Wikipedia

Talk:2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jkudlick in topic Disciplinary Points
Learn more about this page

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

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 19:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in 2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "regulations":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

England and Olympics

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Top 3 make the Olympics but what if England is in the top 3? Surely they don't get the spot as theyre in the Olympics as Great Britain? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ignore. See this is now answered on page. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Disciplinary Points

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion

@Sb008: You say that my edits are not the consensus, yet Island92 reverted you twice before – specifically [1] and [2] – and even advised you to come to the talk page to seek consensus. Consensus is currently that disciplinary point tables are not appropriate for most tournaments and are generally only used in World Cup and Olympic tournament articles. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit which was reverted, and you should seek consensus for such a change if you wish for it to remain. Continuing to push for it to remain without seeking consensus first could lead to getting blocked for edit-warring. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Exactly as @Jkudlick: explained. Those tables are less important information not-statistically-section-related in the page for minor tournaments.--Island92 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Neither you (Jkudlick) nor Island92 represents the consensus. Please provude me a link to the page where it says, goalscorers is the only appropriate statistic. If you do, I'll shut up. As you might have noticed I started a discussion before anyone else. I did read WP:BRD, did you? Especially the part about reverting? And why is the exact minute a player scored important? --Sb008 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your comment is dangerously close to demonstrating that you WP:DONTGETIT. You WP:BOLDly added a table, and it was removed with the comment redundant. better to talk it into talk page first. That was the B and the R of BRD. You then re-added the table rather than beginning discussion, and you were reverted again with the comment excessive details, not for a major tournament. see my talk page. not done in previous editios. And again, rather than begin discussion you added the table a third time less than 30 minutes after the second reversion, and I reverted you with the comment This has already been reverted before. Seek consensus in the talk page. Rather than seek consensus, you have added the table a fourth time. I also don't see anywhere you started a discussion about this. I will remove the table again until a broader discussion is held; if you put it back I will have to refer you to WP:ANEW. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Get your facts straight. Nothing bold about my edit, unless you define everything new as bold. And yes, it was removed with the comment reduntant. Just because somebody claims it's redundant, doesn't mean it's indeed redundant. Nothing but an opinion, as is mine. Before I re-added the info, I did start a discussion, and re-added it without the information indicated as redundant with the text below the group phase header. The fact is I started a duscussion before re-adding, but you two just reverted my info without discussion. You two don't seek consensus. All I hear is "redundant" and "not done before" without any proper arguments for those claims. Never done before is never an argument, or the world would come to a standstill. See the talk page of Island92 and compare the time stamps with those of the the edits. Both you and Island92 started to revert without starting a discussion and seeking consensus first. You want to discuss? Start discussing using facts and not one liners without arguments. Again, read the "revert" section of WP:BRD, it refers to WP:ROWN. And maybe you can start by implying all those rules you mention to yourself first!!!

A couple of simple questions:

  • Which rule defines which statistics are redundant. So rule, not opinion.
  • Why is "not done before" a valid argument?
  • Why do you two think, only others have the obligation to start a discussion and to seek consensus?

