Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying/Archive 1

Gibraltar
There is a possibility that Gibraltar will be a UEFA nation by the time qualifying starts. Should this get a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.11.210 (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Teams moving to UEFA
I cannot even find a hint that Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are planning on becoming UEFA members anywhere on the Internet. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are currently playing qualifiers for the 2015 AFC Asian Cup. Turkmenistan is qualified for the 2014 AFC Challenge Cup. Uzbekistan may represent AFC in the 2014 World Cup. How unlikely is a move to UEFA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.10.118 (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Qualifying System
I don't think the qualifying system is confirmed. It's been said that they'll review it and potentially use something else - the system being talked about is having 12 groups with the winners qualifying and then some sort of playoff for 2nd/3rd teams. Bandanamerchant (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like that qualification box, it wasn't there during last Euros so why is it now? There is a key that 1st and 2nd places advence and 3rd advance or have a play off so is it necessery to write it again in the box? User:TigerTatoo
 * The new table format has been developed and approved for use at WikiProject Football. It should be easier to update (at least for bigger tables) and makes all tables equal, now it has been different everywhere. As I said there is consensus to use this new format, but you are free to come with your opinion, why dont you like it?. The key I can agree is no longer needed (but I dont have any trouble to keep it anyway) it was just left behind when tables were update to the new format. As a sidenote, when you sign your posts please use four tildes, ~, so that we also can see time of your posts. QED237&#160;(talk) 12:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I ping one of the involved editors and main contributor in this conversion. QED237&#160;(talk) 12:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The new table structure was developed to be easier to update for novice users, it uses one Module rather then a whole lot of ever-changing templates. It is also fully MOS-compliant, whereas the old structure was not. What particular element of it don't you like (except the fact that it is new)? CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 15:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There were never a such thing as "Qualification result" - result is something which is in the end of something not in the middle, it's a mistake to write that Poland "Advance to final tournament" when we still have got a few matches to go. I like new things but only when they are usefull, changing something good into something really unnecessary doesn't have sense. Moreover WikiProject Football or rather people who are part of it really should start learning things because - "A result (also called upshot) is the final consequence" User:TigerTatoo 18:05, 23 November 2014
 * I agree with User:TigerTatoo. "Qualification result" and colours are needlessly now. It need only after teams will qualify to EURO-2016 or to play-off. Now no teams qualified to EURO-2016. But if read page "UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying": already 18 teams qualified to final tournament. GAV80 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all MOS (manual of style) does not allow wikipedia to have only colors to show things (due to some reader may be color blind), that is way this extra column is used. I agree with the nnaming, it should not be qualification result but only "qualification". The earlier versions has been against MOS and can no longer be used. Secondly just because a team is colored it does not mean they have advanced to next round there are special letters for that. And before leagues and group have had different tables, where league tables has always been colored, do you really think we should have different tables on different places? And  please do not attack other editors saying they need to learn, fell free to join discussion instead and learn wikipedia guidelines. <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, having coloured lines, as before, is against the MOS as well. The module allows for easy customization of text, so it is not a problem to finetune things. There were two different standards before, one for league tables and one for group tables, which was very confusing. Now this is one standard, which is fully MOS-compliant, especially MOS:ACCESS. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wrote it on AFC 2015 qualification discussion and now I am writing it here because I think all these changes are a big problem for many users who I spoke about it with - Let's face it - the section in the box - QUALIFICATION is just stupid, I don't know why people decided to change these boxes from last years, they were great. Now there is information that country "Advance to knockout stage" which is usually untrue since they have matches to play, the same is on Euro 2016 qualification. But still the most stupid is A and E in brackets, since there is ADCANCE TO KNOCKOUT STAGE" info why we need another one? And what was wrong with the system that RED is eliminated, GREEN advenced and when team still has got hope it's WHITE. Why someone changed a very good system??? Moreover this new system has got mistakes - how can country advance before start of the tournament? - In conclusion we have reduplications with logical mistakes and boxes are unreadable because some strange people have changed something which was very good. I think that people should reconsider the changes, no one explained me why you changed something which was very good. Qed237 if people are colorblind they still now that 2 teams will qualify and other will be eliminated, everything on the webside is explained, we can't add stupid and unnecessary things because of 0,01% of the population? I think that if you don't want to go back to the boxes from the past you just shouldn't ude the green colour for qualification when no one qualifies. And one last thing - if we can't use colors because of colourblind people I am voting for deleting A MAP (there are many colours on the wualification maps) because it is unreadable for blindcolour people!!! If you disagree it means that you are hypocrite and I will write a formal complaint to Wikipedia. User:TigerTatoo 13:33, 16 January 2015
 * The Manual of Style exists for a reason, you might not agree to it, but it should be followed. If you suggest any alternatives that are fully MOS-compliant (like the module), feel free to bring them to WT:FOOTY for consensus. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So how is it possible that during last 10 years everything was perfect and we didn't have to change anything and suddenly you realized that it isn't fair to have only colour? Or just you didn't followed your own rules? LOL, still I am waiting for deleting the map because it contains only colours and people who are colourblind can't read from it which country goes to quarter final or to the final etc. User:TigerTatoo 17:45, 16 January 2015
 * Things where not perfect and the previous format had not been used for 10 years. Progress is the name of the game here. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean LIE not PROGRESS because it is a lie that Poland qualified to the knockout round. Progress shouldn't introduce mistakes and errors when such happen they should be eleiminated but as I can see 2 people in WIkipedia know nothing about logic and truth. User:TigerTatoo 11:53, 17 January 2015

A good point is raised here. Why are some teams marked with a color that claims they have achieved something they haven't in reality achieved yet? And how on earth are you going to distinguish in between qualified and unqualified teams in a few matches time when the first qualifications are effectively secured if you stick to this system? Surely a line in between second and third place is sufficient. Tvx1 10:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Russia sanctions
I believe sanctions for Russia are probation and not outright spectator ban, source mentioned in article confirms this EgorKulikov (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Format and Seedings
Is it possible to lock this article?! Over the last few days, various peoples imaginations have been running a little too wild and added their thoughts on how qualification will take place, possible seedings and teams taking part!! Fridge46 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Different to above but is there a team missing or just a typo with the order of seeding? There appears to be no 11th seed in pot 2, throwing all the other seedings off by 1. 92.237.135.6 (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * France would have been the 11th seed, but as hosts are not included in the qualifying draw. Bevo74 (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the tiebreakers; item 5 says apply criteria 1-4 exclusively to the teams in question - but criteria 1-4 already only apply to the teams in question. Am I missing something? As it currently stands, this is exactly how it is written in the rules quoted, but doesn't seem to make sense. Kurt O&#39;Sys (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What it means is that if there are three teams tied you go through step 1-4 and then if two teams are still tied you start at 1 again but only for those two teams. <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge
Please merge the Seeding and Eligible teams sections. There is no advantage in having teams listed twice, once alphabetically and then again by seeding. Also, the sections' information on keeping Russia and Georgia apart is contradictory. jnestorius(talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

joint positions
It makes sense to me, for teams who have the same Goal for and Goal against should be in the same position desipte being home or away matches and only be separated by head to head matches between them, the third place position table should be the same, a goal less draw should be awarded towards the home team and a goal draw should be awarded towards the away i.e

Group B 1 Cyprus/Wales   1 1 0 0 2 1 3 2 Belgium/Israel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Andorra/Bosnia 1 0 0 0 1 2 0

Group D 1 Poland         1 1 0 0 0 7 0 2 Ger/R of I     1 1 0 0 2 1 3 3 Geo/Sco        1 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 Gibraltar      1 0 0 0 0 7 0

Group H 1 Croatia/Italy  1 1 0 0 2 0 3 2 Bulgaria       1 1 0 0 2 1 3 3 Azerbaijan     1 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 Malta/Norway   1 0 0 1 0 2 0

