Talk:UEFA European Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Terms

why the change in terms from Winner and Runner up to Champion and Second place, in the table, is this official or just an inconsitency? Philc 0780 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Winner and Runner-up seem like the more common terms to me, and it would make things more consistent. -- JoelCFC25 20:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Did not qualify"

On various national football team pages, "Did not qualify" is used in the summary record for European Championships for years where the relevant team did not making the final stages. Since, until 1976, only the final four teams "qualified", this gives a misleading impression of lack of success. At least the quarter-finalists should be credited; so what if they were home-and-away fixtures? But for the 1964 tournament, I don't know if there's any easy way to distinguish teams losing in the first round from those losing in the second round. jnestorius^(talk) 10:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easy; you just say "did not qualify; eliminated in the quarterfinal" or "did not qualify; eliminated in the second round". Conscious 10:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The final torunament appearances

Excuse me, could you control the appearances in the final tournament of the national teams? From 1960 to 2004 is : 9 times Germany (5 as West Germany), 7 times Denmark, England, Netherlands, Spain, 6 times France, Italy, Ussr (one as CSI), 5 times Yogoslavia (one as the former Serbia and Montenegro), 4 times Belgium, Portugal, 3 times Czech Republic, Romania, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, 2 times Bulgaaria, Greece, Hungary, Scotland, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey, 1 time Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia. For Uefa Euro 2008 are qualified at the moment (october 2006) only the two hosts countries: Austria and Switzerland.

Do not consider qualifications as appearences. In particular for the EFC, since in 1992 the trophy was won by a team that did not qualify (but appeared, of course!).--Panarjedde 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nation vs national team

About links for teams and countries, both are labelled the same despite leading to different pages. Would it be a good idea to link all country names to the national teams pages (where it is further described that they represent a certain country), or should they have different labels, i.e. "England" for nation and "England team" for national team? Poulsen 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the links are okay in context. e.g. Greece hosted the 2004 finals. Greece won the 2004 finals. The only exception is the semi-finals appearances table, which is completely wrong. I can't think of a good reason for including that table anyway.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if talking about a host, then you should link to the nation, if it is the team that won, then it should link to the team. Funkyduncan 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Section about suggested changes

I think we should maybe add a new section about possible changes to the format of the event, since the Scottish FA has lobbied UEFA to expand the tournament to 24 teams (probably to allow Scotland in) Who else thinks this should be documented? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 December 2006 (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.

• 2000 UEFA European Football Championship → UEFA Euro 2000
• 2004 UEFA European Football Championship → UEFA Euro 2004
• 2012 UEFA European Football Championship → UEFA Euro 2012

— Euro 2008 was moved so this shouldn't be too hard — ¢нαzα93  17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

— I reviewed the proposed move and was about to execute it when I saw that UEFA Euro 2000 still redirected to 2000 UEFA European Football Championship and likewise for UEFA Euro 2004. I think there should be a consensus developed around which naming convention to use. For now, I am going to move the main article at UEFA Euro 2008 back to 2008 UEFA European Football Championship for consistency's sake. Make a consensus-based decision and then we can move all the articles at once if that is the decision. --Richard 05:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support

• Support for the same reasons stated in the UEFA Euro 2008 move request. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but as I have said for the previous two discussions, all of the pages in {{European Football Championship}}, {{European Football Championship qualifying}} and {{European Football Championship squads}} need moving. There has been clear concensus on both the previous discussions, there is no reason why they shouldn't all be moved. - MTC 06:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, UEFA EURO 2012™ is trademark currently used to promote this event. Please note the all-caps EURO and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). --TAG 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. UEFA EURO 2012 is the offical (e.g. [1]) and most known name. --Novelbank 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support official name E.G. 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, to comply with Euro 2008 (as they are both upcoming tournaments). Bogdan 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Putting the title as Euro20xx makes the article subject more recognisable i.e. people who don't speak english very well will know what it means. Aheyfromhome 11:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. If only to list the competition first, which is what I'd prefer to search by in a category. Having competitions potentially sorted by year seems like a nightmare scenario to me. (I realise it's unlikely that every football competition will appear in the same category, but the principle stands.) - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose for consistency reasons. Euro 2008 needs to be moved back. Neutral — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The formal name of the event should be the name of the article, without colloquial abbreviations. A redirect from Euro 2012 would suffice for most "lazy" typists (like me). Kevin McE 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  What makes you think "2012 UEFA European Football Championship" is the official name? The current tournament is referred to as "UEFA Euro 2008" or "Euro 2008" wherever it appears on UEFA.com, and this is referred to as "Euro 2012" when it appears in a news article, that to me says that "UEFA Euro 20xx" or "Euro 20xx" is the official name in all recent cases at least. - MTC 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  The championship under contest will be the European Football Championship: I would describe Euro 2012 (with or without UEFA) as a marketing name rather than the "official name", but if the contrary is proven, I would withdraw my opposition. Kevin McE 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