Let's hear your facts and not opinion!!! Opininions are not THE consensus!!! --Sb008 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sb008: Where exactly did you start discussion? I see nothing on this talk page about this subject until this very thread. I stand by my previous statement that you WP:DONTGETIT, because it appears that you do not truly understand what WP:BOLD means. It means "Go ahead and make that edit you want to make, but don't be upset if it gets changed or reverted." Your continual attempts to re-add content that is superfluous to competitions of this level is a prima facie indication that you are upset that it was removed. Consensus on this was achieved long ago in numerous discussions. Very little in the way of consensus on Wikipedia can be located in a single conversation; in fact, consensus can change through discussion. That's what the talk pages are for. So if you want to add these tables, it is up to you to demonstrate what actual value they would add to the article. For example, disciplinary tables make sense in articles for the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup because the FIFA Fair Play Trophy is given to the team with the fewest disciplinary points; the tables add actual value and context. If UEFA has a similar award, then such tables here would also make sense. I am willing to consider your logical arguments, but everything you have said so far demonstrates nothing more than your point of view. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Read ny previous post again, it mentions exactly on which talk page. According to MW dictionary: "bold:a: fearless before danger : INTREPID bold settlers on some foreign shore —William Wordsworth b: showing or requiring a fearless daring spirit a bold plan". Like I said, ther was no need to be bold (fearless) to make that edit. The content being superfluous is nothing more than (your) opinion. If it where numerous discussions, you surely can point me to 3 of them. You say, disciplinary tables make sense at the World Cups because the winner gets the FP trophy. Well, in the EC-u21 they have far more importance, they might decide the difference between going home or to the quarter finals. But, all teams, when given the choice, would probably choose the trophy instead of proceeding to the quarters. Guess, it's proportionate. The more relevant, the more redundant and the less relevant, the less redundunt. Why does it have actional value to know whether Ramsey in the match against the Czech Republic scored in the 34' or 46' minute? What people want to know is that England won by 2–0 and that Ramsey and Smith Rowe scored. They don't care about minutes unless it's e.g. the winning goal in the last minute of injury time. Even then they don't care if the last minute was the 90+2' or 90+3' minute. Why is it relevant to know that about 40 players scored 1 goal? Or, do all 40 get a fancy trophy too? People are interested in knowing who was topscorer, at best the top 5 or 10. Did you read WP:ROWN, or more specific the WP:BADREVERT section and then the line "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.". So, both of you shouldn't have reverted my edit without prior discussion. (WP:DONTGETIT). Therefore, it's me who should refer you two to WP:ANEW. Don't worry, not my style to hide behind mommies skirt. Now you can tell me why it's more logical to have tables with disciplinaire points when a FP trophy is involved than when it's about possibly going home or to the quarters. Same question, but then "to know which players scored 1 goal" instead of "winning the FP trophy".
So, what did you present sofar? Consensus based on numerous discussions which you cannot name. You know, i've seen numerous duscussions about the earth being flat. Does that mean there's now a consensus that the earth is flat? When you were a teen and your parents told you to be home at 11 pm, did you tell them too, but all my friends can stay out till midnight? My parents surely didn't accept such a claim to be correct without some proof. Otherwise some opions, like being redundant and best of all a claim that a FP trophy is more important than a criterea which might decide wheter you go home or advance. I don't think many players, coaches and fans will agree with you.
I understand why you didn't answer any of my questions. --Sb008 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sb008: WP:BOLD has literally NOTHING to do with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, but serves as one of Wikipedia's editing guidelines. WP:BRD expands not only on BOLD but also on WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of Wikipedia's policies. Policies are required to be followed, guidelines are recommended to be followed, and both are considered part of official Wikipedia doctrine. WP:ROWN is an essay, and the message box across the top reads It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. As it is only the opinion of a very small cross-section of the overall community, it holds very little weight.
You are doing nothing to seek consensus that your addition serves to add any encyclopedic value to the article; in fact, unless UEFA has some sort of fair play award for the tournament, such inclusion likely falls afoul of WP:NOTSTATS (another policy). Show me evidence that UEFA has a fair play award for the tournament, and I will help you add the table. Until then, it cannot be included. (This is a response to your previous question Which rule defines which statistics are redundant. So rule, not opinion.)
You also state in this latest response that disciplinary points are used as a potential tiebreaker. I concede that point since it is clearly stated here as the eighth ranking criterion. However, none of the groups required disciplinary points to determine ranking, otherwise that would have been indicated in the group tables using the |hth_XXX= parameter. As an example of using that parameter, Group D used head-to-head goals scored (the third criterion) to rank SUI, ITA, and NOR and indicated that in the group table.
As for discussing the topic, the proper venue for discussing article content is on the article's talk page so other editors can see it. All I see on Island92's talk page is a back-and-forth between two editors who are firm in their opinions on what belongs in the article along with strong doses from both of you of WP:OSE (which I know is written as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but is just as valid in content disputes).
Again, if you can show me that UEFA has a fair play award for the tournament then I will help build the table in a much more legible and cohesive format. Until then, such a table in the main tournament article is absolutely unnecessary and is effectively indiscriminate information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_UEFA_European_Under-21_Championship&oldid=1247016654"