Current Standings Kazakhstan Azerbaijan     1 0 0 1 1 2 0 Geo/Sco        1 0 0 0 1 2 0 Andorra/Bosnia 1 0 0 0 1 2 0

e.t.c Japhes5005 (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are no joint positions we follow the official regulations regarding the tiebreaker (as that makes most sense, why would we not follow regulations?) There it is h2h, away goals, fair play and so on which you can read in article. If a goalless draw we go by fairplay. <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 10:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Howcome Ireland is listed above Germany in the table? Both teams won their opening game 2-1 and Germany comes ahead in alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.233.60 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because The Republic of Ireland received 1 yellow card and Germany received 2 (fair play tiebreaker)Wilmot1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is because Ireland won away and Germany won at home so Ireland has two away goals vs Germany who has zero away goals (away goals is tiebreaker before fair play tiebreaker). <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there is currently no official tie-breaker. As per your regulations: "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:" So any order is fine. -Koppapa (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew, I would have some opposition on here, I know how people are quick to responed to the slighest change. That was my initial reaction, how Wikipedia had it, away wins to be an over home wins; UFEA.com website has it alphabetically, the bbc also follow this; I am saying no win is worth more or less than away be it fair play, home or away; Let say Wales, Belgium and Cyprus all played their first game at home had 2-1 and received no yellows or reds, you saying it should be, 1 Belgium 2 Cyprus 3 Wales in that order and Wales would be in the Play off position cause W is after B and C in the alphabet. I also said about draws, if two teams are level on points and goal for and goal against it would go to the head to head so If Wales and Israel draw 0-0 in Cardiff and 1-1 in Jerusalem then Wales should be above wales cause of the away goal, this is why I say give the goal less draw to the home team cause the lack of an away goal, the only problem that arises if two team have the same result but that is rare. Also not having joint position is being false cause it is saying one win with the same goal for and goal against is worth more Japhes5005 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever about using overall away-goals for in-progress standings, it does not make sense to use head-to-head away goals when only one of the two legs has been played. Unless an external source is using this criterion, Wikipedia should not do so as it amounts to a WP:OR interpretation of the away goals rule. jnestorius(talk) 08:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again you talk about "own interpretation" just as you did at Template talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I. I will explain again. In my opinion 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). We can not on our own decide what tiebreaker to use i.e. goaldifferential and say it is better, we follow the rules. 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) but we would still have to find consensus for not using the official tiebreakers then. <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no official tie-breaker now. There is no need to break ties before the last matchday. Any order is correct. -Koppapa (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be entirely pointless to break ties right now, because ties don't need to be broken before the end of the competition. So neither should we break them ourselves. Tvx1 10:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Attendance
Attendance section doesn't make sense. There are no references and the numbers can't be correct. For example, in Group I the max attendance is 23,205 and min 0. The avg attendance is 21,673 and there are 8 games played in this group according to the page. Even if 7 games had the max attendance (7 x 23,205) and only one the minimum (0) the avg attendance could NOT be higher than 20,304. In the past (with fewer games played) this would be even a lower number so it was not possible for these number to ever been correct.

Considering there are no references for the source of the data and it is proven that it is wrong since there is no mathematical way for it to be correct it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.231.111 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Colours in tables
In the qualifying league tables, the background colour for the teams which advance to the finals is very similar to the background colour for the teams which advance to the play-offs, and they're quite hard to tell apart. Is it possible to replace one of them with a colour which is more distinct, eg. #CCCCFF Thanks Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense change of looks of standings in groups
Please tell me what kind of joke is that? Why do we need to have the "Advance to final tournament" writen on every place on standings when you can see by the colour which places goes and which not and even on the legend of colours above the group? First it riuns a look of the standing table by position 3 is wider then the others and most of all it completly ruins games table on the right which is the most interesting part on wikipedia! Now you can see the flags only above that who-to-who table and not on the left which makes it just unuseable. We had great tables on wikipedia for 10 yers and now someone decided to add something which is completly nonsense, doesn't mean a thing and it ruins the table and you just keep it here? Please see the tables before this unnecessary change and now... This new table looks like a joke. Please consider to make it as before or just give me one reason why it should have be writen "Advance to final tournament" on every position of every group when we know who will advance from the colours of the position and also from the legend above? Every EURO and WC Qualifications so far doesn't had this and now someoone "smart" finds to put it? Please answer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.46.7 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have spent on this subject 2 months and the answer is - there are 3 very strange people who decide about everything because of which they have made totally stupid and confusing boxes with many unnecessary information. So don't ask, just ignore because you will never win with them. TigerTatoo 22:22, 28 March 2015

I just can't believe this mate... Those 3 people should be found guilty for a crime against common sense. I can't understand what are they trying to achieve and also how they don't see that thing that they did is beyond any reason... It is hard to ignore because I always used to go to wikipedia to see the tables after a round of qualifications but now tables looks like crap and it's really bothers me... I would like to start some kind of petition to return to us old looks and if they don't want to- then at least to fix the who-to-who match table on the right of the standings 'cause that was the best part. Thank you for answer mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.46.7 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have written many times that these boxes are totally stupid especially that POLAND DIDN'T ADVANCE! There is the same problem everywhere. They wrote that there was a voting (probably like in Russia or other countries like this) and they decided that new system should be implemented. I disagree because the old system was PERFECT and now everything is like crap. So I will be the first person who would sign the petition. TigerTatoo 23:35, 28 March 2015

In the interest of all our readership, I think this issue should be raised at WT:Footy. My main concern is that in a few matches time this system will not allow us to distinguish between teams who have secured qualification, teams wo haven't yet but are still able to do so and teams who failed to qualify. Secondly coloring teams to indicate they have made an achievement, while in reality they haven't is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. Tvx1 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any real discussion should take place on WT:Footy. Please note that the old format was in violation of the Manual of Style and that there were differences in the meaning of tables between leagues and groups. If you have any suggestions about changes to the unified format feel free to bring it to start a thread at WT:Footy, but come with more constructive criticism than the "new format sucks", present actual ideas that are in line with the Manual of Style. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 14:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, you mean WP:Footy. Second, let them know there's a discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it possible that the old format violated anything since it was in use 5-10 years? The first question should be: why someone has changed something which was very good into something confusing? TigerTatoo 18:03, 30 March 2015
 * Just because something existed for a long period of time does not mean that was compliant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the word qualification on top of that column that bugs people the most i think. Also unless a team already advanced or is eliminated you don't see the legend A,E and might think this isn't implemented at all. But what to name that column instead, at end of group stage, eventual qualification, placement will qualify to, on course to. Something better? Other ideas? -Koppapa (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The module allows for a lot of different customization options, and finetuning is probably needed. Most criticism outright rejects any change whatsoever, rather than pinpointing specific improvements that can be made. None of the criticism seems to even acknowledge the previous confusion that arose from the format differences between league and group tables even when that is brought up in a discussion. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 18:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all I hear the first time of something called "Manual of Style". And if this what we have now is compliant with that Manual of Style and that normal table before wasn't then the Manual of Style should be changed also... You give us here some reasons that it was confusing who will go to Championship and who will not while qualifying are still on the way but that is just not true. Remember that before there was a yellow collor for teams that might qualify and red for those who already could not qualify. And even if so, I don't see now any improvements in that directon as now only that is changed is that a colour from the legend above is unnecessarly explained after every column of the table. And game table on the right is completly ruined, can't you just see that?

