Talk:2012 UEFA European Under-19 Championship elite qualification

Original research

Next day match scenarios are not referenced and are a violation of WP:NOR. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How are the scenarios any more original research than is coloring the teams green and red after they've clinched or been eliminated, which is also done without citation? I'm assuming you belive the latter to be permissible since you've made edits to highlight the teams as such. To me, neither practice is a violation of Original Research, as neither is advancing an unsupported or unsourced position in the manner of the example given in the policy. In both cases, we're simply doing match on the available (sourced) data. --LarryJeff (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I only highlight what already happened, you in your summaries are listing every possibility that may happen. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) Past or future is not part of the definition of synthesis or original research and (2) the listed scenarios are not "every possibility that may happen"—only those that will result in one or more teams clinching or being eliminated. --LarryJeff (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Ok, where are the references for those scenarios? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But, the same thing can be said about marking teams in red and green, indicating they've been eliminated or have already won their group. UEFA is not doing this in the tournament standings on their website, so to say that (for example) Spain have won their group here is not sourced.

However, as I said before, I don't believe either of these goes against the spirit of the prohibition of original research. Maybe I can better explain why I think this: If these were to go against "no original research" it would most readily fall under the category of synthesis, as we're combining the tournament regulations with the match results to arrive at the statements made. The examples of synthesis provided at WP:NOR are examples of combining sourced statements to imply or advance an opinion which is not actually supported by either of the sources in question. In the case of articles like this one, we're only make statements of fact, not opinion, and those facts can be readily derived by applying simple math to the already known (and sourced) facts. --LarryJeff (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If these facts can be derived by applying simple math then I don't know why are they included in the first place. Examples of "simple math":

• On the next matchday (1-2 June)
  • Slovakia will ensure at least second place in the group (and Romania and Kazakhstan will be eliminated) if they defeat Romania
  • Latvia will be eliminated, if:
    • they lose to France, OR
    • Slovakia defeat Romania, OR
    • they draw with France AND Slovakia draw with Romania
  • Depending on the results in other groups, Latvia will be eliminated, if:
    • they draw with France, AND
    • Switzerland defeat Croatia (Group 5), AND
    • Portugal defeat Russia (Group 6), AND
    • Netherlands defeat Luxembourg (Group 10), AND
    • Scotland and Bulgaria do not draw (Group 10)

or

On the next matchday (1 February):

• Ghana
  • will win the group if:
    • they do not lose to Guinea, or
    • they lose to Guinea by only 1 goal and Mali defeat Botswana.
  • will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
    • they lose to Guinea by 2 or 3 goals, or
    • they lose to Guinea and Mali fail to defeat Botswana
• Mali will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
  • they defeat Botswana and Ghana defeat or draw with Guinea.
  • they draw with Botswana and Ghana defeat Guinea.
• Guinea
  • will win the group if:
    • they defeat Ghana by at least 2 goals, or
    • they defeat Ghana and Mali fail to defeat Botswana.
  • will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
    • they defeat Ghana by only 1 goal and Mali defeat Botswana, or
    • they draw against Ghana and Botswana defeat Mali, or
    • they lose to Ghana and Botswana defeat Mali by at most 8 goals.
• Botswana will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if they defeat Mali by at least 9 goals and Ghana defeat Guinea. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)