Talk:UEFA

Turkey

Sorry to be anal, but if Turkey aren't a "European" nation, surely Russia should also be added to this parenthasis seeing as only a part of each of these nations lies in Europe. Comments? - 81.100.216.53 01:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --fvw* 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Both Turkey and Cyprus are in Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.35.227 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is not in europe, neither is most of russia, or israel, however, they are all in UEFA, so what does it matter. And what did he mean by "sorry to be anal?", infact, what did he mean overall, what was he on about!? Philc _T^E_C^I 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangers FC

Why oh why did UEFA decide to punish Rangers FC when the "problems" are political surely to goodness the fine should be for the British/Scottish government as since time immemorial the indigenous population of Scotland has been let down. I urge all Rangers fans to e mail their MEP and the european parliament to fine the UK government because of generations of inaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.255.178 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Serbia and not Montenegro?

Why in the nations qualified to the world cup appears Serbia and not Montenegro if Serbia hasn't gone to the world cup by itself 66.119.81.178 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Why is Serbia listed as a sole successor of former SFR Yugoslavia? If my memory serves me well, SFRY was constituted by 6 republics, not only Serbia... Serbia is a true successor of the FR Yugoslavia, which existed from 1992 until 2003, only! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.173.173 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's it, exactly the same problem with Russia and Czech Republic! Morkva 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

just gave a link to an official FIFA statistic where records are combined as stated in the note. It might be unfair, but since the FIFA holds this competition, they have the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.184.138 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd statement. FIFA holds the last word over a list in the UEFA article at Wikipedia? Hardly. The list is POV. - BsL 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Serbia was the country calling the shots! ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xhandler (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

It is considered as Serbia because FIFA get the final say ove what countries take the history of one when it is split, because otherwise there would be some records missing, ie if Germany succeded East Germany, there would be 3 World cup winning teams 'missing' Chaza93 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a country is missing then it's records are missing, too. Yugoslavian results belong to all it's republics. There is no way Serbia can be the sole successor. A country that doesn't exist cannot provide any records. It's factual and political nonsense. I just wanted to edit this but I saw the comment about it being FIFA's official stand, so I'm going to ask them about this. Wonder what they are going to say...paladin 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You cant have more than 1 country with the same history is basically the story of it Chaza1000 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your argument, but what we have now is that a nonexisting country seems to have provided results, which are, btw., mostly acieved by people who didn't have anything to do with it. UEFA falsifies sports history just to make it easy for itself. Why not let this 1 country be SFRYugoslavia and keep it the way it defined itself, a joint state of equal nations? Anyway, I sent a few e-mails and I'll post their explanation here. There is no point in using logic and having a discussion if UEFA's statistics is the only thing that counts here.paladin 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately UEFA dont have a choice, it is up to FIFA to make the decision, i have found a source to the argument on the fifa website -Serbia's FIFA Stats Montenegro's FIFA Stats Chaza1000 08:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again Russia as well

As long as Wikipedia supposed to support neutrality, it is wrong to count all the USSR statistics to Russia. It would be terribly unjust in respect to other Soviet republics, and first of all UKRAINE !!! Morkva 06:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not un-neutral, Its how FIFA, UEFA and everybody see's it

Turkey has geographic territory in Europe

Why is it that it is constantly being changed...TURKEY IS IN ASIA..accept it whoever you are... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.227.95 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The "European" side of Turkey has a larger population than most European countries! Also, you can't use religion to justify your racism as Muslim Bosnians and Albanians are both nations near the heart of Europe and have both suffered greatly because of people like you. Greeks and Greek Cypriots both took part in and helped fund the Srebrenica massacre, the first act of genocide in Europe since the Nazi Holocaust.Waya 5 08:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow wow wow cry me a river there buddy...I never said anything about population or religion or genocides..where is that all comming from...its called LOOK AT A MAP!!!! 90% of turkey is in ASIA...so its almost an ALL ASIAN country!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.227.95 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You will indeed be crying when you realise the futility of your argument. Again, you should look at a map and at the same time read the World Almanac 2006. Istanbul is more degrees longitude west than Russia. The European side of Turkey numbers in the millions and has a larger population than many European countries. Also, why are you ignoring Russia being nearly completely in Asia then? Again, you have no geographic, demographic or religous basis to make such a statement. Despite how bad you feel about it, Turkey will always be a member of UEFA.Waya 5 01:00, 4 September 2006

Europe is bounded to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, and – according to the traditional geographic definition – to the south-east by the waterways adjoining the Mediterranean to and including the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains (in Caucasia). Europe's eastern frontier is vague, but has traditionally been given as the divide of the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea to the south-east. The Urals are considered by most to be a geographical and tectonic landmark separating Asia from Europe

there you go...and why do you bring up religion?