Attendances
Where do you get the attendances from? O l J a 19:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Serbia and Armenia eliminated?
Why are Serbia and Armenia shown as eliminated in the image? As far as I can tell, either of them could in theory finish ahead of Albania, since they have 9 points left to play for. Armenia could also finish ahead of Denmark, since unlike Serbia the head to head isn't decided in favor of Denmark yet. Sakkura (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * i was looking at the map, then the groups, trying to figure out who the red countries were. after looking at a map with names to confirm, i again checked the groups and also cannot understand why these 2 teams are 'eliminated'!! there are actually teams in worse position (zero points) who are not 'eliminated' yet!! if i knew how to edit the map, i'd change it back. 82.43.64.177 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They should not be eliminated, I will take a look. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks Qed, i figured out how to change the map, and was trying to undo it, and it told me it had already been undone, you beat me to it!! thanks! 82.43.64.177 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am glad we could solve it. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Qualified teams and map
I just wanted to know why we have two shades of blue for qualified teams and teams that may qualify? Is it not better with two separate colors? Like for example Green=Qualified, Blue=Team may qualify, Red=Team can not qualify. What do you think? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another hypocrisy - Few months ago you said "there shouldn't be colors because people color blinded can't see them" (btw you should read more about it because only a few colors are not distinguished) and now you are talking about colors on the map. LOL. Maybe you should put X or E on the map too? Try it... You are like countries' governments - always do what you want not what people would like to have... User:TigerTatoo 10:56, 14 June 2015
 * All you do is to complain, instead try and listen. We should not ONLY use colors in table, but in these maps we have no choice. Please stay on topic and do some work for a change. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 10:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the tables, there needs to be letters to make things easier for people with visual difficulties as stated. For the map, there has to be colours as letters would be absurd. I am not sure what your point is here, TigerTatoo. A colour-blind person would not necessarily expect to be able to understand the map, but the tables are the core information/data and must be as accessible as possible. I also feel that the maps should have as few colours as possible: Qualified, Cannot qualify, Didn't enter, not a UEFA member... No need to indicate qualified via play offs or eliminated in play offs. Team either qualify or they don't, it doesn't matter what stage they reached, as far as a clear qualification table is concerned; the rest of the detail is in the tables.Bs1jac (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Russia goalscorers
There are just four Russian goals in total in "Goalscorers" while actually there are nine 85.202.254.2 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it is correct. Artyom Dzyuba has scored 2 goals and Aleksandr Kokorin and Dmitri Kombarov has one goal each. Then there are 2 own goals that Liechtenstein scored against Russia and finally in the 3-0 win against montenegro was awarded (no goalscorers). 2+1+1+2+3=9 so all nine goals are accounted for. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Albania should be ranked Second in group I
Albania should be ranked Second in group I. Albania has the same points with Denmark but it has Goal difference bigger then Denmark +5 The Offical ranking of Uefa http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/qualifiers/season=2016/standings/round=2000446/group=2002436/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albionper (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See abobve. It doesn't really matter. -Koppapa (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Denmark is ahead if we follow the rules (which we do) on better head-to-head away goals scored. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But UEFA itself doesn't see it that way, like the link indicates...--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 13:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * UEFA doesn't care. They only apply tie-breaker after group stage, the only point when it's really needed. -Koppapa (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * UEFA apply tie-breakers right now already of course, it's only that the tables are provisional and not official (we all know the wording in the rules :) ) and it really doesn't matter much who is second or third right now. But nonetheless I've noticed that UEFA apply the away-goals-rule only after both games are played, but that's highly unofficial ;).--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No they dont, during this qualification they have been very inconsistent using both goal differential and head-to-head as well as just sorting teams alphabetically. UEFA only lists properly after completion of the groups. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

X, Y, E scheme
What is the point of it? Why can't colors be sued instead? Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because three people decided that it is better than colors which is totally stupid, colors were the best. User:TigerTatoo 22:44, 4 September 2015
 * New format that has been developed at WP:FOOTY after long discussions and consensus. Mainly because old format to use colors for different meanings was against MOS:COLOR (some readers are colorblind so we should not use color only), so we now have color and text (in a new column) to explain what happens on that row. Statusletters was then added instead to explain the different scenarios. Also this is the way league tables has been done for a long time, so we now have consistency for all standings tables. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comparing league games with World Cup and Euro is like thinking that American Football is the same as European football... User:TigerTatoo 1:26, 5 September 2015
 * Interesting comparison, not even close to be the same. This is same sport so why not have same table format? Both are tables, and also this is not main reason for the module. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

X at least is completely retarded IMO. Having it as "q" would make more sense since they have qualified at least for the playoff and is similar to what athletics seem to use. Nergaal (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Either 'P' or 'q' would work well. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We could/can not make statusletters for every possible scenarios as this module can be used everywhere. For that reason the standard letters from old league tables and some more are used (P=Promoted, Q=Qualified to phase indicated, R=Relegated and so on). Since more scenarios was requested the extra letters X, Y and Z was added and they were made so that text had to be defined. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But what is wrong with using "q" instead of X here? Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria is not yet eliminated (until the Croatian appeal is heard)
In Group H Bulgaria is being listed as eliminated from the qualification with 8 points. However Croatia (3rd placed with originally 15 point) are deducted 1 point following charges for racist behaviour in the match against Italy at Stadion Poljud. On 17 September 2015 a hearing is arranged as the Croatian Football Federation (HNS) appealed against the decision. If the appeal is rejected their tally will be 14 points. With two matches remaining and if Croatia gets 1 point deducted then Bulgaria with 2 wins and Croatia loses its 2 matches then theoritically Bulgaria can be 3-rd placed and will tie with Croatia at that matter (the goal difference will be decisive). I suggest that we should remove Bulgaria from the eliminated list until after the Croatian hearing. Ivaneurope (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

on the subject of elimanation
If a team is already eliminated because they do not have enough points, is it okay to highlight the team in red? Please reply. I have already done so, but if this is not to be done at this stage, just undo my edit. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not how the module works so they should not be highlighted in red. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So when should the eliminated teams be highlighted in red?JerrySa1 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Never, we use statusletter (E) for elimiated teams. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

They did it earlier on the page for the graph, so why not the group tables?JerrySa1 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, that is not how the tables work. They should not be a crayonbox. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. JerrySa1 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Case: team cannot qualify directly; can still qualify for playoffs
Is there something we can use to indicate a scenario where a team cannot qualify directly, nor is it possible for them to finish as the best third-placed team, but they can still qualify for the playoffs? I was considering using a letter that has not been used yet to indicate this case, such as (Z) or (P), but I would like some confirmation first. As of this post, this is considering the cases with Netherlands, Cyprus, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and any others I may have missed. Jd02022092 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think all those you mention may still qualify directly. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't check whether this applies at the moment. When it would, I would say (Z) is the appropriate letter to use. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 14:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done my own research and found this case to be true for the 4 teams I mentioned above. Assuming a head-to-head tiebreaker cannot be applied to the 3rd-placed teams, I have found no other cases where this is true.


 * For example, Netherlands and Bulgaria can currently finish with at best 10 points without results against 6th-placed teams (in Bulgaria's case, this can only happen if Malta finishes 6th). Also Cyprus and Lithuania can finish with at best 9 points under the same condition. These finishes would not be able to better Albania, in Group I.


 * I will wait for others to conclude their research. If the same findings are true, then I will make the changes. Jd02022092 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Status Y really is enough. It's basically the same thing. Let's not overcomplicate things. In my view it's too much statuses already. You'd never see those in any newspaper. What's next? Cannot finish third but still plays teams going for it? That'd mean they have group deciding matches ahead. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Determining who can get best 3rd goes a little too much into OR for me. working out that [example] bosnia can 't pass Belgium is obvious [they are 6 behind and there's only 6 left] working out that they can't be best third involves checking all other 8 groups to see if one must beet 17 in all possible permutations of results over two game days.  90.202.194.48 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Best third placed rankings
That table is utterly nonsense at the moment. It includes i.e. Albania. Indicating that Albania could still finish best third. But whatever happens until all qualifiying matches are finally played, there is no way that Albania will end up as best third. Nor will any other team from that group do so. As Denmark have 12 points and no more game, the third from that group will have 11 or 12 points. While Romania or Hungary, whoever finished third in group F, will have at least 13 points.


