Talk:Germany national under-21 football team

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Germany Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the German football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merging Germany national under-21 football team with the Germany national football team

Comments

What's the purpose of merging the two articles? These are two different teams with two different rosters. Germany national football team article is already 58 KB long and adding the U-21 team will just make it longer. This age group is the most notable youth section that plays internationl soccer. Kingjeff 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more convenient to have a single article per football team. The U-17, U-20, U-21 and U-23 might be sections of the Germany national football team article. This applies for every article regarding U-21 football teams. Mxcatania 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of reasons not to have articles for certain U17 or U19 teams, but at U21 level, the players are, with the odd exception, all adults, and probably all professionals. The topic is of high enough profile to have a clearly established identity separate to its senior equivalent. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mxcatania, this means you would also have to merge the womens national teams with the mens team. The merger will just cause big hugh articles. Kingjeff 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we're talking about U-21 and adult national teams, not about mens or womens. Mxcatania 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's more convenient to have a single article per football team." First of all, these are two seperate teams we are talking about. second of all, under your statement I quoted, you would have to add the womens team to this merger discussion. Kingjeff 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice discussion, I like it. But I did not want to mean that at all. I just want the major and junior-team articles to be merged for sake of Wikipedia. There are not articles for every U-## team in the world, and of top of that most of the published articles are stubs (e.g. Republic of Ireland national under-21 football team). Unless you change every article to a non-stub status, I would prefer to merge the articles. Mxcatania 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do U-15 or U-16 because the team and players aren't notable enough. Kingjeff 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingjeff, other than U-21, other youth teams are not notable. In my opinion, U-21 is notable because U-21 teams are the similar teams that compete in Olympics (I know that Olympics is for U-23 but if you looks closely, players on UEFA U-21 European Championship are practically U-23 because the competitions run on two year basis). Moreover, U-21 teams are not considered youth/amateur teams, if you go to www.uefa.com, and you go to the drag down menu on the Competitions (top right), U-21 is listed under National along with FIFA World Cup and EURO, while U-19 and U-17 are listed under Youth & Amateur. Martin tamb 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that this article isn't going to get merged. I'll get an admin to close it. Kingjeff 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in waiting a little further to close this merge proposal. I won't now, as I'd rather give my personal opinion. I agree with Mxcatania that as such an U21 does not need an article. But as rightly pointed out the main article is already rather big so it is common practice to demerge larger sections into their own articles. If other countries U21 are separate or not is not the issue here, as that depends on the size of their main articles, ergo there is also no need to stubbify all other U21 just because this one is kept. Agathoclea 21:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For merger

Mxcatania 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against merger

Kingjeff 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fchd 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angelo - distincted teams, distincted histories and achievements, distincted players, distincted competitions in which they play. All they share is just their common country. 17:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew_hk t c 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malc82 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - reasonable article on its own, there is enough you can write about the U21-team, so including all youth national teams into the "A-team" article would simply make it much too long.[reply]
Two teams, two articles (which are big enough already anyway) -- Matthead ^discuß! O 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martin tamb 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC), different team, different coaches, different caps, different players, different tournament, etc.[reply]
Dave101→talk 06:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Too much detail and info for one article.[reply]
♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Probably a bit late in the day, but just wanted to add a further vote as the merger proposal.[reply]
Mattythewhite 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miho NL 11:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DFBTriangles.svg

The image Image:DFBTriangles.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Players remaining eligible

Hi, Julian Weigl, Emre Can and Joshua Kimmich remain eligible I think, and while they weren't selected for the 2017 Euros and therefore have played their last games for this side, they should be in the other players section. Can anyone (probably a German speaker?) source the date of their last call-ups? I haven't added them yet for that reason. Thanks, HornetMike (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those caps over a year ago? Kante4 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought so. It does say "remain eligible" though, not called-up in the last year like national sides. Actually, just checked the big hitters - England and France also use remain eligible, Spain and Italy have last year. I do prefer the full list for these articles - not least because I think there's a user case for "which national side players could still play for this team?" I hadn't realised there were varying criteria across the pages! HornetMike (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally only players from the last year are listed, else it can be an endless list. Kante4 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]