Talk:Croatia national football team results (1992–1999)

Split?
I like the list, it's very neat, but maybe it could be split in two (1940-56 and 1990-99). The current list bundles together matches from as many as four different eras (Banovina, ISoC, FR Croatia, RoC). Surely the "watershed" for the list - looking from the current perspective - is 1990, in the sense that everything before that is "historic", and everything after that is "current" era. This is a matter entirely independent from practical concerns (e.g. the need to split the list into decades to maintain reasonable size). GregorB (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say it is indeed quite absurd to merge pre-independence and post-independence periods. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also a list that has the flag of the NDH and just the word "Croatia" next to it is ahistorical and contradictory to the coverage of that state on the rest of Wikipedia. (With the added bonus of it being pretty offensive and contrary to the preamble of the Croatian constitution.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the split proposal: I'd say Croatia national football team results (1990–99), because Croatia v United States (1990) is now considered the first modern-era international match, even if it predated actual independence and FIFA membership. Article notes can (and probably should, given the FL nom) indicate this. GregorB (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Uhh, I can't actually verify that at https://www.fifa.com/live-scores/teams/country=cro/men/matches/index.html#year1991 - they only list the game from 1991, and before that the one from 1944. More generally, this just proves that relying on football governing bodies for the historical truth is dubious at best. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, when I said "considered" I meant HNS (and not necessarily FIFA) considers it an international match (e.g. whoever played in it earned a cap per hns-cff website). Data from governing bodies, on the other hand, indeed tends to be flaky - e.g. even IAAF.org athlete profiles are sometimes patchy and/or out of date, while one would presume athletics is all about data and results. GregorB (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, even their site isn't necessarily relevant. In their timeline thingy ("Kroz povijest") at http://hns-cff.hr/reprezentacije/hrvatska-a-reprezentacija/ they say "Bila je to prva utakmica hrvatske reprezentacije u novijoj povijesti." - that uses the generic, vague term "modern history", they don't necessarily mean it with encyclopedic precision... Likewise, at e.g. http://hns-cff.hr/info/statistika/?cid=FC%20A&dt1=1.1.1901.&dt2=31.12.1991. they don't list the games from before '90 at al, even if they are in the aforementioned timeline. A source that is not consistent with itself is not a WP:RS. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing inconsistent. The search won't go before 1990, but that's because these individual games simply aren't entered - ergo incompleteness, not inconsistency. (A propos the topic of incompleteness: the hazu.hr website's list of deceased full members names only those who died no earlier than 1998 - a rather arbitrary point in time, probably when their website was established - but these are obviously still academicians nonetheless.) "U novijoj povijesti" is vague, but that's because it is difficult to qualify in precise terms. It was not the first official international match, because it predated both independence and FIFA membership, and it is certainly not the first match ever, so it is kind of stuck in a limbo in this respect, even if its historical importance should be clear. Again, these finer points may well be elaborated on in the text. GregorB (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If we had a single neutral reader who would read any of a number of generic articles on Croatia, remember 1991, and then click through sports to get here, and saw 1990, and would be surprised, it's inconsistent enough in my book. Readers of topic A aren't supposed to care about whatever non-mainstream rendering of topic B, it just doesn't make sense. If we have to send everyone over to read Independence of Croatia in order to understand a list of football matches, we're doing it wrong. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This was previously discussed between me and the lists' main contributor, User:Governor Sheng. See here and here, and also here. I did, and still do, support the split. I'm not Croatian myself, but I think the matches of 1990 and 1991 should rather belong to the "new" history than to the "old" one. They were inspired by the same social and political movements that led to the independence itself. In chronometrical, socio-cultural, and footballing terms, the 1956–1990 period changed Croatia a lot more than the 1991–1992 period did, even though the former did not involve a change in the country's political status while the latter did. --Theurgist (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Apart from that, the current "1991–99" list does not include any matches of 1991, as the single match of that year is in the "1940–91" list. I understand the reason is the timing of the match relative to the independence, but I find this title misleading. So nobody asks where that 1991 match is while reading the page, its title should state its actual scope, namely "1992–99". Note that in the list of USA results, the first section is titled "1916–1929" and not "1776–1929". Still, to state it more explicitly than I did above, I think the matches of 1990 and 1991 should be included in a "1990–99" list, with a "1940–56" list covering the early matches. --Theurgist (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. I was hoping would leave a comment here. GregorB (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose I wouldn't mind moving the second marker to '92 from a purely chronological point of view. I would find it much easier to acquiesce to '90 if you had something other than editorial decision to base it on. According to our list article, there's even an inconsistency in that the two 1990 matches aren't supported by FIFA, unlike the 1991 one. It's very difficult to argue this is encyclopedic if we slap together three different states in the first article, and then keep a little bit of that third one for the second article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the discussion. Whatever you guys have agreed upon, I accept. :) Just a little notice. Shouldn't the article span from 1992 to 1999, as the year 1991 is encompased by the article spaning from 1940 to 1991? --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per above comments, moved to '92. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)