 * The table is not designed to show who can be best third, it is designed to show the ranking of teams who are third. There is no implication that a team can be best third in the same way that there is no implication that the team will finish 3rd when it's all done [eg Albania can still finish 2nd] 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Update 9th Oct After 8th Oct matches
Hope this all makes sense and isn't too Original Research for folk: following last night's results, teams who cannot finish 3rd and get 13 points from the top 5 cannot be the best 3rd placed team. This applies to quite a few teams, and makes the wording of various groups a little incorrect. So I've made the following changes: The old category 'Y' - cannot be in top 2 but can still qualify directly in 3rd or via play-offs - now only applies to one team (Turkey) so this seemed to make sense! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a new status and category for teams who cannot qualify directly (they cannot finish 1st or 2nd, or finish 3rd with at least 13 points from the top 5 teams) but can reach the play-offs
 * Simplified the wording for other groups to simply state that they can qualify directly OR via play-offs. This is because several teams (as of the time of writing - Bosnia, Cyprus, Slovenia, Estonia, Sweden, Blugaria, Albania and Denmark) may still finish in the top 2 and qualify directly but, if they finish 3rd, cannot be the best 3rd placed team.


 * BTW if anyone's interested, the two currently most likely scenarios that I see for best the 3rd place team (then I will get back to work ;) ) are:
 * Group C - Spain defeat Luxembourg to qualify; Slovakia get 1 win from their final two to qualify; Ukraine defeat Belarus. Ukraine would then qualify with a home win against an already-qualified Spain to be on 16pts from top 5
 * Group F - Hungary and Romania win their final matches, leaving Hungary on 15pts from top 5
 * Of course, though, there remains a myriad of other potential outcomes ! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good that this is over in a week anyway. :-) Next thing is having 54 different colors and keys and have the legend say Gibraltar is eliminated, Georgia may finish 4th to 5th and so on... -Koppapa (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The changes sound very reasonable, I am currently doing the math myself and will let you know if I find something. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to go into a bunch of OR and separate the 3rd place notes into two different ones when they are only going to be on any one table for 2-3 days. It involves the same type of things that next day scenarios did - and they got outlawed. 94.5.24.62 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The main aim was to avoid having a load of annotations that were incorrect... tbh this page is covered in OR, more so than I'd chose to have. But if it has to be here then it might as well be accurate? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding a category was a good idea, but the choice of colors was bad. The yellows are difficult to distinguish, even for the visually unimpaired. Let alone for (partially) colorblind people. Tvx1 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I corrected the colors, so now they are the same as the colors used in Module:Sports table (used in the standings). Those colors are also the colors to use according to latest WT:FOOTY consensus. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm guessing this is the consensus you are referring to. That's good, but it doesn't provide for more than five colors to be needed and it was the sixth color I was complaining about. Tvx1 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * after that an extra bronze color was added which can be seen in MOS. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , is this what you are referring to? Tvx1 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to Super Nintendo Chalmers - How about the third place note being "cannot make top 2, but can still finish 3rd" then. That covers both 3rd place notes, doesn't imply that someone can be best 3rd if they can't, and saves a lot of complicated calculations into who wins teibreakers over who between groups in different situations.  {don't forget that if 6th place changes, the points someone has in the 3rd place table can change)  94.5.24.62 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , now there are seven colors, and this project's manual of style only provides six of them. Tvx1 22:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just saw that and I am not enjoying that to much. Wikipeedia is not a crayonbox and different guidelines say it should not be. Seven colors is a bit to much, but it will be over in a few days. If possible I would like fewer colors to be used. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There really shouldn't be a distinction for teams who can qualify directly but not/only as best third-placed team. Directly is directly, now matter how it is. Tvx1 23:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, both blue are not needed. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And neither should the yellow group be there. Turkey can still qualify directly, so they can easily fit in the white group. Tvx1 01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sensible would be just 1) has qualified (green), 2) secured play-offs or better (blue), 3) able to qualify (any way/no color), 4) eliminated (red). -Koppapa (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would support this. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support the suggestion from Koppapa also. That is also same colors as in the standings tables. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I implement that, save that I left one extra color for those that can only qualify via play-offs. That is a minimum distinction that is useful to maintain. Tvx1 14:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Croatia's deducted point
Is there any info as to whether Croatia's deducted point applies also to (1) their head-to-head record vs Italy, and (2) their points score for the purposes of third-placed teams ranking? Ivan Volodin (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It will not apply to the head-to-head record but it applies to the third-placed ranking. It was discussed a bit at Template talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The citation on which a decision was finally based was . --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A mistake in the templates
I think there is a mistake somewhere in the templates that calculate the tables. In one table Russia is mentioned as a team that “can still qualify directly as one of the top two teams in the group or as the best ranked third-placed team”. However, my calculations don't show it is true. The Russian team could indeed beat the Hungarian team's result of playing with the first five teams in their respective groups if it wins in its last game versus Montenegro, and only in that case (because the Hungarian team's result cannot become lesser, as Greece cannot overcome Faroe Islands in their group F), but if it does, then in the final table it ascends to the second place in its group G and qualifies as such. So, even in that case it cannot qualify as “the best ranked third-placed team”. I think that the calculations on this page somehow do not address this consideration. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to consider the possibility of Hungary passing Romania in group F. Then with Romania in third-placed ranking Russia can be the highest ranked team as Romania may only get 13 points in third-placed ranking. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you're right. Sorry for this false alarm. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, it is a lot of numbers and mistakes are very easy. It is good that you went here to make it clear, you could have been right. Feel free to open more discussions if you find something you are not sure about or think is wrong. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Current third place possibilities
Hi, since there is a lot of editing back and forth I will here have a table for all possible third-placed teams. It will be updated after every day, and we can have a subsection for discussion for each day if something is not clear.

Please note that all points is excluding matches against sixth-placed teams as they should not be included in third-placed ranking.

Current table

 * Cool table! I was going through this and couldn't figure one thing out for Group C. The case Slovakia 3rd & Luxembourg 6th: the teams play each other tomorrow. For Slovakia to become third, they need to perform worse than Ukraine, so they cannot win. For Luxembourg to become last in the group, Macedonia needs to outperform them, so Luxembourg cannot win. So basically, the game must be a draw (plus Macedonia beats Belarus and Ukraine beats Spain). In this case, Slovakia will have 20 points, dropping the 4 they gained against Luxembourg... thus ending on 16? How did you come to the 14 minimum? Pelotas  talk undefined contribs  10:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I thought it could be useful. About the situation explained above, you are completely right. It was the last group I counted, and I probably had to many numbers in my head that I counted with Macedonia 6th and deducted 6 points from 20 (after the draw), at least that is how my calculations look at paper. Thanks for spotting it, I have now corrected minimum to 16 as the draw is, as you say, the only possibility and it serves as both maximum and minimum. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

After matches on 9 October
What we can see after 9 October is that group C and group F can at the lowest have teams with 13 points in the ranking of third-placed teams. For that reason, those teams that can not reach 13 points (max is 12 or less) can not be the highest ranked third-placed team.