People who oppose a move because of consistency reasons should understand that the articles from the other tournament editions will eventually also have a move request. There just hasn't been the opportunity to request a move for all of them (a mass-move so to speak). Just because the majority of them still hold the extended name doesn't mean that they're the most adequate or that the recent proposed moves should be promptly denied.

To reply to Kevin McE, "UEFA Euro 2012" isn't a colloquial abbreviation. It holds much more of an official status and marketing/publicity load, by UEFA itself (see logos and tournament banners), than the extended name. Try to search Google for both name and see the results. More, try to find in UEFA's website how easy it is to find one name and the other. I think this is enough reasons to validate "UEFA Euro YYYY" as the main name for these articles. The extended name can be added within the article. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My idea is that the torunaments from 1960–1964 are renamed to YYYY European Nations' Cup (I've requested move for both articles) which was is their official name at that time. From 1968 to 1992, the championship was known as UEFA European Football Championship, so there is no need to move the articles, but from 1996 onwards, UEFA officially calls the tournament UEFA EURO YYYY. Of course, articles should have redirects in the form of "YYYY UEFA European Football Championship" or "UEFA EURO YYYY", to aid their search. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did the moves to 1960 European Nations' Cup and 1964 European Nations' Cup. What's left is 1996 onwards. I will make those moves if there seems to be a consensus for it here. Let's wait another couple of days and see if there is a consensus or if these moves are controversial. --Richard 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had another look at UEFA's portal and they do call it generally as "UEFA European Championship" (see [2] and [3]). The terminology "UEFA EURO YYYY" is a simpler trademark ("TM")that is used so intensively for marketing by UEFA and its partners, that it became the common way to refer to this event.

There is no doubt about the name for the 1960 and 1964 editions — European Nations' Cup — and up to 1992 — UEFA European (Football) Championship. The question for the editions post-1992 is only one: the relatively unknown, little used but more comprehensive and supposedly official name, or the more commercial and worldwide known name, which even UEFA prefers to use, making it almost official, even though it doesn't cover previous editions where this trademark didn't exist?

Just to aid in our decison, an excerpt of WP:NAME lead:

“ Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

”

— Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The competition is officially called "UEFA European Championship", as stated by UEFA itself in the competition history page: [4]. --Angelo 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All three of the links above ([5], [6] and [7]) show that UEFA uses "UEFA European Championship" to refer to the tournament as a whole, but that's not what this discussion is about. As far as I can see, UEFA never uses "2004 UEFA European Championship" etc when refering to individual tournaments, they always use "Euro [year]" or "UEFA Euro [year]", so that is what the year articles should be named. "European Nations Cup" would work for the first few, if they were known as "1960 European Nations Cup" etc back then. - MTC 17:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said in my previous post (following the WP:NAME guideline), we should put ourselves in the eyes of a casual reader of Wikipedia. Would he/she search this article for "(UEFA) European (Football) Championship" or "(UEFA) Euro YYYY"? This is a matter of the name through which the event is most widely recognized. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

2000 UEFA European Football Championship has been renamed UEFA Euro 2000 as the result of a move request.

2004 UEFA European Football Championship has been renamed UEFA Euro 2004 as the result of a move request.

2012 UEFA European Football Championship has been renamed UEFA Euro 2012 as the result of a move request.

Final tournament appearances ?

Is that including appearances before the semi-finals in the first 5 tournament ( 1960-1976 )--Max Mayr 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) no--Blain Toddi (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Final four classification

With the lack of recent bronze matches it's tricky to sort the teams here. Belgium has a third place from back in the days when they reached a semi-final, lost, and won the bronze game. More recently Portugal has reached the semi-final twice, without being able to play for a 3rd place.

I'm moving Portugal ahead of Belgium, to me two 'semi-finals' where they were unable to play for 3rd/4th is better than one semi-final where they finished 3rd. I think this will remain an area of uncertainty though, and am willing to listen to other views of this.

I agree that 1 bronze > 1 semi-final > 1 fourth, but when there are more semi-finals compared to third places it gets icky. Lejman 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense but the way it's right now is absolutely ridiculous.

