Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Football (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the season article task force.
WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archive 1,created on 26th November 2015, contains all material from threads that had been inactive for at least 2 weeks after the end of the qualifying process. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuous editing of the notes on qualified teams[edit]

A group of editors, including myself unfortunately, has been editing the notes on the qualified teams back and forth. This needs to stop. We need to agree on the content.

There are three contested facts that get repeatedly edited:

  • Is Germany the successor of both East and West Germany? According to their article they are.
  • The years in which teams competed in their previous incarnations?
  • Does Slovakia merit a mention that they were previously a part of the Czechoslovak team?

We need to agree here instead of "battling" on the article itself.

The other editors involved are Theurgist, SWASTIK 25, GAV80 and The Replicator. Tvx1 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My view is this: Russia is the successor of the Soviet Union and keeps the USSR's record. Similarly, Czechia keeps Czechoslovakia's record and Serbia keeps Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro's records. Ukraine, Belarus, Croatia, Montenegro, and so on, are new teams with no previous record. In the German reunification, basically it was West Germany who absorbed East Germany, so Germany keeps West Germany's record and no one keeps East Germany's record, just like no one keeps Saar's record. As for the years, here we're talking about cycles, not separate years. The Replicator (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't edit our own views in the articles. We reflect what the sources say. For instance, East German Joachim Streich, is credited with 102 caps for Germany despite having played for Germany. Uefa themselves lists Czechoslovakian results for the Slovak teams as well. Tvx1 23:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Reality: Czechia registered in FIFA since 1907 and in UEFA since 1954 and Slovakia registered in FIFA since 1994 and in UEFA since 1993. Germany registered in FIFA since 1904 and in UEFA since 1954. Serbia registered in FIFA since 1921 and in UEFA since 1954. What really counts is the dates of affiliation. It is the same way with FIFA, UEFA, IOC, whatever. With the end of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, Russia, Serbia and Czechia were the main heirs and kept the previous records. Not Ukraine, Croatia and Slovakia, for example. The Replicator (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see List of men's national association football teams, and more specifically the "#Former national football teams" section (permalink) and the "#New names" section (permalink). In a nutshell, it says that:

  • Germany, Russia, Czech Republic, and Serbia are regarded as the inheritors of the records of, respectively, pre-war Germany/West Germany, USSR/CIS, Czechoslovakia/RCS, and Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro.
  • Teams like Ukraine, Croatia, and Slovakia are regarded as "other successor teams" (non-inheriting successor teams), or, in a sense, "new" teams.
  • East Germany is regarded as a defunct team whose records aren't inherited by anyone. At Template:Defunct national football teams, the East Germany, Saarland, South Vietnam, and South Yemen teams are listed as "recognised as defunct by FIFA".