 * Groups that can not reach 13 points (marked with G in Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place)):
 * Group E
 * Group I
 * Teams that can not reach 13 points (marked with Z if can not finish top 2, then it is still X):
 * Netherlands
 * Bosnia & Herzegovina
 * Cyprus
 * Slovenia
 * Estonia
 * Sweden
 * Bulgaria
 * Denmark
 * Albania

If anything is unclear feel free to ask. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the P note and only keep G for Slovenia and Albania? I know they still can finish lower/higher than 3rd. But neither Estonia nor Denmark can be the best 3rd-placed team if they finish there, that we have already defined as G. Centaur271188 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We could, but we often have both C (champion) and Q (qualified) in league tables, when champions automatically qualifies. I think the can stay, the will all be redundant and removed in a few days anyway. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 13:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I would actually suggest including a table like this one into the article itself. This may be done in the Collapsed mode, with teams that have lost chance to finish best third highlighted in red. Otherwise, as has been noted elsewhere, the current table in the article gives the reader little idea of the actual situation. Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is to much WP:OR to include in article. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Unless you have source, we can't include it.Tvx1 17:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, that's the same old story about "next matchday scenarios" etc. For that matter, the current "third-placed teams ranking" is as much OR, because (1) that table, in that form (in particular notes "G" and "P"), doesn't exist on the official UEFA site (and may be subject to controversy, as shown by the Croatia situation), and (2) its usefulness is very limited. I don't want to start any dispute, though. Ivan Volodin (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the irony. I can't put "Turkey will qualify if they win, Kazakhstan win, and Slovakia lose", but THESE are allowed. Talk about double standards.  I guess rules only apply to certain people (uusually IPs - registered users can get away with anything)  2.220.109.19 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my eyes a best third table should only be put in the article after all matches. On the last matchday there are still 20 possible combinations of 3rd/6th place possible. It isn't really useful. And now look 4 matchdays back. The table then was completely pointless, any team could possible finish third place still. -Koppapa (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you. The table isn't really helpful until after the group stage, when Uefa will produce one themselves. Tvx1 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

After matches on 10 October
No major difference since yesterday. 13 points is still the limit.


 * Groups that can not reach 13 points (marked with G in Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place)):
 * Group B
 * Group E
 * Group I
 * Teams that can not reach 13 points (marked with Z if can not finish top 2, then it is still X):
 * Netherlands
 * Bosnia & Herzegovina
 * Israel
 * Cyprus
 * Slovenia
 * Estonia
 * Sweden
 * Denmark
 * Albania

As usuall, if anything unclear please continue this discussion. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Moldova is 6th in Group G. Even if they will win against Sweden on Oct 12 - they have an inferior head-to-head record against Liechtenstein.49.177.33.147 (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, you are completely right. A typo when writing the table, it does not change the numbers. Thank you. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

After matches on 11 October
Hungary is third with 15 points, so all teams and groups that can not reach 15 points can not be highest ranked. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please change the table of already qualified teams from "Albania as last qualified team" to "Add new record to cover Slovakia as qualified team today".
 * Because of Hungary's loss to Greece. Hungary now can't beat Slovakia in table of 3rd ranked countries.
 * Does Slovakia qualified already? When Slovakia finishes as 3rd in a group - it will be best 3rd team to qualify directly. Can anyone confirm? In table of 3rd ranked teams, Slovakia will have 16 points, what is best possible result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.67.168 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Read table above, Slovakia may only have 13 points and they have not qualified. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed and on top of that even if they get third with 16 pts then still Turkey might beat them on goal difference. Great table :) Pelotas  talk undefined contribs  20:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted a "real" table
I have posted a table with the actual chances of the various teams to finish the best third. Please feel free to revert if it looks awkward, but the accompanying text, in my opinion, fully merits remaining in the article. Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know very well thoise tables should not exist on the article. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know very well that you should support such statements with reasons. Please point to one element in "my" table (which is actually your table above, slightly modified) that would be OR any more than the current table. Ivan Volodin (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole table is OR, it is future and what could happen and it should not exist on the article. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion many times, of course. I understand that you believe clear information on quite definite options of what may happen in the future (compare: "Republicans need to gain X more seats to achieve overall majority in the Senate"; "Elizabeth II has X days remaining to become the longest-serving monarch") is less appropriate than useless facts (until several hours ago Slovakia retained the chance to become the best third team, but it looks like that they have never - literally, never - featured in the table during the whole tournament). Look at this utterly nonsensical example: 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round. Let's organise a thorough, calm discussion on this practice after the current European qualification ends. Ivan Volodin (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And may I add that colouring the best of the current third teams green with the remark "Qualification for the final tournament" from the very start of the competition is as much an element of future. Only this future is a lot more uncertain that concrete scenarios. This is simply misleading. Ivan Volodin (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

After matches on 12 October
Ukraine did not take their chance to be best third placed team, now it is either Turkey or Hungary. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

After matches on 13 October
Turkey is qualified as best third-placed team, even if many did not do their math and put them as out the last couple of days. Congratulations to Turkey and all the other qualified teams. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015
198.0.153.179 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel's Goals Allowed and Goal Differential Are Wrong
Israel has allowed 11 goals (this can be obtained by adding the scores of Israel's 9 games up), but both the Euro 2016 Qualifying main page and the Group B page say Israel has allowed 12 goals. EvanJ35 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015
In the ranking of third placed teams Slovakia is shown from Group C, even though Ukraine is the third team in the group.

5.83.96.238 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been fixed - I think there's just some delay in updating all the tables (it has been only 45 minutes since all games ended) 2.220.109.19 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some minor delays when a lot of editors edit. I will go through everything. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary
Turkey National Football Team can only qualify via play-offs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.31.252 (talk • contribs)
 * No, they can still be highest ranked third-placed team. See above. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this Wales debut?
According to this article (and many commentators on tv/radio) this is Wales' first time to qualify for the Euro's; but according to the article UEFA Euro 1976 qualifying Wales qualified and got to the quater finals in 1976. Which is correct? AlwynapHuw (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They were not in the main tournament, at that time only the winners of quarter-finals were considered to be in main tournament. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated.AlwynapHuw (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely the selection for 3rd place automatic qualification is flawed?
Criteria for automatic qualification as 3rd place finish (Euro 2016)

From what I understand, the best 3rd place team qualifies for Euro 2016 automatically. The criteria states the result against the 6th place team is discarded, but surely this creates the potential for deeply flawed group matches on the final day.

Suppose the 3rd place table looks Like this:

Team A - 15 Pts GD+15

Team B - 14 Pts, GD+20

Team C - 10 Pts (goes to play-off)

Now suppose Team A loses their final game, confirming their 15 points in the 3rd place table.

Also suppose Team B dropped points early on in the group stage against the current 5th placed team in the group.

Team B has a final game against the current bottom team of their group, knowing that they cannot gain any points to qualify automatically in 3rd place, but also suppose the bottom team of the group would be elevated to 5th place IF they drew the game. This would mean team B would gain a BETTER result from drawing the game against the bottom team (I.E gaining a point and topping the 3rd place qualification table) then they would from winning the game and confining the bottom placed team and gaining no extra points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.102.92 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a situation like this could occur. -Koppapa (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Koppapa says, this could happen if teams do their math, but it will not happen during this qualification as the 5th and 6th team meet in group A and Slovakia (that could get higher points by drawing Luxembourg) still want to win because then they secure top2. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tiebreaker criterium 5
The way tie breaker 5 is currently presented in the articles causes some confusion, as multiple users have reported struggling to understand how it works. A friendly IP attempted to clarify that criterium in the article over the last few days but was reverted and outright bullied into ceasing their editing. A discussion was than initiated on one of the reverting editors' talk pages, but they simply refuse to accept that other readers might have difficulties understanding that criterium. The suggestion is to clarify the wording by either adding some words or by adding a (foot)note. I really can't see what the fundamental objection against that is. Tvx1 14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Tvx1 and the anonymous user who tried to improve the page. Frankly, Qed237 is doing an incredible job by maintaining these pages, but he shouldn't treat them as if it was his own website. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have tried to explain to someone that does not seem interested on listening, it is the official rules and nothing that should be changed by us. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That point of view is fully understood by everyone, but this doesn't mean that people must agree with you. You've been told several times that the idea is not to change the rules but to clarify them for readers' benefit. You really have not answered to this suggestion in any satisfactory way. (And, by the way, do the rules provide for all these "G", "P" and stuff?). Seriously, I have now read you talk page, and it is astonishing that after receiving constant complaints regarding your attitudes you are not changing them. (P.S. Just in case - the anonymous IP was not me). Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, nobody is suggesting to change the actual rules. The only suggestion is to add some sort of clarification to it. The official rule itself wo not be changed itself. Even so, no policy whatsoever on wikipedia forces us to copy the official sources word for word. Tvx1 21:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I know I am not the only one on "my side" but I have tried to find a solution to prove my "good will". What if we add a note below the tiebreakers like:

''Clarification: In criteria 5, criteria 1 to 4 will be reapplied for the remaining tied teams if at least one of the initially tied teams has been separated from the others. For example, if criteria 1 to 4 has been used between three teams and two of the teams are still tied, then the criterias will be reapplied between those two teams that are still tied.''