I can give a lot of examples but one example should be obvious enough.

The Netherlands is placed under spain while the Netherlands has won the tournament once and had 3 semi-finals and :spain also one the tournament once but only had 1 semi-final.

Come on guys, 1 third place is not worthed more then 2 extra semi-finals. These 2 'units' are simply not comparable. Besides, :winning the losers-final doesnt say a lot. In such a match it's not about which team is stronger, it's about which :team still manages to motivates itself after they lost a ticket to the final, in general that is the team which had :the lest expectation of the tournament ie the team that comes from a 'smaller' football nation.

And what about quarter-finals? Are these not important?

Germany is the obvious winner, no discussion about that. Under germany it gets a mess.

Why not putting the countries alphabetically and just showing the result. Let anyone decide for himself which country :he [u]thinks[/u] performed better.

If you guys still want to keep ordening the teams from high to low, which I do not support, let's then only use the third place when 2 countries had the same amount of W, F, and SF.

Pieter pietersen (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

?

what determines whether a player is eligible or not to play for a country? 209.145.88.147 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.88.147 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article 15 of this Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know What the "EURO year" comment in the first sentence is about? This means nothing to me. Arthur Holland

It means "EURO 88" or "EURO 2004" --Dryazan 15:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The Dutch FA's initials, as seen on the team shirt is KNVB, standing for Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbal Bond: the Royal NETHERLANDS Football Assocation. That's how I remember. Holland is a region in the Netherlands. --Slumgum 20:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Third/Fourth places

There has been no play-off for 3rd/4th places in this competition since 1984. An unregistered editor is insistent that it is valid to attribute teams to these positions on the basis of unspecified criteria "by the campaigns of the respective teams". His justification is that FIFA attribute a position to every team participating in the World Cup finals (true, but little publicised, see page 4 of this pdf). I believe that this is irrelevant, as UEFA do not allocate 3rd or 4th places. I don't want to fall foul of 3RR, but this seems to me entirely inappropriate application of another body's policy, and thus OR. Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 3rd and 4th place are not existing in the European Championship anymore and "the campaigns of the respective teams" doesnt matter here. — chandler — 06:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the content of the first table in UEFA European Football Championship#Statistics should be changed so to not encourage it. — chandler — 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to this, but the editor who requested it was not very WP:CIVIL in his response. Kevin McE (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There are third/fourth place tables so i think there is no need to change them Russia had better average results than Turkey and finished third some people are swichting those teams Redman19 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia did not finish third: there is no third place allocated by UEFA, so we have no justification to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it into a better system where no third and fourth places are given. — chandler — 21:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

chandler i love you man you changed it into a fantastic system we can edit this further when the final is played :) Redman19 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Looking at the edit history, an anon. IP changed it, not Chandler. (Unless that IP was Chandler?) Setwisohi (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What the anon ip changed what not what he talked about. — chandler — 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference in status according to who a team got beaten by in a semi: this is not a valid grounds for ordering. Alphabetical is the only apparent neutral order. No need to have boxes indicated precedence of one losing semi-finalist over another. Kevin McE (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They don't get any status for with team they got beat by, they are just listed by the easy way because Winners and Runner-up are listed Left to right just next to them. — chandler — 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think that the layout invites the readers to assume that there is a difference in rank: I think it could suggest that to many. I don't think yours is wrong: I just think that mine is less open to misinterpretation. If you think that bolding or the size of the flags is an issue, that can be tweaked. Kevin McE (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you could misinterpret it if you'd read note and heading that doesnt say anything about "thid place" as it does 60-80 — chandler — 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to invoke 3RR, but I don't think you have given any positive reason for your preference: there is nothing intrinsically easier about it, and it makes possible an inference that you acknowledge would be erroneous. I understand it (and I don't appreciate your implication), most readers probably would, but giving such a blatant distinction between the losing semi-finalists (as big, visually, as the division between winner and runner-up) will lead some to the wrong conclusion. Let's put it this way: which table makes it more likely that a reader (not most, but some) might come to the conclusion (which we both know would be wrong), that Czech Republic came 3rd in Euro 2004? Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

