Talk:2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship

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

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

@

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: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: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]

@
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: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]
@
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
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_UEFA_European_Under-21_Championship&oldid=1217481821"