (which sounds like a bad translation from the German). "A football kit" is truly grim. Ericoides (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC de Rakt skirts

The first sentence in the paragraph on FC de Rakt skirts situation doesn't make to much sense to me ("that all players, regardless of gender, must wear the same kit"). From what I understand, the problem there was not that they wore different kits (in fact they all wore the same kit with a skirt, no?), but that any type of skirt is a violation of the Laws of the Game, which specifically demand "shorts"? EnemyOfTheState|talk 09:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added that and it was meant to mean that there is no differentiation between kit for men and kit for women in the Laws of the Game. It's not intended to mean that all players on a team must wear the same as each other. I'm open to suggestions as to how to word it more clearly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC de Rakt Image

I have removed the Image as there are a number of images all ready within this article and the addition of more Images is creating image congestion. the caption with the Image also failed to state the purpose for including the Image.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious since it would have been better to expand the caption - this is a unique example of football kit and you've removed it because the caption wasn't good enough. I'd suggest we remove some of the more banal images, replace the de Rakt image and add an appropriately informative caption. Please consider that this is a featured article and, as such, has undergone an extremely rigorous review process. I would advocate the use of talk page discussion before simply removing image after image. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the image due to Image congestion. The article has a large number of images and is in my opinion full. the addition of more images is almost a detraction from the quality of the article. The image also isn't that good at portraying the uniqueness as It is too small and there is interference in the foreground of the image.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Congestion

It appears as if this article has too many images, Can we discuss which images are truly appropriate for the article and which are banal and superfluous. Not all images deserve to be in the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. So perhaps we should invite members of WP:FOOTBALL to discuss this, particularly as it's a featured article, recently on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My screen resolution is slightly lower than average, and I do not get the impression that the page is congested. What resolution does a typical netbook use? Oldelpaso (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be compliant with WP:MOS and that (I think) suggests screen resolutions of 800 x 600 should be used to test the layout of the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs 1991

There is a myth that Spurs pioneered the retro trend in the 1991 FA cup final. Several French clubs were wearing this baggy style during the 1988-89 season. When Clive Allen played at Bordeuax, they had a baggy design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.212.158 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change teams

I'm not sure if this is true but I remember reading somewhere (I believe here) that there are a few clubs that have the right to always wear their 1st choice kit, no matter if theres a clash. I think it was Preston North End for being the 1st club to go a season unbeaten, Reading for being the "Royal" club and (I think) Sheffield F.C. for being the worlds first football club. It was also saying that the clubs seem to disregard this historic right to gain more sponser revenue. Was this ever on this page? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that that is a myth -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From The Guardian: "Last week, we chopped down the tall tale that Notts County don't have to wear an away kit because they were the first team in the football league, before stuffing it into a large bag marked "completely untrue". But that hasn't stopped some of you from claiming that this special dispensation refers to other league clubs. "It's actually Preston North End who aren't required to wear away strips by virtue of them being the first double winners," ventures Henke Larsson., while Mad Dan Eccles reckons: "Reading don't have to because of being in Royal Berkshire (or something like that)." Well, you're both wrong. John Booth, the Preston press officer, says: "It's a load of rubbish. We're governed by the same Football League rulebook as everyone else." While his counterpart at Reading, Craig Mortimer, says much the same thing. "I've heard of this before, but while I haven't spoken to the Football League about it, I doubt very much whether they'd allow us to play all our matches in our home kit."" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

My English is to bad to write on the article, so I'm writing here. Sorry. The article said that Leeds began to sell replica shirts in 1975 ; but Paris Saint Germain FC sold its first replica shirts in december 1974 (Paris Saint-Germain FC-Stade de Reims, matchday programme, december 8, 1974, p.8 : Six sizes available of the replica shirts were on sale since december 15, 1974 ; Six selling spots in Paris or by mail order. The PSG president was the fashion designer Daniel Hechter, and for him it was natural to sell that kind of stuff. I really dont know if they were the first to do that. I really doubt it. The article said that a German club introduced adverts on the shirt in 1973 ; French clubs can have adverts on their shirts since 1969 (fr:Alfred Wahl, Les archives du football. Sport et société en France (1890-1980), Paris, Gallimard, 1989, p.330 ISBN 2070716031). With only 6000 spectators average per game in Division 1 at that time, they badly needed money... Clio64B (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boots

There is no correct data available about when the IFAB made wearing of boots obligatory. There are tails about India's national team which played bare-footed in the Olympics 1948. I have only a rule book of 1948, and there are boots termed as a part of kits. --213.225.0.173 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Lawes of the Game, given June 1st, 2016, allow to play without boots for a short time. If a player looses his boots he may play until the next break (it is allowed to score a goal). In the past it wasn't allowed to play without boots (player had to stop), if he didn't, he was cautioned. Since (maybe) 2012 it was allowed to score a goal if the player lost the boots by scoring. --213.225.15.186 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kit (association football). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kit (association football). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kit (association football). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kit (association football). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kit (association football). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First time?

Was 1994 really the year officials were allowed for the first time to wear others colours than black? According to the reference, this is not the case. Or ar least I have seen officials at the 1986 World Cup wear red strips... All N Ever (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing reference in the article says this was the case, and the BBC agree.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This picture from the 1986 World Cup shows the officials in black -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As does this one from 1990..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is from 1986 All N Ever (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption (and that is all it is) would be that in that particular case the ref had to change because a black shirt would have clashed with Scotland's navy shirts. So presumably the 1994 tournament was the first where refs wore colours other than black in circumstances other than a clash. Maybe it would be more strictly accurate, while not contradicting the sources, to reword the article to "for the 1994 World Cup, FIFA dispensed with black strips for officials" or similar wording....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you're right :) All N Ever (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 06:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argantena kit

Kit 2402:3A80:1BA9:957E:95C2:32FC:7825:4C1E (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazulu Fc

Mazulu fc siyeza on 27 April 2024 on mabhida stadium sizonibuka siyisikole SASE bunyebethu high school from emsinga tugela ferry sifuna ukuzonibukela eduze sihamba no coach wethu ungidi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.196.110 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Kit_(association_football)"