General Statistics

What is this table supposed to be? It looks pretty close to OR to me and, in any case, it's pretty spurious. (For a start, 3 pts were not awarded for a win for many years. So the idea that Germany have won 20 and drawn 10 and so have 70 pts is just not true). In any case, points are not awarded in the Quarter, Semi or Final. Is there a good rationale for the existence of this table? Don't want to remove it if someone has a good case for it. Setwisohi (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. No harm in the list of WDL, but the points allocation appears "novel". I would be inclined to remove one column, rather than the whole table. Kevin McE (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you go to a team's page at UEFA.com they show some info see Sweden for example, though as Sweden hasn't played 96 matches in Euro finals, I assume that qualifiers are included. One thing you could do is remove the point section and rank them by Wins, draws, least losses, goal difference, most scored goals. or somethng like that — chandler — 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed points column, and made the table sortable (goal diff needs attention for sortability), but I wonder whether it would be better to integrate the info into the preceding table thus:

Team	1960	1964	1968	1972	1976	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	Total	Matches	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD
Germany1	-	-	-	W	F	W	1R	SF	F	W	1R	1R	F	10	38	20	10	8	57	38	19
Russia2	W	F	4th	F	-	-	-	F	1R	1R	-	1R	SF	9	27	11	5	11	31	36	-5
Netherlands	-	-	-	-	3rd	1R	-	W	SF	QF	SF	SF	QF	8	35	18	8	7	58	31	27

What do you think? Kevin McE (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the incorporation idea - but perhaps it is best to leave them in a separate table - ordered without the points column. Setwisohi (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of people watching

I wonder how many people watched the tournament and/or final 2008. And using that as a measure, how high does the tournament rank in all sport events in the World? Samulili (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA will release statistics pretty soon... and it's if not above the Olympics, its number 3. — chandler — 12:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

yugoslavia

isnt serbia the heir of yugoslavia national footbal team awards? --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Euro 96

I dispute this:

Specific championships are often referred to in the form "Euro 2008" or whichever year is appropriate, although this phrasing was not used before Euro 96.

Excerpt from the song The Boys in Green:

Ireland, Ireland, we can celebrate / Ireland, Ireland, in Euro 88.

jnestorius^(talk) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'm removing that passage from the introduction.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC

Article split

The EuroCup and the Nations Cup should be split. Two different tournaments with very different formats are not the same thing.

The history of the European Championship would tend to suggest otherwise. Competition formats change all the time, without the need for a change in the name, so the only thing that changed between 1964 and 1968 was the name of the tournament. Stop being so POINTy. – PeeJay 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Map of countries number of appearances

This map needs to be made larger so that it includes Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and Israel. Currently it provides no information on these UEFA members appearances (or lack of appearances). It is not acceptable to ignore these countries. Arguably the other two maps on the page should also include these countries, even if they have never qualified. Willy turner (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fix'd — chandler — 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1964 Spanish flags

The Spanish flag in 1964 is not the one pictured. This should be changed.

The above user (myself) used at the time IP 71.64.201.157. It seems someone has already fixed this.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I added here General Statistics With Qualifications 1958-2008

I added here General Statistics With Qualifications 1958-2008. I will add info in that all-time table.

P.Kraev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.189.93 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

West Germany or Germany?

Why, on the how many time countries have qualified list, are the German and West German qualifications all ranked together while the USSR and Russia ones are seperate? The same for Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. It dosen't look right just having the German one as the exception. I apoligise though if there was a reason for this but it just look unusual.

Well... under UEFA rules, when a state splits, the one(s) who decided to leave lose all rights and stats to the name they played under. When Germany reunited, it's partially considered that the east merged with the west, rather than the west joining the east; the reunited Germany is considered to have direct continuity from West Germany. The other cases, aren't considered to be directly continuous. The USSR had many non-russian players on their team and Russia is not considered directly continuous from the USSR, and Czechoslovakia was a mutual split therefore neither Slovakia nor the Czechs can claim continuity. Same goes for Socialist Yugoslavia and Federal Yugoslavia. --Hurricane Angel 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Although there is logic in your argument, it is not shared by the footballing authorities. Russia is considered to inherit the record of USSR and of CIS: Czech Republic that of Czechoslovakia, and Serbia that of Yugoslavia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well what about when East Germany played against West Germany??? Does that count as whatever amount of goals scored for and against Germany? And does it count as a win or a loss? Or Both? And it's not fair to count them as having two bids under one trophy...