--Theurgist (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. The Replicator (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, we don't use other wikipedia articles as sources. Secondly, the Uefa links provided are to the associations, not the teams. The ones from the teams I provided earlier show Czechoslovakia's achievements with both the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Moreover going from the associations' pages. Neither the Czech one nor the Slovak one credit the independent teams of having won the 1976 title or having inherited it. And as proven with sources as well, Germany has inherited East Germany's achievements too. Tvx1 00:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The national teams belong to the associations, so that doesn't make any sense. East Germany was absorbed by West Germany and ceased to exist, while the reunified Germany took the records of the pre-war Germany and West Germany, not the records of East Germany and Saarland. At this moment there's only you opposing the status quo against at least three users (me, Theurgist and GAV80). The Replicator (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
According to FIFA, Germany has 18 appearances (2 as pre-war Germany, 10 as West Germany and 6 as reunified Germany) at the World Cup. No mention of East Germany's only appearance in 1974. Slovakia has 1 (in 2010). The Replicator (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
1)This is a matter of history - therefore, there is no objective true, no facts. There are only subjective opinions. The adding of the whole history of a unit composed of 2 parts to only 1 part of it is your opinion, not a fact.
2)My opinion is that if 2 independent countries decide to join together (1945) and then later decide to split again (1993), it is not correct nor logic to add their common history to only 1 of those countries. Especially, if they were equal and they even both agreed not to claim the whole common history for anyone of them.
3)A football history is a part of a history, it should not be taken apart - as a something different.
4)FIFA is not an authority in deciding of what is a history fact. This is the work for historians. FIFA is just a legal organisation and makes its own rules. It does not rule a history perception of anything.
5)The successory is a matter of some legal system, it does not change the history. It can not influence what already happened before. The FIFA's deciding of a successory brings only some future's consequences, it does change the past. No organisation can change history, no one can take the history and give it to someone else.
6)In 1945, Slovak football association and Czech football association decided to merge. In 1993 they split again and they both decided to start as a 2 new associations. They also decided that none of them would claim the past common history as anyone's own one.
7)The Czechoslovakia national football team's only championship triumph - the EURO 1976's one - was a work of both Czech and Slovak players (8 of them in the final were Slovaks, 3 were Czechs). It is a logical nonsense to count these 8 Slovak players into the independent Czech football history.
8)The Czechoslovakia's biggest football clubes' achievements were the Slovan Bratislava's triumph in Cup Winners' Cup and Spartak Trnava's semifinal in Champions Cup (both in 1968/69). Both these clubs are Slovak ones. According to your "logic", you count both these achievements into the independent Czech football history. It is another nonsense coming from your "logic".
9)If there were (hypotheticaly) 2 matches played between 2 parts of the common country (Czechoslovakia), in this case the matches between Czechia and Slovakia, and one of them would be won by Czechia and the another one by Slovakia, according to your "logic" both of the victories had to be count for Czechia, as the Czech republic is "the successor" of the whole Czechoslovakia's history. As you can see, your "logic" is illogical.
10)This article is about UEFA Euro 2016, an competition run by UEFA, not by FIFA.
11)UEFA claims no Czechoslovakia national football team's history to Czech republic nor Slovakia, as you can see here: and here: UEFA rather states its this way: and I think it is the correct way.
12)Even FIFA itself claims no Czechoslovakia's matches for Czech republic! You can check it on FIFA's website here: You can find only Czech republic's matches played since 1993 (since 1992 in case of futsal) counted as Czech republic's ones. No Czechoslovakia's matches at all.
13)What about players and coaches who played for both Czechoslovakia and then for independent Slovakia - like Ľubomír Moravčík, Peter Dubovský, Jozef Vengloš and so on? According to your "logic", you have to count a part of their careers into the independent Czech history and another part into the independent Slovak history. Another nonsense.
14)Maybe you, by mistake, consider whole this thing as a "Slovakia joined Czechoslovakia and then depart of it". However, the truth is that Czechia and Slovakia, 2 different countries joined together as equals and then split again as equals, thus leaving the common state's history as a past thing, belonging to both of them, equally. Again, both these countries were equal. None of them has a bigger right for their common history.
15)What about the case of the Great Britain's football team made for the Olympic Games (2012)? According to your "logic", you have to count it into one of the British countries' (Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, Wales) history. Another nonsense.
16)What if (hypothetically) there will be a team of joined European Union countries? And then it will split again. Into which european country's history will you count it then? You can choose anyone, it still will be a nonsense.
17)What if (hypothetically) FIFA and UEFA claims different historical "facts"? What if another organisation like FIFA appears in future? What if there will be more different views on history from more different organisations? What if, for example, Czech republic exits FIFA and UEFA and joins another organisation which will count their previous performances differently? Will you change your statementes here?
18)I think the history facts should be presented here regardless of any organisation's opinions.
19)I think that the dates of entries of any national associations into any international confederation and any organisation's statements about any successory should not rule how we perceive and interpret history.
20)The fact is that there was a Czechoslovakia's national football team. The fact is that it is not here anymore. The fact is that there are Czech national football team and Slovak national football team now. The fact is that there was no Czech national football team competed in 1976, so you can not count the 1976 triumph into the Czech national football team's history. If you do, you just lie. If you write that Czech national football team competed in 1976 as Czechoslovakia national football team, then you have to write, similarly, that Slovak national football team competed as Czechoslovakia national football team in 1976, too. If you write that it does not, you lie. So, either you write that both Slovakia and Czech republic competed from 1960 to 1992 as Czechoslovakia, or none of those two countries. If you write that only one of them competed so, you just write a lie.
21)It is not a vandalism to correct a lie.
22)It is not according to Wikipedia principles to write a lie and block the others to correct it.
I demand you either correct those lies written in this article or let others to do it or prove they are not lies. If you write even third time that Czech Football Association is a successor of Czechoslovakia Football Association, it will not change the lies that Czech republic competed in 1960-1992 and that only Czech republic competed as Czechoslovakia in 1960-1992 and Slovakia did not competed as Czechoslovakia in 1960-1992. Because these two facts do not depand on FIFA's claim on who is a successor of whom.--N3V4D1 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid this will only complicate the debate, but here is some info from my real-world job. The post-Soviet Russia and the unified Germany didn't accede to the United Nations as new states and continued the membership of the USSR and West Germany. Ukraine and Belarus didn't accede to the United Nations, but continued their "independent" membership that had been there since 1945. This was clearly their membership rather than that of the USSR, so they don't continue the legal personality of the USSR. Kazakhstan, Georgia, Moldova etc all acceded to the UN as new states. Unlike this situation, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia acceded to the UN as new states. They are regarded equal successor states (but not continuation states) to Czechoslovakia. Similarly, all post-Yugoslav countries, including Serbia, acceded to the UN as new states (Serbia actually wanted to continue Yugoslavia's membership, but this was rejected by the international community). Having said that, the UN situation need not necessarily pre-determine the football situation. By way of example, Russian sports media do count USSR national teams' achievements toward Russia's record, but tend to treat Soviet-era club results as a separate set of stats from those frop the post-Soviet era. Thus, Spartak Moscow is considered 9-times Russian champion rather than 20-something-times. Ivan Volodin (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, while the above may be interesting, we need to stick to football-sources. FIFA, as referenced at list of men's national association football teams, give Czech Republic the record of Bhomeia and Czechoslovakia, but not Slovakia; Germany inherit the record of West Germany and Imperial/Nazi Germany; Russia also inherent the CIS/USSR/Imperial Russia records. East Germany are considered defunct. We've tended to follow these standards on Wikipedia in the past. Now it seems that UEFA's website is contradicting this which complicates the issue a touch; nonetheless, my inclination would be to stick with FIFA's practice to give us consistency across European Championship/World Cup/Confederations Cup etc. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We are talking about world football, not world politics. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
