Template talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I table

France

I hope no one will be terribly upset if we follow the results of the France friendlies along with the other results in this group. This is in the interest of information only, and thus will differ from the official results tables provided by UEFA, which will not make reference to France. (DaemonischEngel (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Away goals

UEFA shows Albania ahead of Denmark. The suggestion that Denmark are ahead of Albania on head-to-head away-goals is WP:OR: what reliable source says that away goals apply BEFORE the return leg has taken place? UEFA is not perfect but we should require strong evidence before discounting its own interpretation of its own rules. jnestorius^(talk) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA has from this season always listed teams alphabetically when they have same points and have taken no concern at all regarding tiebreakers. Thats why a team with +7 was behind a team who had +1 when both teams had won first match (and not met eachother), does that sound right? IT woudl lead to a lot of edit warring that to. Who says it is correct to sort by goaldifferential? Other sources differs as well, so here on wikipedia we have decided to follow the official regulations as we always has and then it is "matches amongst teams in question first". It is not our own rules we use the official tiebreakers. QED237 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about UEFA, and that external sources differ. But is there any external source that uses the single-match away-goals rule? jnestorius^(talk) 19:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know exactly what the different sources sort by, but we cant sort after tiebreaker of our own choice and say we can currently use goal differential but not head to head, that seems strange. We either use the official tiebreakers as we always have or we dont use them at all (and order alphabetically as UEFA, but I think that will also confuse readers and it would need wider consensus. An other alternative would be to use a new module for creating tables that is currently under development (so it is used and tested in small scale and might not be appropriate here). It will most likely be used everywhere in the future. In that module (Module:Sports table) positions are listed and you can give two teams same position (for example if they have same points). Perhaps this is better to discuss for entire tournament at Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying as there already exist a similar discussion there. QED237 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has now been resumed at Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#joint positions. QED237 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia-Albania

I think "TBD" is a better summary than "14 Oct '14". The match may be replayed, or the result may stand, or a forfeit result may be declared. "TBD" covers the variety of options better than "14 Oct '14" (or "Abd."). If someone can work out (unlike me) how to put a footnote in the Template that might help. jnestorius^(talk) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree, TBD sounds like it will be decided later when the match will be played but It may not be played at all. Using the date seems correct as it was played that date and we just dont have the result yet (could be 3-0, 0-3 or a new date or anything else). QED237 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: In response to this: I really don't think the cell should be displaying a past date (14 Oct '14). That's confusing, even misleading and misinformative. Apart from saying nothing about the match at all, that looks as if someone has forgotten to update the page. Remember that not all readers who will see the table are already aware of the entire situation and everything that has happened and is expected to happen. The futbol24.com website, for one, uses the abbreviation "ABD", and if it's still unclear what it means, the word "abandoned" could be written out. --Theurgist (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia seem to have had their three-point penalty applied twice according to this table. One win, one draw: that's four points, so after the penalty is applied they should be on one point, not minus two. Compare with the table on the UEFA site. (I would fix it myself but I'm not sure I can see how.) 27.96.215.179 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected it. @Eni.Sukthi.Durres: Can you explain what source says 6 points deduction? I have never heard that anywhere. QED237 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237:, it was a mistake by Uefa.com and which was corrected again by them, see here and then here by the same Facebook fanpage "asport.info" thank you.Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danmark not clinced top three spot