East Germany is counted as defunct, so all of their stats should go under East Germany just as if it is a team that doesnt exist anymore (which it doesn't). Present Germany inherited all the history of West Germany and has its own history too. So East Germany = East Germany, West + Present Germany = Germany. Treat them as different teams, similar in name. Aheyfromhome 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as clarification: Germany national football team has 100 years of continuous tradition, no matter what some called it from 1950 to 1990 when there was a separate East Germany national football team. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can settle this debate once and for all. It has to do with the way German reunification occurred, as Aheyfromhome noted.
When East Germany (technically, the "German Democratic Republic") ceased to exist, it did not unite with West Germany (technically, the "Federal Republic of Germany") to form a new state. East Germany essentially merged into West Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany) and adopted that country's laws, constitution, currency, military, etc. So, today's Germany is the same country as what people commonly called "West Germany" before 1990.
In other words, old East Germany = German Democratic Republic, which no longer exists. Old West Germany = Federal Republic of Germany, which still exists. United Germany since 1990 is just an enlarged continuation of the old Federal Republic of Germany. As such, it has a legitimate claim to the World Cups and Euro titles won by West Germany. Poldy Bloom (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be the reason for FIFA's decision, but the reason that Germany's historical record includes the achievements of West Germany, but not East Germany, in football statistics is because FIFA says they do. If the governing body had made another decision, that would be the one we would follow. Kevin McE (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic at work here strikes me as either faulty or simplistic (with a slightly authoritarian bent). Why does post-1990 Germany have right to West Germany's records? Your answer: "Because FIFA says so. That's the only reason." That's like replying to the question "Why do we stop at red lights?" with the answer "Because the government says we must." There is a real, reasoned explanation for stopping at red lights, and there is a real, reasoned explanation for why Germany is the inheritor of West Germany's records. They are the same state. There is legal continuity. I can see how the pre-1991 USSR does not equal the CIS or Russia and how pre-1992 Yugoslavia does not equal Serbia, but post-1990 Germany is quite literally the same state as pre-1990 West Germany. They are both the Federal Republic of Germany, same constitution, same state symbols, same everything except for borders. In all seriousness, when someone asks this question, I think he deserves a better answer than simply "Because FIFA says so." Poldy Bloom (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

because it's the same FA (Deutscher-Fußball-Bund) and it's the same country (Bundesrepublik Deutschland)!!! 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)85.216.89.205 (talk)

Winners and finalists

Hungary had one 3rd place (1964), which isn't mentioned in the "Winners and finalists" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.254.92 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised at how few finals have involved three or more teams. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Current editwar

Maybe we should discuss rather than editwar about which of Serbia/Yugoslavia should be used in the "Winners and finalists" table. I would suggest that Yugoslavia and Soviet Union should be included, as those were the names on the only occasions the respective countries reached the final, but that Czech Republic should be in under that title, as the most recent name under which the team which has reached the final under different names accomplished that feat. Kevin McE (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Serbia is the successor team of the Yugoaslavia´s and Serbia&Montenegro team, and I wan´t give up about it (it´s not me who´s edit warring, but I will if it is needed). I could discuss many reasons wy this is this way (it certainly isn´t because FIFA and UEFA "love" Serbia). It has it´s reasons. We could make one change. Whan Yugoslavia hosted the tournament in 1976, the games were played in Belgrade (Yugoslav and Serbian capital) and Zagreb (Croatian capital), so it would be fair to consider Serbia&Croatia as hosting nation, not only Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. No team called "Serbia" has ever reached the final of this competition, and having that word there is to give false information. The team that reached those finals represented the whole of Yugoslavia as it was then constituted, was called "Yugoslavia", and had a Yugoslavian flag waved in their honour. When and if Serbia reach the final, that name can go on the list, and to show the continuity, it can replace Yugoslavia with a suitable footnote. As to your suggestion for the 1976 hosts, there never has been a country called "Serbia&Croatia", so that is a total non-starter. Kevin McE (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I agree with all you´re saying. The issue is that the guy who´s edit waring wants to antecipate the Yugoslavia substitution by Serbia, and it is quite logic, since Serbia certainly will, sooner or latter play (unless a comet hits the Earth, or something like that), and the change will happend. About the hosts, it could appear on the map Croatia as host as well, and it will be understandable, since Serbia and Croatia are bordering. I´m Serbian, so it doesn´t affect me, but I recon that if 2 matches were played there (in Zagreb), it doesn´t make sence having Croatia as never-hosting nation. FkpCascais (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I missed something. Your argument is wrong. The Yugoslavia that should have played in 1992 and played in 2000 didn´t represented the "whole old-Yugoslavia" as you were saying. Since 1992, the "Yugoslavia" team only represents Serbia and Montenegro. That is wy this last Yugoslavia is even more equal to Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, for time being, I completely agree with the way the page and the stats are presented right now. This is what I defend. FkpCascais (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the table again: it is a list of winners and finalists, so 1992 and 2000, and your conviction that reaching a final is near inevitable is flawed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wanna bet? Resumingly, I´m just saying I don´t support your initial suggestion (on top of this conversation). Just that. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you support it is not really the issue. What reliable source do you propose that says that a team called Serbia reached the final of the European Championship in 1960 and/or 1968? Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't see any reason other than UEFA considering the inheritance. In any case it's misleading. Put the appropriate flags at least. Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia, (between others) alone never won anything, and at max Czechia was finalist *once*.