And a note on dates - I think it's less complicated if we give the dates that the team competed under that name, not the dates that they competed under that name in European Championships... Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is precisely about UEFA Euro, so I think it is not really necessary to mention exact historical marks :). Centaur271188 (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes actually looking at it a bit more closely I agree with this. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, why do we state "From 1960 to 1992..." for Czechoslovakia? Before their disslolution, they last qualified in 1980. Centaur271188 (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
<reduced indent> But if they competed in qualifying then that should still be stated. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday I corrected years for Czechoslovakia (from 1960 to 1980) and for Germany (from 1972 to 1988) [1], but other user undid my edit. GAV80 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we should only mention the final tournaments, as we have done in most (if not all) articles before. Centaur271188 (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Disagree about following the FIFA practices. This is an UEFA sanctioned tournament, not FIFA. FIFA have no authority crediting UEFA results. We should not make editing decisions based on what's considered convenient for consistency but based on what the sources say. Moreover you're clearly applying double standards by suggesting to stick with what FIFA say on teams' succesion and stick with what UEFA says for the years. Tvx1 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: That is correct. So I accessed UEFA sources and saw roughly the same thing. Russia succeeds USSR, as well as Czech and Czechoslovakia, Serbia and SFR Yugoslavia. More interestingly, Slovakia inherits Slovak Republic (1939-45), states from former Yugoslavia succeed their own associations inside the Kingdom/SFR, except Croatia who had an association inside Austria-Hungary. Centaur271188 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should not be seeking to choose one attitude of the several possible ones, but rather to find a wording to be used in articles that would address all concerns. For example, "From 1960 to 1992, Czech Republic competed as Czechoslovakia" sound too categorical, and also factually incorrect: it was neither the Czech Republic, nor any other Czech state competing as Czechoslovakia, but a joint Czech and Slovak state. Similarly, the USSR was competing as such, including Ukraine, Georgia and others, not just representing Russia. I would suggest the footnotes to be worded something like: "Including the results of Czechoslovakia from 1960 to 1992". Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That is actually a very good proposal. Tvx1 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: But UEFA's authority is only based on it's accreditation with FIFA - these matches are still played to FIFA-sanctioned IFAB rules, to FIFA-sanctioned regulations, etc. etc Ivan Volodin's wording is good though. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What about this: User:Ivan Volodin/Slovakia-type footnotes? The note on Croatia is probably unnecessary, but who knows. Ivan Volodin (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I support Ivan Volodin's proposed footnote types, and suggest an alternative wording for the non-inheritors' notes: "Croatia also competed as a part of Yugoslavia in the years so-and-so", "Slovakia competed as a part of Czechoslovakia in the years so-and-so". That's how I put it down in the article UEFA European Championship qualifying, which I created and have been maintaining over the course of this qualification. (By the way, I'd like to hear ideas on how to improve and what to add to that article. I feel it'd benefit from some properly sourced information about some notable individual records, such as Robbie Keane's record, David Healy's and Robert Lewandowski's joint record, or Martin Ødegaard's record.) --Theurgist (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the 'including', but I wouldn't make the other changes. I'd only mention the results included in the table; I'd not bother with the 'not including...' and the 'East Germany' comments. We want to keep annotations to a minimum. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that any mention of East Germany is unnecessary. That team didn't even ever make it to the finals!
So, summing it up. Alternatives for Germany/Russia/Czech Republic notes:
  • In the years so-and so, Czech Republic competed as Czechoslovakia.
  • Including Czechoslovakia's appearances in the years so-and-so.
Alternatives for Croatia/Slovakia notes (which will also apply to Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia if they qualify via play-offs):
  • Not including Czechoslovakia's appearances in the years so-and-so.
  • Slovakia also competed as a part of Czechoslovakia in the years so-and-so.
  • (nothing)
Should East Germany be mentioned in the Germany note:
  • yes
  • no
--Theurgist (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, if you look at some of your proposals from the higher perspective, you would probably see many logical nonsenses, as I do now. I think Yugoslavia's, USSR's and Czechoslovakia's records should be treated separately from Croatia's, Russia's, Ukraine's, Czech republic's, Slovakia's (and so on) ones. Despite any way how FIFA and UEFA do their records, despite any official dates of creating (or entering to FIFA/UEFA) of any association. Otherwise (if you add any records of any non-existing country to some "successor" country), you would get precedents leading to logical nonsenses like, for example, these: - Ukrainian Dinamo Kiev's or Slovak Slovan Bratislava's triumphs in European club competitions from the era of Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia would be counted for Russia and Czech republic, as they are "successors" of those former countries, - Ukrainian Oleh Blokhin's, Croatian Davor Šuker's or Slovak Ľubomír Moravčík's performances for the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia would be counted for Russia, Serbia and Czech republic, respectively. If we count separately (and even simultaneously now!) performances of Great Britain (Olympic) national football team and England's, Scotland's, Northern Ireland's and Wales's ones, we really have to count performances of Czechoslovakia, Czech republic and Slovakia separately, too. What if both Koreas join one day? Would you count their previous separate performances like you do in case of former West and East Germany? What if a new European Union's national team creates one day? And then split again later? To which country of it would you assign the EU team's performances? So, according to all that, I propose this: count Soviet Union records separately from records of current 15 countries to which it fell apart. The same should be applied to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and so on. It means, for example, that Slovakia has zero and Czech republic has 5 previous appearances in Euro championships. The 3 appearances from years 1960, 1976 and 1980 belongs only to Czechoslovakia, not to Slovakia nor Czech republic. And the same should apply for Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and other dissolved countries. In case of joining (rejoining) of countries, it's even simpler: the separated predecessors's (like East and West Germany) performances can be counted for their succeeded joined country. However, the separated countries can't claim performances of that joined country, of course. As an educated historian, I was taught to use brain and logic and even create new thoughts, not just to choose one from existing sources. Therefore I think you shouldn't just follow any source (UEFA, FIFA, etc.), but rather create your own system, which will suite not only all current situations, but also all possible ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N3V4D1 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Write up your system, publish it and then if it's any good and written up coherently, we can discuss its use. This is an encyclopedia and as such drawn entirely from secondary sources and not a publisher of original research.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it makes perfect sense to separate Croatia/Serbia from Yugoslavia, Czech/Slovakia from Czechoslovakia, Ukraine/Russia from USSR. Regardless who and when was member of FIFA, UEFA, UN, this is the record of soccer national teams, not political entities. We should not pay attention whether Wales or Scotland has a representative in UN, or whether Ukraine was a UN member before Soviet Union collapsed. Just unlink current teams history from the teams which don't exist anymore.User:Olsstoleg, December 12 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating now that the play-offs are done[edit]

