Talk:List of UEFA European Championship finals

Year of 2021/2020 tournament

Don't want to get into a revision war. The tournament took place in 2021, even though it was called Euro 2020. The table of finals refers to the year it took place in. This to me means that the final should be noted as taking place in 2021 with a footnote saying it was called euro 2020.

Would others agree with this approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.136.65 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes

I have undone this edit which adds unnecessary complicated markup, adds an overuse of flag icons, adds links to common terms etc. I see no justification for any of these changes. I am aware that this may be the way the List of FIFA World Cup finals list is formatted, but that doesn't make it right. That list was promoted to featured status in February 2009, while this list was promoted to featured status in January 2012. Standards change. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of UEFA European Championship finals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429044004/http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/euro2008/2008/0620/vanbastenm.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/euro2008/2008/0620/vanbastenm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Why Russia is shown as winning country on map?

I noticed that russia is showed as winner on map, but it is noted that Soviet Union was winner. So why its exceptionally russia that get credits for winning and not other/all soviet union countries?

The Russian Football Union is considered by UEFA to be the sole successor to the record of the Football Federation of the Soviet Union. – PeeJay 13:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Map colouring (Czechoslovakia)

The map colouring is a bit tricky considering that two winning countries no longer exist. However, rather than just ignoring the Czechoslovak win, would it perhaps make more sense to colour Slovakia as one win and the Czech Republic as two? 79.77.54.149 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No, according to UEFA's website, the Czech Republic is considered the sole inheritor of the record of the old Czechoslovakia. – PeeJay 23:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

former Yugoslavia vs. Serbia

"The records of the former Yugoslavia team were ultimately inherited by Serbia" - really? Can anyone substantiate this claim with an official document, or point to an official source of information proving this?

The dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia was a lengthy process and Serbia did not emerge from this as an independent country - first it was part of FR Yugoslavia (later called Serbia & Montenegro), and only later became independent. So, there is no continuity between former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and Serbia.

In September 1992 the UN passed a resolution (Resolution #777) preventing FR Yugoslavia (i.e. Serbia & Montenegro) from continuing to occupy the United Nations seat as successor state to former Yugoslavia. FR Yugoslavia finally abandoned its claim to continuity from the SFRY in 1996. This enabled the start of the State Succession Talks of Former Yugoslavia in February 1997. The talks lasted for yeas and resulted in the Agreement on Succession Issues which definitely did not give an exclusive right to any of the constituent republics to lay claims to continuity or to any assets or achievements of former Yugoslavia. In fact, the Agreement conclusively confirmed that all five sovereign states formed upon the dissolution of the former SFRY are equal successors. This Agreement was ratified and entered into force in June 2004, but it didn't resolve the property rights issues and the claims to the Immovable Assets of former Yugoslavia. As a result, to this day there is a Standing Joint Committee of High Representatives of Successor States to the former SFR Yugoslavia, which convenes on a regular basis. If Serbia had "ultimately inherited" the right to claim continuity from the SFRY, none of this was going to be happening.

This is nothing to do with whether the actual country of Serbia is a continuation of FR Yugoslavia, it's to do with who UEFA considers to be the inheritors (if any) of the records associated with the national football association of FR Yugoslavia (and its predecessors). – PeeJay 11:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslavia was a nation of six republics and Serbia was just one of them. How can it be a predecessor?!

Also, same thing for Czechoslovakia!

How can Czech Republic be a predecessor and not Slovakia?

That makes no sense... 2A00:1BB8:11E:849D:F24B:6612:27BC:B55D (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it’s not possible that one country out of the 7 countries can claim this success. Checking UEFA website you can see that Yugoslavia is still listed as finalists. It seems that some people here are trying to claim the success of multiple nations for their own. Commentators from this Euro had also shouted that this is Serbia’s 2nd Euro in 2024 and that they never reached the knockout stage. Someone explain how they’ve been to two finals but have never advanced from the group. 184.145.109.82 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Serbia inherited all Yugoslav records so go and complain to UEFA about that then, see 1, 2 and 3 Snowflake91 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my reverted edits

Cross-posting here and at Talk:List of FIFA World Cup finals. Pinging The Rambling Man, NapHit and Snowflake91.