Anyway, in the colour scheme, Why is now Slovakia painted as winner, since UEFA consider Czechia the successor? Either uncolour Slovakia as winner, or then put also all the ex-USSR republics as winners. The best solution was using the inlet map of East Europe pre-1990, and paint it accordingly to the titles up until that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.236.76.21 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

USSR and Yugo

USSR is a different thing from Russia.USSR football team was comprised mostly by Ukranians.I think we shouldn't have it's record combined with Russia just like i don't see the reason why Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia are assigned to Czech R. and Serbia. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For statistical reasons, UEFA and FIFA like keeping continuity. However, it leads to ridiculous claims such as saying that Serbia's FA was formed in 1919, when it was Yugoslavia's that was formed then. The records should obviously be split apart, as all countries equally inherit the football history of now defunct federations. --Thewanderer (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both comments, but what about Germany? I think Germany should continue to inherit West Germany's record (note that East Germany never qualified); as Germany is a unification, rather than a split. - MTC (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you about Germany.I think that in Yugo USSR and Czrch'vakia we can put the records of these defunct countries with the note that they are defunct indeed.Serbia shall have it's own record Croatia the same Ukraine and Russia and so on.Because if USSR record is inherited to Russia and Ukraine then why not to Lithuania or Estonia if you know what i mean.The only exception shall be to Serbia and Montenegro.I think that Serbia shall awarded the 1994 onward results of the team and not Montenegro for obvious reasons. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see those "obvious reasons", why should all of FR Yugoslavia/Serbia & Montenegro's results be given to Serbia? That's inconsistent with the rest of what you're saying. Besides, Serbia haven't qualfied for a European Championship yet (after only one attempt), so FR Yugoslavia or Serbia & Montenegro should be listed at least until Serbia qualify, if not afterwards too. - MTC (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What's inconsistent.Serbia Montenegro team was 9 Serbian players and 2 Montenegrins.It can't be applied to the previous occasions and it's far too obvious Eagle of Pontus (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering Serbia to have all of Serbia & Montenegro's records is no different to giving all of Czechoslovakia's records to the Czech Republic. That's what's inconsistent. - MTC (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's fine and dandy to debate FIFA's decisions but surely misrepresenting the facts just because we don't agree is some sort of vandalism. Serbia have the Yugoslav record, Russia has the USSR record, the Czechs have the Czechoslovakia records, etc. We might not like some of it, but unless FIFA change their minds we can't put anything else. I'd rather as well change the Kazak team's page to say they're in the AFC, purely because 'I disagree' with them being in UEFA. ;-) Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a UEFA fansite is exactly why we shouldn't just repeat whatever UEFA says. UEFA and FIFA have handed these records to "successor" countries. Does that mean that Serbia hosted Euro 76? Or that Russia won Euro 1960? Certainly not. Wikipedia should report reliable, verifiable info. There should be a mention of exchanges of records between countries, but we shouldn't pretend that these records are indicative of what actually happened. --Thewanderer (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are talking here about the European Championship, which is organized by UEFA and has nothing to do with FIFA. It has been shown that FIFA give USSR's record to Russia, but do UEFA?

Also, this is completely different to saying Kazakhstan are currently in AFC, as that would be an incorrect statement, whereas presenting USSR separately from Russia in the table is not incorrect at all. - MTC (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the FIFA statutes, confederations cannot organize competitions (or exist) without the allowance of FIFA. Infact the statutes as a whole give an idea of the ultimate power FIFA has in international football even thought they give confederations lots of free reign (e.g. to organise competitions between the associations which they represent). And just because the associations relevant to this debate are under the UEFA umbrella doesnt subtract from the fact that they are ultimately registered under FIFA.