I just threw this together quickly so there is probably some better wording, but somethin like that could exist BELOW the rules, because I dont think we should modify them. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Something like that would help a lot. Just one question, though. Is this a sourced explanation of what the rule means or is it what you think it means? Tvx1 22:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Perfect, I was just about to suggest making a footnote on that. Re whether this is a sourced interpretation, I appreciate the irony and hope Qed237 will take note of it )) . On the one hand, this looks to me as the only plausible interpretation. On the other hand, this very fact speaks against having a clarification at all. Anyway, I believe that since questions have been raised as to the clarity of the official wording, a clarification wouldn't do any harm and would only help readers. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this hepls, but the French text of the Regulations says: si, après l’application des critères a) à d), plusieurs équipes sont toujours à égalité, les critères a) à d) sont à nouveau appliqués exclusivement aux matches entre les équipes concernées afin de déterminer leur classement final. Which means, "if... several teams are still equal...". This shows that we speak not of the very same combination of teams, but only of those who remain equal after the criteria have been applied for the first time. Probably it would make sense just to add the word "several" and thus avoid a complicated footnote. Just a suggestion. Ivan Volodin (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is actually the wording use for previous qualifacation tournament articles. Tvx1 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For those who, like me, have been thinking half weak what exactly is “very clear”: imagine that three teams, as we consider the entire tournament in the group, have scored the same number of points. Then, first, we reduce the entire group to those three teams and consider only that inner tournament that results: that is, only the matches among these three teams. Consideration of that tournament is supposed to issue all positions from the 1st one to 3rd one to all the teams. However, if two teams of those three teams still can't determine which team is the best of these two (say, one team of all three is better than the other two, but the other two are equal per this system), then another micro-tournament is composed, whcih in fact only includes matches among these two teams that were equal on the previous stage of consideration that gave the result of putting one team in the first place among the three places. Apparently, this process of consideration might be repeated again, for another stage (say, four teams with the same number of points in the entire tournament -> three teams equal in the inner tournament of the four teams -> two teams equal in the other inner tournament of the three teams -> one team better than the other per their two matches versus each other), but that's not written explicitly in the specification by UEFA: they mention only one repetition, they don't explicitly say that we can repeat the process for a third time after a failure on the second stage. Anyway, the point is that every stage resolves the question of positioning the teams for some teams of all that need to be considered as not yet positioned, but may not resolve it for some other teams, so the repetition of the process for those other teams has other data as its input and does not create an “infinite loop”, as it might seem at first. Lenghty, right? But, I hope, this explanation is easy to follow and understand. You might think of some shorter wordings then… - Evgeniy E. (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An option for a footnote: “Every stage of applying the criteria a — d operates on those teams that are considered not yet positioned. After a completion of one such stage, some teams of those having been operated on may acquire a position, but other teams may still lack it; in this case, another stage is necessary, which operates on a lesser number of teams, considered not positioned before application of this other stage”. I think it'd be best if someone corrected this formulation for correct English and put it into a footnote for the fifth criterium. Just putting the word “several” or any other word of that shortness and generality (“separated”, “are still tied”) is not enough, because we need to explain a concept, not just show a different wording. The concept is the one of the “teams not yet positioned” before application of a stage: this is the criterium of separation that may be reachable with difficulty by a reader's mind. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

3rd place ranking
Denmark status is qualified to the play-offs (Q) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.31.252 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah? So what?--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarity and concreteness of the module's statuses' wordings
The ad hoc status letters are explained very clearly and comprehensibly with the  functionality:
 * (X) Assured of at least third place and can still qualify directly, or via the play-offs
 * (Y) Can still qualify directly as best third-placed team, or via the play-offs
 * (Z) Can still qualify via the play-offs

However, the default status letters' definitions, which are produced by the module itself and cannot be changed, are not at all that concrete:
 * (Q) Qualified to the phase indicated
 * (A) Advances to a further round

Why "a further round" and not "the play-offs"? Why "the phase indicated" and not "the final tournament"?

I think that either we should have specified ad hoc status letters for these cases as well, or that the module should be enabled to allow specification of other wordings for letters like (A) and (Q), to be used instead of the default wordings in case the latter aren't good enough. --Theurgist (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Tvx1 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No edit should be made to module used on more than a thousand articles before a consensus for that module. These letters should fit many different tables and many does not have "final tournament" or "play-offs". For example in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (Q) is for qualified to 2018 FIFA World Cup, while (A) is qualification to next round, which does not have to be playoffs it can be team that goes from second round to third round. This module is not only used for this tournament. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they will not have to be used in that manner for another two years. The reality is that there is no other active tournament that uses these letters for different exact needs and there won't be any until this tournament has finished and the letters disappear from this article. Tvx1 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All league tables? UEFA Champions League? Youth tournament? Other sports? Very many current tables use these letters. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also UEFA is the only place where World CUp qualification has not started, all of the other confederations currently use the letters. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So AFC, CAF, OFC, CONCACAF, and Conmebol's qualification campains for the 2018 World Cup have already progressed so much that they already need the status letters A en Q ( and thus there teams that have already qualified for the world cup)??? Tvx1 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AFC have currently played 5 of 10 matches in second round, with match 6 to be played tomorrow, and still it is used on som many places these are just examples. You can not be so ignorant that you dont realise we can not just change the module used on over a thousand tables. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So let's dissect the examples you are citing.


 * 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification
 * AFC 4 (not 5) of 8 matches o current round played. No status letters will be needed before finish of this Uefa campaign. No letters in use.
 * CAF. Third round not even made up yet. No need for status letters in second round.
 * CONCACAF. No status letters. Current phase not started yet.
 * CONMEBOL. No status letters. Only one match played in current phase.
 * OFC. No status letters. No status letters. Current phase no started yet. Q letter not even needed at all here.
 * UEFA. No statusletters. Not started yet.


 * Current Uefa Champions League. No status letters. Only two matches played. None others to be played before end of Uefa campaign described in this article.


 * Current Uefa Europa League. No status letters. Only two matches played. None others to be played before end of Uefa campaign described in this article.


 * Current Uefa Youth League. No status letters. Only two matches played. None others to be played before end of Uefa campaign described in this article.


 * So clearly, none of the examples you have cited use status letters A and/or Q, nor will do so for quite some time.


 * Contrary to what you seem believe, I did think this through and did do my research before implementing the changes. Tvx1 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you need examples of tables that use Q and A now? How about
 * 1) 2015 League of Ireland Premier Division table
 * 2) 2015 Veikkausliiga table
 * 3) 2015 Damallsvenskan table
 * 4) 2016 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualification (several tables)
 * 5) 2016 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification (several tables)
 * 6) 2016 UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship qualification (several tables)
 * 7) and many more.....