Will someone please explain why Denmark are not secured of a top three spot, while both Serbia and Armenia cannot reach a top two spot? If any of those two teams still have a possiblity of surpassing Denmark in the standings, then they most certainly are not out of the race to reach a top two spot. Tøndemageren (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is actually correct (as is the SRB/ARM note), how is this NOT WP:OR? It is a far more complex calculation (particularly Armenia) than many others that have been banned (by a small group of vocal editors) yet somehow it is okay by them. Also, in the past the distinctions were made between teams that could qualify directly and teams that could only advance via play-offs (and those who were eliminated). Being only able to "finish third" is not the same as "can't qualify directly" as one third-placed team WILL qualify directly. Why are we commenting on distinctions that are effectively meaningless (and effectively implying things that may not be actually true, maybe Serbia or Armenia could be the best third placed side - I would be surprised but there is certainly no source/discussion for this implication - but then, there isn't one for the complex analysis of the best position Serbia can finish) rather than those that have implications over how teams are able to qualify. 180.200.178.45 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tøndemageren: I will try and guide through the calculations as much as possible. It all has to do with the fact that the only way Serbia and Armenia can reach same points as Denmark is if they win all their remaining matches (both cant as they meet eachother) and if Albania beat Denmark. In that case we will have three teams on 10 points. If it is Serbia that ends up on 10 points together with Denmark and Albania then Denmark will be second-place with 7 h2h-points, Serbia third with 6pts and Albania get fourth place with 4 points. This means Serbia at best can be third. If it is Armenia that ends up on 10 points together with Denmark and Albania then Albania will be second-place with 7 h2h-points, Armenia get third with 6pts and Denmark get fourth place with 4 points. This means Armenia at best can be third and Denmark will in this scenario be fourth. Qed237 (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the short explanation is that they can pass either Denmark or Albania. but not both, and the be at best third while Denmark can be passed by both Albania and Armenia. Qed237 (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the order Portugal, Albania, Armenia, Denmark, Serbia is possible. Armenia can pass one of Albania and Denmark but not both at the same time, assuming the remaining Denmark-Albania match gives normal points and isn't like Serbia-Albania. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if Armenia wins their remaining matches, Albania only wins against Denmark, and Denmark loses all of their remaining matches, won't Armenia get into second place? Tøndemageren (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there would be a 3-way head-to-head count at 10 points where Albania would have 7 points, Armenia 6 and Denmark 4. If it had been goal difference in all group matches and not head-to-head results that decided ties then it would have been possible for Armenia to get second place. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albania should be second because it drew with Denmark and has a better goal difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.128.176.4 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark is ahead on away head-to-head goals. Qed237 (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, it's points between teams and then goal difference. See the tie-breaking rules. Uefa also put Albania 2nd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.70.5 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qed237 is right. The rules are at UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Tiebreakers and the official source Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship 2014-16 which says:

Article 13 Equality of points – qualifying competition
If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points on completion of the
group matches, the following criteria are applied, in the order given, to determine
the rankings:
...
d.
higher number of goals scored away from home in the group matches played
among the teams in question;
...
f.  superior goal difference in all group matches;

Note it says "on completion of the group matches". I don't think there are official rules for how to list teams before the completion. I have seen other leagues which ignore head-to-head until after completion. UEFA is inconsistent. [1] says "Top two: Portugal, Denmark. Third: Albania". [2] lists Albania before Denmark. I think we should follow the rules for the final standings. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template is used in six articles and five of them say "Rules for classification: Qualification tiebreakers" two lines below the table (the sixth article is the linked page itself). If we claim to classify by the tiebreaker rules then we should follow that so I have reverted recent edits here and at {{UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place)}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the rationale of QED237, but UEFA updated its website, and, according to that, Albania is second and Denmark third. This is in light of the interpretation of point #6 of the rules, which I have explained in QED237's talkpage. At this point, since UEFA organizes the event, they decide the ranking and wiki has to adjust accordingly.Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But [3] is also updated after Albania got three points for the Serbia match. It now says Denmark and Albania has the same number of points (two less than Portugal), and it still says Albania is behind Denmark. When UEFA is inconsistent, we cannot simply copy UEFA. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but cherry picking sources from a badly updated article cannot change the ranking published by UEFA itself. I don't know how much clearer this can get. Furthermore, being an admin of wiki on one hand and being a Dane on the other, gets you into a conflict of interest in the matter, and you should not be involved any longer.Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a Dane? Sorry but you have to follow consensus or get blocked. Qed237 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Hunter is a Dane per his info on his page, and you, qed237 are edit warring me. Revert yourself please and don't make unnecessary, empty threats to me. No one is scared here. All I am doing is to update the ranking based on the source that is in the article itself, this. You on the other hand, don't have a single valid argument.Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers. I'm not using, threatening to use or even mentioning my admin bit here so it's irrelevant. And if people were disallowed to make edits related to their own country due to conflict of interest then we would lose a huge part of our content. As a Dane I would like Denmark to qualify but their temporary listing on a Wikipedia page isn't going to affect that, and I'm not making any positive claim about Denmark or negative about Albania. Who decides that one UEFA page is "badly updated" and another is not? I'm just saying we should do what we claim to do in the articles: Follow the linked tiebreaker rules for completed groups. On [4] where UEFA is consistent with those rules they correctly say "If qualifying were to end now ...". On the other page [5] they don't say how the order is determined but just say "Standings are provisional until all group matches have been played". It's only a guess, although a plausible one, that they use total goal difference and ignore the head-to-head rule for completed groups. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You on the other hand, don't have a single valid argument. , that tells us why we should start ignoring your rant as we say that we base the ranking on the official rules as UEFA is inconsistent, and you refuse to listen.Qed237 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qed you're the only one ranting here, and dropping threats in my talk page, on top of edit warring me. You guys are being unrealistic and doing original research. The UEFA ranking is VERY clear.Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both UEFA pages are very clear about who is second on that page, although your preferred page doesn't say how the ordering is made. When we explicitly say "Rules for classification: Qualification tiebreakers", it's well within Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations to read those rules and determine that a 1-1 match in Albania gives each team the same number of head-to-head points, the same number of head-to-head goals, but one away goal for Denmark and none for Albania. Albania doesn't yet have an away match against Denmark so they couldn't have made an away goal but it's just a temporary classification. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2015