As such IMO I'd go with what the FIFA website says rather than the UEFA one, especially as the FIFA website has useful foundation and affilation years for associations (which can also show who had to reapply for membership after splits and who didn't e.g. Montengro's case). When UEFA and FIFA agree (e.g. Serbia has the Yugoslav record and Montenegro do not) then it's much simpler. But as I say, I'd go for FIFA's opinion if things aren't clear.

P.S. Whether presenting USSR separately from Russia in the table is incorrect at all or not is exactly what we're discussing. FIFA seem to think that giving them separate records would be an "incorrect statement".

P.P.S Slip of the wrist before about the Czechs having the Czechoslovakian records. :-) Aheyfromhome (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the recent release by UEFA [8], if you're interested. I think a good compromise is having both team names displayed in the combined record: Soviet Union / Russia, Czechoslovakia / Czech Republic, etc. Sometimes I wonder whether the application of political research into footballing domains is some sort of original research; for example, saying that the last game of the Yugoslavia national football team was played in 1992, which quite honestly, contradicts with the fact that "Yugoslavia" played many games in the mid-1990s. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Or that Yugoslavia only qualified for 4 Euros, where they also made a 5th appearance in 2000 as "Yugoslavia", which somehow, people decide that it should not be counted to Yugoslavia ("Yugoslavia" does not equal Yugoslavia!!!), but should be counted to Serbia (Serbia equal to Serbia & Montenegro equal to "Yugoslavia"!!!). Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not really the place for history lessons, but here I go anyway... The Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was one state which existed from 1918 to 1992. In 1992 Yugoslavia dissolved into five countries, one of which happened to take the name of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FR Yugoslavia). Legally, it was not considered successor to the original state federation, despite taking the same name. Giving Yugoslavia's records to FR Yugoslavia or to Serbia just doesn't make sense and does an injustice to the other countries who had to "start from scratch" despite sharing in the same football history.

Also, FR Yugoslavia's records are usually given to Serbia because tiny Montenegro produced far fewer players and many, if not most, were also ethnic Serbs. --Thewanderer (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know history and politics (I edited this), but why is it applicable to these records? For the common fan, Yugoslavia qualified for five Euros. For FIFA and UEFA, Yugoslavia qualified for five Euros. Look at the records at any major publications, websites, news sources, and Yugoslavia qualified for five Euros. So why do we have to keep insisting that this "Yugoslavia" does not equal to that "Yugoslavia", which is contradictory to common belief (however we may think this belief is "incorrect"), and say that Yugoslavia qualified for four Euros. Don't you think this is WP:OR? Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate:

• The UN does not consider FR Yugoslavia to be the successor of SFR Yugoslavia; that's fact.
• The UN does not consider FR Yugoslavia to be the successor of SFR Yugoslavia, so we should not count 2000 Yugoslavia NT's record to that of the original Yugoslavia NT; that's WP:OR, because I've yet to read any outside sources that say this. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The history is important because it is only foreign sources which insist on this continuity (despite not understanding the actual situation). Regional (former Yugoslav) sources always differentiate between the two states, except for Serbia which occasionally tries to "steal" Yugoslav history for its own benefit. As far as I know, WP:NPOV is a core policy as well and some sort of neutral compromise has to be made.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets not overkill this. Either we go with what UEFA say or what FIFA say or we come up with Wikipedia's own opinion. Either way lets try to keep FIFA's excellent idea of seperating politics from football: these are successor FA's we're talking about, not successor countries. Aheyfromhome (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with taking many sources (including FIFA and UEFA, international, local) and coming up with articles that cover the many viewpoints. What I have a problem with the current way of articles such as Yugoslavia national football team and this, which claims the 2000 qualification of "Yugoslavia" cannot be counted towards Yugoslavia but can be counted towards Serbia (I pity the Montenegrins, probably there's not enough of their editors here) is that it is written in a totally biased way towards one viewpoint, which I have a suspicion, is a viewpoint dreamed up by some Wikipedians. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Combining the achievements of the original FAs (e.g. USSR or Yugoslavia) and the successor FAs (e.g. Russia or Serbia) is wrong and is in fact political. Deciding on successor FAs is very much a political decision. For example, the USSR squad for the Euro 1988 final against the Netherlands consisted of 10 Ukrainians, 2 Russians, 2 Buelorussians, 1 Georgian and 1 Lithuanian uefa.com. Seeing the achievement of that team included in the record of Russia is wrong and political. The achievements of the original FAs should stay with the original FAs. Dkua (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the USSR team was almost always made up of Ukrainians, if Ukraine finish 2012 will their stats be listed with USSR's ? No. Its complete Russian bias against fellow Baltic states. As is the same for Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The Czech and Slovaks equally made up that team and while Serbia may have dominated Yougoslavia there were still active Croats, Macedonians and Albanians. Only Germany should be classed with West Germany. The others should be listed as they where when they entered (with maybe old regimes in italics). Xenomorph1984 (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Now look, while I can follow your arguments re: the assigning of a countries successes to only one of the successor countries, the problem we face is a simple one. This is how it's done by FIFA/UEFA. Hence, any changes to that policy would have to be classified as a sort of oiginal research. And we all know that that is not wanted here. Madcynic (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia always have to follow FIFA/UEFA. Assigning Czechoslovak records to Czech Republic is nothing but obvious rewriting of history. As a fact, both CS goals in 1976 final were scored by Slovak players. On the subject of FIFA accuracy; they dropped all West German matches from their database. Shouldn't Wikipedia follow there too.. --Ohnder (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it's not re-writing history. [9] You think FIFA is re-writing?. Second, FIFA/UEFA have not dropped West Germany, as you can see here [10] they just use FR and DR, we use West and East because they're the common names in English. chandler · 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it not rewriting when you change history? For matches I was refering to their match database. Not the match reports.