Is this enough for you, or do you want more evidence that these letters are used on several tables simultaniously. You can not just change to what suits this article as it becomes wrong on others. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should do what proposes and look to modify the module so that we can use an other text than the default one in just the article concerned. Tvx1 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why we have customisable X, Y and Z when the standard letters needs to be complemented. Also Q and A are not wrong, the group stage is also called "first round" and the play-offs are the "second round" or "further round". And the teams that qualify, they gualify for the tournament and phase indicated in the qualification row. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Qed here - changes to templates/modules that operate across multiple articles need to be done with great thought. "It's just temporary" doesn't really cover it for me, and the wording makes enough sense. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, someone should really look at that AFC article. They are not using the color scheme prescribed by the project's consensus and the three yellows they use are all but indistinguishable. Tvx1 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks a bit weird since it is not sure what all places will result in, but I would say they use the color scheme of the consensus, at least as good as possible. The Asian Cup is a local tournament that has nothing to do with World Cup so they should be in yellow, with different strength for different phases. Then the blue is used because second place could mean world cup. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't seriously be calling that good use of color. The three yellows are utterly indistinguishable. You have always said that the color scheme is independent of any tournament and is to used for every league table. So practice what you preach. Tvx1 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Croatia listed as Advance to Playoffs Only
Croatia, like Ukraine and Hungary in their respective groups, should be listed as "Advance to Playoffs or Final Tournament" rather than just "Advance to Playoffs." If Spain beats Ukraine and Croatia wins they will be through as the best third place team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.138.179 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true, Crotia can not be best third-placed team as they will always be behind Hungary. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh true, they are playing Malta as their final game, the points will not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.138.179 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that is right, a lot of matches and results to keep track on. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But Croatia can Advance to final tournament by becoming Second in their group!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 09:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The 3rd place team in the group can not advance directly, not Croatia itself.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 09:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah - this is shown in the summary table and by the 'X' mark next to Croatia. In the group table for Group H, third place states 'Advance to play-offs' as this is all a third place team in that group can do! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Slovakia's record in past Euros
When Czechoslovakia split both national associations, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, took over the records of the old Czechoslovakian team. So technically Slovakia does not debut at Euro 2016, but participated as Czechoslovakia until 1992. In fact in 1976 when Czechoslovakia won the title, eight out of the eleven starters were Slovaks. So, pleasse, change this in the table at the beginning of the page. 188.194.246.8 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Czech Republic are considered to be the successor to the Czechoslovakia team, so Slovakia are indeed debutants. Number   5  7  21:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. Both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic are successors of Czechoslovakia, so the same goes for their national teams. The entry on Slovakia in the article is wrong and should show exactly the same record for Slovakia as it shows for the Czech Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Guest 194.72.164.66 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)194.72.164.66 (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Slovak players played for Czechoslovakia prior to 1992 and are part of their achievements. That should be noted. The territories that now form the Czech Republic and Slovakia were represented by Czechoslovakia. Tvx1 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fact: the dissolution of Czechoslovakia took effect on 1 January 1993. So no Slovakia in 1992. And the players before that were Czechoslovaks, not Czechs or Slovaks. The Replicator (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To the IP, I'm afraid it is correct. See the FIFA records for the Czech Republic (9 World Cup appearances, affiliated to FIFA since 1907) and Slovakia (1 WC, affiliated since 1994) respectively. Number   5  7  10:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does our article on the Czech Republic national football team not reflect this? There it says 1 World cup appearence, 6 EC appearances. --torstein (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Slovakia as well as Czech republic was part of Czechoslovakia so it is no DEBUT for this country, btw 8 players were slovaks in 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.197.212.213 (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm historian and I even remember those times (1992-94). There was an agreement that both Slovakia and Czech republic will be treated the same way regarding the succession of the former Czechoslovak national football team. You can check the UEFA web page to see that previous successes of Czechoslovakia are not tributed to any of these two successors. They are both treated equally. It became a quite common and widely spread mistake that only Czech republic national football team is the successor of the former Czechoslovak national football team. The main reasons for this mistake are, according to my opinion, these facts: 1st - in some other sports there were different situations (e. g. the Czech republic national ice hockey team was accepted as the only successor of the Czechoslovak national ice hockey team), 2nd - in other countries, namely in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, there were different situations, as in both these cases the new emerging football associations (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosna and Hercegovina, and later even Montenegro and Kosovo) seceded from the previous country's united main association, thus leaving the continuers of its role as the sole successors (today's Russia and Serbia), 3rd - Czech republic has the same national flag as Czechoslovakia had, thus confusing many people. Both Slovaks and Czechs were officially recognized, equal and state-building nations of Czechoslovakia and after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia they both became the successor countries. So, there was none seceding and none continuing country. As for the history of Czechoslovak national football team, Slovak players contributed more in cases of both biggest successes of the Czechoslovak football - in both the club teams level and the national teams level (the only club team victory of Czechoslovak team in an European competition occured in 1969 when the Slovak team Slovan Bratislava won the former Cup Winners Cup and the only national team triumph of Czechoslovakia, the title of the European Championships in 1976 was mostly reached by Slovak players, as 8 of 11 lineupers were Slovaks), however Czech players generally contributed more to the all-time performance of the Czechoslovak national football team - and not only because of the simple fact that there were twice as much Czechs than Slovaks in the country and so that there were more Czech football players than Slovak ones. The Czech football history and Czech football association were formed earlier than the Slovak ones, even earlier than the Czechoslovak ones.

The Replicator, you are wrong about the other statement: there were no officially recognized Czechoslovaks at all, for decades before the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. There was such a political concept forced a long time ago, however, it was abandoned then. There were officially recognized two state-building nations - Slovaks and Czechs in Czechoslovakia and most of it citizens belonged to one of those nations. There were even two officially recognized political and geographic parts of former Czechoslovakia: The Czech socialist republic and the Slovak socialist republic before 1990, then the words "socialist" were removed and Czechoslovakia was even became the federal republic of Slovak and Czech republics. So, the players of Czechoslovakia were Slovaks and Czechs for decades before 1993 and there were no Czechoslovaks. It is all meant as for the political, sociological, historical and geographical point of view. As for the football, I agree that all Czechoslovak players represented only one country before 1993 - Czechoslovakia. None of them represented Slovaks nor Slovak republic, neither Czechs nor Czech republic.

