UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying play-offs
A group winner cannot face a team from a higher league is about 'path formation', not about 'team selection.' The path formation is from League C to League A, but team selection is from League A to League C though it is not explicitly stated in the official regulation. Please see the team selection and path formation in the 2020 version.
There was only one non-qualified team in League A, Iceland, so three quota were passed over to League B. League B had one group winner and three non-group winners that has not already been qualified. So these four teams were selected and three quota were passed to League C. In League C, one group winner was already qualified so there are four remaining quata including three passed over from League A. Thus, Bulgaria, Israel, Hungary, and Romania were included. This is team selection.
Path formation is completely seperate procedure. Only Israel remained in the path for League C and Bugaria, Hungary,k and Romania were moved to the path for League A. This is path formation.
The principle 'group winner' should not face a team from a higher league is not considered in the 'team selection' stage.
If you don't like other user's edit, would you please improve it in a constructive way?, rather than simply revert it.
Your explanation is very hard to understand for ordinary users. I thinks adding an example is very useful for readers.
Your explanation is not only confusing, it cannot explain all possible cases. Let's take an example. Suppose that League C has two teams not already qualified, so two quota remained. Then the best-ranked group winner of League is selected. One quata still remained. Then what happens? According to your description, the team should come from League D which is not true. It should come from the 'overall' Nations League rankings. (Accdording to the Euro regulation Article 16.02. d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regpath (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Regpath:
A group winner cannot face a team from a higher league is about 'path formation', not about 'team selection.'
That's not what the passage is saying, it is mentioning how you select the next-best team in the overall ranking, with the caveat that if there is a group winner from the given league, this team must be selected from a lower league. team selection is from League A to League C though it is not explicitly stated in the official regulation.
No it is not, per regulations article 16.02 (a). I know how the process works, I wrote the 2020 article over four years ago.If you don't like other user's edit, would you please improve it in a constructive way?, rather than simply revert it.
Your changes were factually incorrect, though.I thinks adding an example is very useful for readers.
The 2020 play-offs used a slightly different format, though, so I am not sure how useful it is to readers.Suppose that League C has two teams not already qualified, so two quota remained. Then the best-ranked group winner of League is selected. One quata still remained. Then what happens?
It depends on whether one of the teams is a group winner. If that is the case, the other group winner from League D would be selected, per article 16.02 (d), which says group winners of Leagues A, B and C cannot be in a play-off path with higher-ranked teams. If there is no group winner in League C, it would be the next-best team in the overall ranking.
- @Regpath:
- S.A. Julio (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would you explain this from your description?
- "If the league has a group winner selected for the play-offs, then the next-best team in the overall ranking from a lower league will be selected."
- ==> Is it really 'lower' league? Isn't it 'the same or lower league'?
- "f there are more than four teams available in a given league, draw which four teams will participate in the path of the league.
- Remaining teams will be drawn into a path of a higher league."
- ==> My understanding is when the draw is performed, the group winners must remain in the path for the league, and only non group winners take part in the draw to decide who will be moved to the path of the higher league. Regpath (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Regpath:
Is it really 'lower' league? Isn't it 'the same or lower league'?
In step two of the article, it is already mentioned that teams are first replaced by the next best-ranked team from the same league. My understanding is when the draw is performed, the group winners must remain in the path for the league, and only non group winners take part in the draw to decide who will be moved to the path of the higher league.
This is usually the case, as group winners cannot face teams from a higher league. However, some scenarios are less clear, I'll use the 2020 rankings (below) for a hypothetical. In this situation, it is possible for UEFA to decide that one of Bosnia and Ukraine may/will be drawn into Path A, as they would not be facing a team from a higher league. Nowhere in the regulations is this forbidden, and per article 16.03 (c), UEFA may enact additional conditions including seeding principles for the draw. Since we don't exactly know what UEFA would decide in such a situation, I think it would be inaccurate to stategroup winners must remain in the path for the league
. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Regpath:
|
|
|
|
UEFA Link attendance
Hello. S.A. Julio. Do you know why uefa link attendance v2 is not working as it used to? Putting v4 for example it does work. Do you think is a temporary issue? Island92 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- v2 and v3 as well have not been working properly since 3 June 2022. It's quite frustrating. I hope it is a temporary issue. Lots of articles use v2.--Island92 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: Probably have been making some changes to their system, so most likely v2/v3 won't work again. However I can quickly fix the links using AWB, shouldn't be a huge issue. Should I convert everything to v4? S.A. Julio (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Basing on the consistency, I'd like to have all these loads of pages with the same version. We cannot have some of them with v2 (which doesn't seem to be working) and other with v4 (starting from those of the Nations League 22/23). My answer is affermative and you can use AWB if it doesn't request time and effort. How much time before all of them present v4? Island92 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: I have not looked at this very thoroughly yet, are there matches within the same competition season that are divided between working for v2 versus v4? I also noticed v5 works for some reports, if this is of any use. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Basing on the consistency, I'd like to have all these loads of pages with the same version. We cannot have some of them with v2 (which doesn't seem to be working) and other with v4 (starting from those of the Nations League 22/23). My answer is affermative and you can use AWB if it doesn't request time and effort. How much time before all of them present v4? Island92 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: Probably have been making some changes to their system, so most likely v2/v3 won't work again. However I can quickly fix the links using AWB, shouldn't be a huge issue. Should I convert everything to v4? S.A. Julio (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Some Nations League 22/23 matches have v2 because v2 worked on 1st and 2nd June. The most recent have v4. For the rest, I mean if I reckon well since 2020 I've started adding v2 for European competitions. Island92 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: Okay, for this season of the Nations League, do any of the v4 links not work? Also, does v2/v3 work anywhere? The links I have quickly checked for various UEFA competitions all seem to be broken. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- v4 works for every link you would try to make it work, which is a dream now to have every single page with v4. The majority of page you quickly checked use v2 because at the time I added only v2 as you suggested I should do it in a old talk which now I don't remember. v2 and v3 do not work anymore since 3rd June 2022. This is for example Ukraine v Germany friendly match played on 14 November 2020. In v2 it doesn't work, in v4 it does.--Island92 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: Okay, so as far as I can tell v4 seems to work everywhere, and from this search it seems to appear on 204 articles, which should not take long to change with an automated tool. Should I go ahead? S.A. Julio (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eheheh, such an incredible quantity of pages, as I'd expected. The point is, will in the future v2 be working again? We don't know at all, hence yes, you should go ahead and get them all with v4. It works everywhere nicely. I don't know why UEFA made this change.--Island92 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: I doubt it will, a long time ago I had used v1 for some other projects, but it eventually stopped working so I switched to v2. Another idea is I could create a template, for example {{UEFA match attendance}}, and it could generate the reference, for example using the code
<ref>{{UEFA match attendance|2034413|Czech Republic vs. Switzerland|access-date=2 June 2022}}</ref>
. This way if the URL switches in the future only one page would need to be changed. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: I doubt it will, a long time ago I had used v1 for some other projects, but it eventually stopped working so I switched to v2. Another idea is I could create a template, for example {{UEFA match attendance}}, and it could generate the reference, for example using the code
- Eheheh, such an incredible quantity of pages, as I'd expected. The point is, will in the future v2 be working again? We don't know at all, hence yes, you should go ahead and get them all with v4. It works everywhere nicely. I don't know why UEFA made this change.--Island92 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: Okay, so as far as I can tell v4 seems to work everywhere, and from this search it seems to appear on 204 articles, which should not take long to change with an automated tool. Should I go ahead? S.A. Julio (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- v4 works for every link you would try to make it work, which is a dream now to have every single page with v4. The majority of page you quickly checked use v2 because at the time I added only v2 as you suggested I should do it in a old talk which now I don't remember. v2 and v3 do not work anymore since 3rd June 2022. This is for example Ukraine v Germany friendly match played on 14 November 2020. In v2 it doesn't work, in v4 it does.--Island92 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
2022 FIFA World Cup qualification - multiple issues
1. About goalscorers in CAF 2nd round and CONCACAF 1st round, you have just reinstated the big lists, instead of splitting them into groups. Not AFC 2nd round, probably you agree that its list is too big (~550 goals and ~300 scorers), but I want to split CAF 2nd round and CONCACAF 1st round too - they are also quite large (200-300 goals and 100-150 scorers), not very readable to me.
2. Also some infoboxes removed - if I remember correctly, we have no strict rules about pages should or should not have infoboxes. I am OK either way, but when I split some goalscorers lists last October, consequently I needed infoboxes there for some details: goals, matches, goals per match, top scorer (previously available in 'Goalscorers' sections). If you agree to split CAF 2nd round and CONCACAF 1st round, then their infoboxes should be reinstated too. Centaur271188 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Centaur271188: Well we have CONMEBOL with 223 goals in a single round, so I don't see the issue with a similarly-sized list in these other articles. I think it is useful to be able to compare player performances across groups in the round, you don't get a larger understanding when it is split into 10 different sections. As for the infoboxes, they are intended for use on articles on competition/tournament articles. The round pages are subsets of the competition, but not a tournament on its own. This is the same reason we don't use such infoboxes on articles such as 2021–22 UEFA Champions League group stage. The matches/goals/top scorer information can generally be found in the goalscorer section. Also, the previous/next season links make little sense to me, given there is no permanent format for these qualifiers. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Centaur271188: By the way, I have been doing some work recently on older World Cup qualifying articles, trying to make things consistent with more recent campaigns. Since you are such a great contributor to the current qualifying articles, I was wondering if I could get your input on which zones should have their rounds split into separate articles. Clearly the 2022 OFC qualifiers were to small to be split, with a similar conclusion reached at this recent CONMEBOL AfD. However, I am not exactly sure what the threshold should be. Would you think any of the following zones require separate round articles?
Also, some of the OFC articles prior to 2006 were (partially) split despite being quite small, do you think any of these need separate round articles?
Thanks! S.A. Julio (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your commendation :) To me, those confederal qualifying rounds only need splitting if we have much material enough - I think most campaigns you mentioned are OK to split, because some rounds of them have quite many matches, except 1990 and 1994 OFC. Or if consistency requires - like AFC 4th round, 2022 CONCACAF 2nd round or 2018 OFC 1st round - but I do not mean your consistency, I think the 80s-90s and earlier campaigns do not have to be consistent with 2010s-2020s ones, because of material difference. Only their internal consistency matters. For example, 2002 OFC 1st round is OK to split, 20 matches seem many enough. Then its 2nd round has only 2 matches, but can be split too, for consistency's sake. Centaur271188 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alright great, thanks for the help! S.A. Julio (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2022
Could this template have {{{organiser}}} (Organising body) and {{{other countries}}} (Other club(s) from) as extra labels. Example is Template:Infobox basketball league.
For Template:Infobox sports league if it could be done please. Alextigers (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)