Do you guys realize that you are arguing over an example, and one that's frankly of little or no importance to the article as a whole? Regardless of whether you think they qualify as an appropriate example or not, the fact is that Turkey doesn't NEED to be listed because there are already more than enough examples of such countries already given in that paragraph. Two or three is plenty, we don't have to come up with a comprehensive list. BTW, there's a separate wiki article that does a lovely job of defining and classifying transcontinental countries if either of you are interested. They basically say that Turkey is geographically Asian and politically/historically/culturally European, which is what I think both of you are arguing anyway except that you're each emphasizing one side (the side that favors your argument) and downplaying the other, when in fact both sides play an important role in how Turkey's national identity has evolved over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.13.128 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets settle this, Turkey had the choice to join UEFA or the AFC, they chose UEFA so it was up to the Turkish FA Chaza93 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Turkey and Russia, which are transcontinental countries, and Georgia, which is a country in an ambiguous geographical position, should be given the choice to remain in UEFA, if they want so bad to be Europeans... But what I find really fucked up is to see Kazakhstan, Arzebaidjan, Armenia and Israel on UEFA. One can always argue these countries should be on UEFA because they have political issues with their neighbours but... Let's imagine if one actual European country couldn't go to the World Cup because it was disclassified after losing a match to Arzebaidjan, and Arzebaidjan goes to the Cup instead... It would sound quite unfair, wouldn't it? Same goes for Australia in AFC, wouldn't Japaneses or Chineses feel really angry if they lost their chance to go to the Cup because of Australia wining over them? I would assume Kurdistan will need to join the African Confederation because they will have issues with both Turkey (in UEFA) and Iraq (in AFC). See how much politics fuck everything up. If certain countries can't even host a soccer game without being able to avoid terrorism against the adversary, FIFA should feel free to write them off the board, instead of having to screw up the whole world geography because of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.126.93 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

disputed/contradiction section

NOTE: FIFA considers Germany to carry West Germany's record. The same goes for Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (not Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - SFRY); Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia; and Russia and the USSR. For purposes of these articles the latter three have been separated because they represent different peoples and areas.

The last sentence is not true and contradicts whats displayed in the section. Does any have any sources that confirm the continuity of FAs/world cup records as I think all of the team articles can be improved as well. // Laughing Man 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I at least removed the contradiction, but we still need sources for this section, so I left the disputed tag. // Laughing Man 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont know about a bit of argument, but what I love is how people utilise their time in things that most of us, see, stare, and then just leave it as is........ Best of Luck Guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.238.119 (talk • contribs) 22:09, December 26, 2006 (UTC)

The West German DFB team is the same team like the German team today Yoda1893 14:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

i added a reference to a statistic from the official fifa homepage, it is not explicitly stated that the records are combined the way said in the note, however looking at the individual records you can see that they are. I hope that's sufficient. Since appearances are included in that table, it really should be enough, I'll remove the disputed tag now :) I also removed Montenegro due to the same source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.184.138 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

UEFA → Union of European Football Associations — Parity with other continental governing bodies, which live at their official, expanded titles; page intro already leads with expanded title. DeLarge 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose. Contrary to the nomination at WP:Requested moves, many other articles are NOT at pages named for the spelled out acronym (see CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, FIFA), only those avoiding disambiguation. WP:Naming conventions says "Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form." Googling "UEFA" = 55.3 million hits, googling "Union of European Football Associations" = 47,400. I'd say this meets those criteria --DeLarge 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose -- UEFA is more common =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per DeLarge. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
4. Oppose: "almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation". Archibald99  18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose — DeLarge's argument is convincing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per WP:NCA (thus per DeLarge). – Elisson • T • C • 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose — Let me add that the English acronym "UEFA" is truly universal, in that it's used in all the other languages, including French. This is significant because, for example, the UN is ONU in French, but the UEFA is always UEFA. Nobody ever uses the full name in common usage.--Endroit 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per Above Chaza93 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Other continental organizations of the same type are found on Wikipedia with either their expanded name (Asian Football Confederation, Confederation of African Football and Oceania Football Confederation) or the acronyms (CONCACAF, CONMEBOL and supervising body FIFA). Where's the consistency? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That was the point. The reason given for reverting these moves was that the expanded versions are only expanded because the short versions are ambiguous. But if all the pages can live at the expanded versions, why not expand them all? Chris Cunningham 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Either entirely expanded or entirely abbreviated. That's why I have doubts on my "vote". Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Like many other international sporting bodies, isn't the acronym a shortened form of a French name? If it is, that would make the proposed title a backronym. Chris cheese whine 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Navboxes

Can we shrink these at all? I'm seeing about 3 screenfuls. Either that, or use the show/hide mechanism, perhaps. Chris cheese whine 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

William Gaillard

Would a link on the UEFA page be relevant, given that Gaillard would be the figure that is most commonly seen and heard from, obviously along with Michel Platini. Londo06 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

pron

You-ee-fah? Some people pronounce UEFA that way Londo06 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"UEFA Elite stadium specification"

Does anybody know what this is, to write an article about it? It is referenced at Stadium:mk, the new stadium in Milton Keynes (and on its own website). --Concrete Cowboy 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean the UEFA Stadia List? StuartFreeloader 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradictionary Sentence?

"Of the 32 available spots in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, 14 were allocated to UEFA national teams, and currently 15 of the top 20 teams in the FIFA World Rankings are UEFA members."

If there are 14 UEFA teams, how can there be 15 top teams from UEFA?