If anyone claims the Czech football national team is the sole successor of the former Czechoslovak football nation team, please refer to any quotation about any agreement between Czech football national team and Slovak football national team about it. I don't consider the FIFA web page statistics as the right claim, as the UEFA web page claims the opposite. And by the way, the UEFA Euro 2016 is the UEFA competition, not the FIFA one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N3V4D1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Footnote a
Why is "footnote a" in the tiebreaker section below group G? 86.180.106.134 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Someone added Template:Efn note in tiebreakers without adding a notelist below, which lead to the note being shown together with next set of notes (under group G table). This should be fixed now. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary
Delete this. Team assured of at least a play-off place, but can still qualify directly. Team can still qualify directly or via play-offs. No teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.122.117.125 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont worry everything is updated directly after matches, be patient. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey as the best third team
So Turkey have finished best among the third-placed teams. Immediately before their last match, they were ranked 8th in the third-place ranking, with 9 points, but somehow managed to finish with 16 points - apparently gaining 7 points in one game! What other demonstration do we need to show the inadequacy of the current practice with the third-placed teams ranking in the respective Wikipedia articles? Also worth mentioning is that Croatia, that stood 2nd in the third-place ranking two hours ago, never had a chance to finish best third, and actually finished second, rather than third, in their group. Ivan Volodin (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the 6th placed team has changed - Kazakhstan defeated Latvia. Since Latvia is now last Turkey's 2 draws with them do not count, but Kazakhstan's results with Turkey now count. This explains how they gained points. Ivaneurope (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I know that. I mean it shows the uselessness of a table from which a reader couldn't possibly understand that Turkey had such an opportunity. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, the third place tableis designed to show the teams who are third place - not the chances of being best 3rd. Things change after each match.  As you mentioned croatia jumped from 3rd to 2nd.  Should the group tablehave not been shown for fear of implying that they were destined to finish 3rd?(!) The Tables can only show what the CURRENT ranking is - not what future rankings might be. 2.220.109.19 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But the very reason why we have that table is because it matters who will become best third. Why do we need a table that just shows current third-placed teams, if it is irrelevant for the purposes of identifying chances of becoming best third? What is the added value of having such a table? Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the logic of Ivan Volodin we should not show group stage tables as they may change.....as said above, nothing wriong with showing a current table. If you dont like it, dont watch it. We even had statusletters to explain what team could and could not be best in third-placed ranking. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know very well that this is very different from group tables. Group tables may change in a predictable way: the reader sees all the competing teams, their results and, hence, chances. This is far from being the case with the current way of presenting the third-place ranking. As I have mentioned, the reader would have no clue that Turkey could gain as much as 7 points on one matchday, nor could the reader see from the table that Norway could finish third (or that Slovakia could be the one to finish best third). And even if s/he took the effort to figure out that Norway could do so, s/he would be in trouble trying to calculate how many points vs top 5 teams they would have. I don't think the offer "don't like - don't watch" is helpful from the point of view of our common effort to make Wikipedia better. Rather, let's think together how to make the third-place ranking more informative. What exactly is the problem with providing (of course, not from the very start of the tournament, but when reasonably feasible) a list of all teams that may finish third, indicating the maximum amount of points (vs top 5) that they may gain? It would not require significantly more math than to figure out that team X or Y has secured qualification, or has lost chances etc. Qed237, I'm sure that you will show that your good will is at the same high level as your immense contribution to maintaining order on these pages, and that you will answer these questions substantively rather than saying dismissively "nothing wrong with the current practice, and what you propose cannot be done". Ivan Volodin (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple, such a table would be WP:OR, there is nothing wrong with a current table. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you have basically said what I explicitly asked you not to. Thank you very much. Ivan Volodin (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really think this is the way to discuss things on Wikipedia talk pages? Ivan Volodin (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think any discussion on the talkpage of this article can lead to any general consensus over all football articles and I can not see anyone as interested as you in adding scenarios to articles. I dont think you trying to argue with those that wants to give their point of view is the way to discuss. Everyone should be able to give their view and your responses with same words all the time just makes discussion to long for others to read. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Ivan actually raises very good point on the usefulness of the third-placed teams' ranking. I actually isn't very much. Moreover, it is just as much entirely original research as Ivan's alternatives. There is literally no source supporting it. So we really shouldn't have it. The alternatives are no good either. We don't write about future. An encyclopedia article is not where we have to provide a place were readers can find out what happens on an upcoming match day. Tvx1 23:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a distinguishing feature of the third-place table is that it still makes sense after the qualifiers are completed and made history. That is, it is merely a snapshot of the table that appears in the “final” section of this very article. Also, it is a result of arithmetical calculations, i.e. of something that nearly everyone is an expert in and can be considered a “reliable source” for. It's not a kind of a problem like "probably 3*8=24 (substitute anything else here), but let's consult an expert for a more well-thought & authoritative confirmation"… That 3*8=24 is, instead, no kind of guess, belief, or opinion, it is not a product or an intermediate material of research. The only problem is not whether doing such arithmetics is original research (it is not: it may be original, but it is not research), but whether it is useful for the encyclopedic goals. That is, whether this kind of information (either current or final, or both) is encyclopedically significant in some way. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - it's notable that UEFA and others don't produce current 3rd place tables. Really, as Tvx1 states, we shouldn't include them. On the other hand, we might consider them useful and beneficial to Wikipedia - I think that this is a case for ignoring all rules and including them, particularly because if we were to prohibit them, editors would come and add them. However, I think that they are fine as they are - they show the current standing, it's not Wikipedia's job to show or speculate all future outcomes. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we cannot consider something "useless" (like the 3rd-placed teams table) just because it lacks some information. It is really a good thing that we made that table, and if it lacks something, we should supplement it. Personally, I also like the "next matchday scenarios" notes, which seem extinct. They are pretty handy, especially in such a complicated case like this. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My problem with the table is not so much about the lack of projection of possible future results (that would be scenarios, and okay, I take it the majority is against them). My problem is the misleading nature of a table that doesn't allow the reader to make a proper projection themselves (unlike with normal group tables), for the reasons outlined above and shared by some other users (and not at all addressed by Qed237, the main defender of the current practice). However, I propose not to delete the table, but to supplement it (in a separate table, or in one larger table, possibly in Collapsed mode) with data for those teams that are not currently 3rd, but can finish 3rd in their group. Of course, this should be done only when just a few matchdays remain - otherwise it would be too big and unreadable. (In other words: I don't insist on having a table that would show that Slovakia could finish 3rd with 16 pts, but I believe a table showing Slovakia as being able to finish 3rd and having scored 13 pts vs top 5 teams with 1 game remaining, would be useful). Re whether agreement found here would be consensus for other pages - of course it wouldn't, but it would be a good reason to propose a consensus at WP:FOOTY or elsewhere. That a question has wider repercussions is precisely a reason to discuss it, not to block discussion. Ivan Volodin (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh great, now you said that. So please do not say something destructive like "useless" :) Centaur271188 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I shouldn't have said "useless". If I am the arrogant participant here, just tell me, it's certainly not my intention. Yet the table is of little use, and I am glad you share the view that it may be improved/supplemented, if I understand you correctly. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe I am a little bit too sensitive. Anyway, I think we cannot be too worried about WP:OR. If we abide by it strictly, then not only "next matchday scenarios" notes, a 3rd-placed teams table, but also the Q A X Y Z E indications should not exist. FIFA/UEFA/etc. official tables have no such thing at all. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the definition of what original research is does not concern the text (whether such text, that is the tables or the indications, is present in the sources), it concerns the facts (whether the facts are confirmed by authoritative sources). What are the facts? 1) Results of the matches; 2) rules of assigning positions to teams; 3) rules of progressing to the next stages. Mere calculations are not “facts” that need confirmation; so, we can display the facts in any way that is comfortable for a reader, using arithmetics for shaping the representation of these facts if necessary. Calculations may be even somewhat difficult, but once they are done, they are completely obvious, one does not need to be a scientist for that. In short, they are not “likely to be challenged” by editors as presumably not true, as the text of this policy goes. So, in the end I agree that "we cannot be worried too much about WP:OR", though for a different reason. One could only challenge these improvements on the basis of their notability. Is it notable that such-and-such team ascended to the 3-rd place, but had too few points in their group and had to play the play-offs, for example? Well, I think it is a borderline question, because notability of such facts is mostly potential (some facts of this kind will of course be mentioned in sport newspapers, but not all of these facts), but I also think it makes sense to use a little table that combines all these facts together. After all, what matters is the state of this article after a year, not right now: whether it is going to conform then to all the guidelines. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current way really confuses anyone. Let's say I see a table, it's captioned "current 3rd-place teams". Certainly I don't think those Wikipedians to be oracles? And I do understand that the results in such tables change in a most impredictable manner, because they depend on who is in the third place and who is in the sixth place, and that changes during the event. I can of course make a mistake when calculating chances (as I have done once), but there is no reason I should blame Wikipedia for such mistake of mine, because I interpret correctly what it gives me: I take that to be the table of teams that are currently 3-rd place-ranked. Detailed analysis of possible outcomes is probably too much, though I don't have a specific reason to say so. Just adding into the table teams that can finish 3rd but are not currently 3rd makes no sense, because the 6th place is another important factor, 6th-placed teams also change. Anyway, the future qualification will use a different format, so the question you raised (the tables don't give food for predictions) is already in the past, it is meaningless to discuss it now, I think. Now, these tables are already only valuable as food for knowing history. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

UEFA.com's European Qualifiers All-Star XI

 * Please add Qual. All-Star XI from here: 109.108.251.119 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have to add this? It seems a bit of UEFA website trivia. I don't see much evidence that it has attracted interest beyond that page --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. See   Listed in the previous tournaments: UEFA Euro 2012, 2014 FIFA World Cup, 2014–15 UEFA Champions League, 2014–15 UEFA Europa League etc. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The examples provided from other articles are all main tournament after which these "teams" gets much published in different newspapers, this is just a qualification and to me I am not so sure it is notable. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done for now. Feel free to continue the discussion on this if you want it added. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a Wrap! (Thanks and Archiving)
Well done everyone, qualifying over and the page has been well maintained. I was thinking of archiving the now quite-long talk page in about a week's time, covering everything before this post, which is the day after qualifying ended. Let me know if anyone objects! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)