1) The lead: proposed version, original version

Which version is more to the point, better captures the essence of things, and is more free from details not suitable or necessary for a lead section?

2) The table of results: proposed version, original version, even earlier version

Is it needed to highlight the results based on the manner of winning the match, as if this were a defining characteristic of a match? Also, does it need verbose keys that are already explained in the article and are sometimes wrong (the "a.e.t." is not used only for matches highlighted in pink and does not necessarily mean the match was won after extra time)? --Theurgist (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(again cross-posting) I've restored the lead. The previous versions were a bit messy in style, didn't even properly describe the tiebreaking rules, and contained not-too-relevant details. You can't expect from a list of the finals of a tournament to teach you the basic rules of football (that's what links are for), nor is it crucial for you to know e.g. how many of them took place on Sundays.

I did not for now redo the edits to the lists of results, but would like to do that as well, as discussed. It actually had been me who had scrapped the footnotes and inserted the "a.e.t." (and the penalty shootout scores) into the cells, causing the problems mentioned – but I had to do it. Footnotes are for additional information, not for essential information. --Theurgist (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The previous lead wasn't messy at all. It provides useful information for the reader whether they are knowledgeable about the subject or not. The tables are fine as they are. They meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS, there's no need to change them just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The tables need to be accessible to everyone, including users with screen readers and disabilities. These articles are featured, and were subject to consensus in that process. There's a reason they look the way they do. Making sweeping changes because you don't agree with some aspects of the list, risks them being delisted. NapHit (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of clarity and accessibility, what's with this sentence in the UEFA Euro article: "The 16 finals to-date have produced seven drawn matches, the eventual winners of which have been determined variously by replay (1968), extra time (1960, 2016), penalty shoot-out (1976, 2020) or golden goal (1996, 2000)"? Not only does it give undue weight to drawn matches, but it also implies randomness, when in fact specific rules applied during each given period.

Also, why is there no mention in the lead of the finalists that never won? This is a list of finals, not a list of winners, after all.

And by the way, some of the details, such as the one about the finals held on Sundays in the World Cup article, were not in the version that passed the FL process. --Theurgist (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not giving undue weight to drawn matches if those are the facts. The previous mentions as of the 2020 tournament, so it's clear the rules were different for previous versions. This explains the table for the reader and helps them to make sense of it if they're not familiar with football. A sentence or two on the losing finalists should be included, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean the whole lede needs a massive re-write. Regarding the Sundays bit, the World Cup list, I've removed that as it is trivial. NapHit (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Precisely for the sake of clarity, especially to those not familiar with the matter, why don't we include an elegant summary of the rules over time, instead of letting people draw conclusions and do research? And by the way, colouring isn't the proper way to aid readers with disabilities ("colour should never be used as the sole method to convey information"). --Theurgist (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm on the fence about the rules bit. Would like another opinion on that one. The colouring is fine because of the use of (pen), (g.g) etc. as we have another indicator for the visually impaired as opposed to just colours. NapHit (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is, the colouring by itself doesn't necessarily aid the impaired, and is unneeded even to those who can see it; the "(pen.)", "(g.g.)", etc are enough. :)

And besides, if for example extra time is introduced and explained as something new, someone might assume that it is specific to the finals of the particular competition and is not applied in other matches. That brings about confusion instead of clarity and risks falling into WP:COATRACK.

But let's hear other opinions indeed. --Theurgist (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

---

This version just isn't good enough, whether or not it has been voted as featured. The same goes for the "History" section by the way, but I'm unable to propose an alternative there. --Theurgist (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont know why is there even a "History" section in the first place, those "List of" articles should have only a lead section with up to 5 paragraphs, and then immediately tables, everything else goes to UEFA European Championship#History, see List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals for example. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)