That interpretation can be expressed right after the ranking. The ranking itself should be properly sourced and right now it isn't. The source contradicts the article in wikipedia. All the other interpretations that you are making can very well go in a note. The UEFA ranking should not be changed. Otherwise it's OR. Topped by COI.Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, UEFA has updated your beloved [6] and now shows Denmark before Albania there, but they have also updated [7] and now says "joint second" there! We have to list somebody first in a table so it must be Denmark now. I don't think we should add a note that one UEFA page calls them "joint second". That would be odd on our pages where goal scores are shown. The UEFA page with the term doesn't display the goal scores. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that page now, but I trust your word. I think we should add that note, as UEFA must have been carefully chosen it. The interpretations of the rules would be OR. Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not interpretations, they are the rules. No OR there. Qed237 (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clear. Albania is joint second with Denmark and a note should be inserted to reflect the source. Anybody against reflecting the source?Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA now has Denamark ahead in table just like the official rules says. Qed237 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where? this says Albania is second and the Danes are behind. This confirms it. Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try update and read it again. I see Denmark ahead of Albania. Qed237 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source and this source say Albania is second and the Danes are behind. I see Albania ahead of Denmark as of now, and, believe me, I cleared my cache before doing it. I don't see any update of the website. Double check please, but first clear your cache. Fixed it now. Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for the change. I have both cleared my cache and tried another browser with nothing cached. Both pages display Denmark before Albania for me. They say "Last updated: 13/07/2015 15:08 CET" and "Last updated: 13/07/2015 15:13 CET". The earlier versions with Albania second said "Last updated: 11/07/2015". Which date do you see? It's possible but sounds unlikely that they display different order depending on the location of the viewer. I'm in Denmark. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Sweden and also see Denmark first and that UEFA would change order depending on where you live is highly unlikely (not like Soccerway that has different webaddress depending on where you live). And rules also say Denmark. Refusing to understand consensus and editing anyway will soon lead to a block. No need for further discussion. Qed237 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the United States and it says "Last updated: 11/07/2015 15:29 CET". This is weird because it seems like there are different servers for Europe and for the United States, and they are not mirrored well. I'll wait a little bit more until the US servers update as well, and I'll assume good faith from Swedes and Danes, and I'll edit when the servers will be updated. Also I find very annoying your continuous threatening of blocks, Qed237. Calm down, and swim away from the pages that you find not pleasant. Edit warring will not do any good to your health. --Cimcimcakungashijaku (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your ISP has cached the obsolete version. Try adding a random query string like http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/qualifiers/season=2016/standings/round=2000446/group=2002436/index.html?whatever. The site will ignore it but a caching system doesn't know that and will not use the cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]