Imho the group tables should be updated to reflect the final outcome of the play-offs, i.e. mark the four losing teams as having advanced to the play-offs but failed and include the four play-off winners as having advanced to the play-offs and succeeded.

This would render the table in section #Ranking of third-placed teams obsolete. (The fact that Turkey qualified directly as best third-placed is already explained in the prose of that section.)

At any rate, just my 2 cents. Please let's hear your opinions. -- (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of the play-offs have nothing to do with the group tables, so there is nothing to be updated in the group tables!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 12:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a statusletter "O" that is "play-off winner" (used in league tables when teams win relegation play-off and stay in their division), which may be used. That is the only change to the tables that I see "may be done", but I am not sure we should do it. Otherwise as said above, it does not really have anything to do with group stage and it is still useful to see how the third-placed teams were ranked. Qed237 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Group tables are group tables. They don't change the outcome after the playoffs so they are correct as they are. Kante4 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015[edit]

Change play-off section to past-tense--->

"The eight remaining third-placed teams contested two-legged play-offs to determine the last four qualifiers for the finals. The teams were seeded for the play-off draw according to the UEFA national team coefficient rankings updated after the completion of the qualifying group stage. The draw for the play-offs was held on 18 October 2015, 11:20 CEST, at the UEFA headquarters in Nyon.[1][2]

The first legs were played on 12–14 November, and the second legs were played on 15–17 November 2015. The four play-off winners qualified for the final tournament." (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Kinetic37 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)