--Ohnder (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Assigning Czechoslovak records to Czech Republic, as long as there is a footnote that clarifies the facts. It is also OK for the Slovaks to inherit the Chechoslovakians' national team history. Similarly, Lithuanians can be proud for USSR team history for that was the team that was representing them for many years. The usual tactic for such problems is that the country that maintains the capital of the splitted country, inherits its stats. An arbitrary choice, certainly, but it works. All that matters is the footnotes!
--Hgnostop (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

General Statistics ???

This is pointless imo. I think it's meaningless that we include a table based on points/wins etc. as it clearly is advantageous to the teams that have competed in more euros than others. Note that I am NOT saying that the 'successful national teams' table, that lists teams by number of finals wins, 2nd place finishes, etc should be removed on the arguement that the more finals a country makes, the more changes they have had to win it. I hope the distinction is clear between the two. If someone _really_ wanted to have a general stats section like this, maybe take the total points (currently listed on the table) and divide this by games played, and sort the teams by this decimal number (2.634 or whatever). I think this would be a much more meaningful statistic. I have kept the stats table there to get others; opinions on this. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresszilla (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The current general statistics are fine imho. The countries which have qualified more are the better football countries. Countries which haven't qualified a lot for the European Football Championship didn't do so because they lack quality.

An addition to the general statistics with points/game could be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter pietersen (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

2 PROBLEMS

The maps and the stats have 2 problems.

1-You forgot that Albanian did qualify in 1964 because of the Greek forfeit, 1st round.

2-You're awarding to Serbia what Yugoslavia won, and you're awarding to Russia what USSR won, are you nuts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.72.220 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame us, blame UEFA. Also, Albania didn't qualify for the final tournament in 1964, since the final tournament was just semi-finals and final. – PeeJay 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Inheritor teams, yet again

To clarify the principle that we use, for the benefit of those who have been edit warring over it today:

• Until a successor team has achieved the right to inclusion in their own right/under their new name, we list the acheivement under the old name.
• Once the new incarnation of that historical team merits its own name on the list, the accumulated record is displayed under the name of the new entity, following the example of FIFA, UEFA etc. An explanatory footnote is added.

Kevin McE (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

germany and its first title

there is written: This was Germany's first title as a unified nation. That is wrong. or write: This was Germany's first EUROPEAN title as a unified nation. they won 1990 the world championship.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.22.242 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Germany was reunited in Autumn 1990, and won the WC title in Summer 1990. Obviously the article is right, Euro 1996 was the first title as reunified nation for Germany. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Finals Pages

The Finals Pages need to show consistent formatting, and statistics (or as much as we can get). I also think the reports need to be lengthened, in more detail. Editadam 23:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi Finalist and 4th place 1988

In the Participation details table, how is Germany given the SF tag and Italy 4th? Is this based on goal difference from their respective Semi finals as they did not play a third place play off. Marking Italy as 4th suggest that there was play-off for third spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.136.45 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good spot. All attempts at trying to attribute a difference in position between losing semifinalists since 1980 now removed. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

predecessors

There is need to respect disfuncted national teams as different from succesor state or states. For example czech republic isn't only successor state of czechoslovakia but russia is only successor of cis team. Czech, Slovak, Russian and CIS teams should be treated as "new" teams but with note that they are successors of previous state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.243.202.133 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)