Talk:UEFA Euro 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	UEFA Euro 2008 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former featured article candidate

	Association football Portal The article on UEFA Euro 2008 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Title 2 Questions 3 History 4 Qualifying stages 5 broadcast rights 6 Barnstar for helpers 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 Qualifying matches results at 03.jun.07 9 Proposed merge 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack 10 Propose templates for all the groups 10.1 Template adjustment 11 New ideas 12 WHY? 13 Flag Change 14 Template? 15 Failed GA nomination 16 Qualified teams qualification status 17 Group D 18 Proposed Removal of Broadcasting Rights section 19 Greece 20 Israel 21 The seedings are published 22 Please add this map instead of the current one! 23 re:hows israel in europe 24 Fair use rationale for Image:UEFA EURO 2008 New Logo.svg 25 The draw 26 Knockout Stage Diagram 27 Match KO Times 28 Results Table 29 Home games 30 Where the team are going to stay 31 UEFA Euro 2008 - Group A 32 Note about France in Pot 4 33 Map of participating countries 34 Spain controversy 35 Warmup section 36 The {{future}} tag 37 Match reports 38 Squads' article needed 39 Date formats 40 Official Song 41 Link to match reports 42 Romansh title 43 Assistant Darren Cann 44 Draw between Turkey and Czech Republic 45 Portugal 46 Who scored? At what minutes? 47 Group B 48 Music 49 Statistics missing! 50 Quarter finals 51 Goalscorers 52 Holland only need one more win 53 Group C possibilities 53.1 Proposed Qualification 54 Qualifying from group stage changed method 55 Group D 56 quote: Switzerland cannot qualify for the quarter finals and will finish bottom of the group. 57 Portugal, Croatia, and Netherlands

[edit] Title

On the basis that the New Zealand national rugby union team page is titled All Blacks because it's the most commonly used term, shouldn't this simply be called Euro 2008? That's the official name on the logo. Mjefm 12:17, September 27, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but they weren't actually called the Euros until 1972. It's a choice between a standardised name or differing common names. Then again, they are retrospectively referred to as Euro '68 etc.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

UEFA also refer to them as UEFA Euro 2008 so moving the page is a possibility Chaza93 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

How popular are the Euro matches, and what is the prize for the winning team?  QuizQuick  14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular? Very. Prize? Don't know. —Nightstallion (?) 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The winning team gets a trophy to keep for the next four years. Certain expenses (e.g. travel costs) are re-embursed by UEFA. The main prize of course is national pride. Regulations of the tournament - aheyfromhome 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the finals are just as popular(maybe a percent lower) as the World Cup Finals is in Europe, so that should give you some idea and as the World Cup 2006 top 4 teams (6 of the top 8 and 10 of the top 16) were European, so if you win you can almost claim that you are the best in the world. For example, France took the FIFA world ranking top spot not when they won the World Cup 98, but after they won the Euro 2000. ^CHANDLER   08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i think it's ridiculous to say that if you win the Euro finals then "you can almost claim that you are the best in the world". What about south america, where the level of football is just as high as in europe. and i do recall that brasil, uruguay, and argentina are among multiple world cup winners. Ulipika (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The point that was just made answers your question. Look at the last World Cup for goodness sake. Did Brazil get to the semis? No. Did Argentina get to the semis? No. Uruguay. When did they last get beyond round 2? 1970!!! TheTrojanHought (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Brazil won the world cup 5 times (more than any other country)! Two of these were after 1970 (1994, and 2002).Zen Mind (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very lucrative for each nation that competes due to Prize Money, Sponsership etc. Obviously it depends on the nation (eg England would expect to make more from sponsership that say Finland) but it is very rewarding to qualify. - Mrpaddyx

Looks like there is a prize fund after all. This article concerns the Euro2004 prize money. Sport business Basically, the maximum prize money a team could receive last time is £12million. To put this into perspective, the total prize fund for one season of the FA cup is about £9.6million. The prize money is a nice little reward for the national associations, but it's not the point of the competition- aheyfromhome 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Euro was started so that all the white people can get together, exclude Brazil and give each other a trophy so one of them had a trophy and could claim they were good at football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.14.244 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifying stages

I believe that the page should include basic statistics for each qualifying group, or at least show the current order of the group. razza 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A fair point, yet there is a link to qualifying on the page, if not there will be one shortly Chaza93 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that not then make the entire 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying completely useless? I don't see why it's so inconvenient to click a link. --Differentgravy 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Section Added Chaza93 08:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] broadcast rights

If someone wants to make a broadcast rights section here's some info UEFA.com --chandler 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Chaza93 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done Section (6) Added Chaza93 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the broadcast right, wouldn't it make more sense to divide between UEFA and non-UEFA countries, rather than European and non-European? We'll then avoid such questions as is Turkey 'really' European? JN, 13 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.91.79 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What about radio broadcasting rights? I can watch ZDF in German, but I want to listen online radio in another language. --Тимур (Timur) (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for helpers

I am going to be creating a barnstar for those who help significantly with this page, the code and design will appear on this talk page Chaza93 09:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

		UEFA EURO 2008 Barnstar
		I award this Euro 2008 barnstar to (user) for their great efforts in the Euro 2008 article.

add this code to a user TALK page to present them with the barnstar: {{award2|image=EURO BS.png|topic=UEFA EURO 2008 Barnstar|text=I award this Euro 2008 barnstar to (user) for their great efforts in the Euro 2008 article ~~~~.}}

[edit] Requested move

The renaming of all European Championship articles is being discussed at Talk:UEFA European Football Championship. Please to not act on the below discussion before the general policy is resolved.

Now that this article is moved to UEFA Euro 2008, doesnt all the Qualifier articles have to be moved to? they still say European football championship, if im not mistaken ^CHANDLER   06:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The renaming of all European Championship articles is being discussed at Talk:UEFA European Football Championship. Please to not act on the above discussion before the general policy is resolved.

[edit] Qualifying matches results at 03.jun.07

The results in there are very old. Please update them till yesterday matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.140.136 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 June 2007

All Updated except DEN 3:3 SWE - result pending UEFA decision Chaza93 18:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack

I've proposed that this stub be merged with its parent page; on its own it is out of context, barely notable and will become lost. --Monotonehell 09:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Discussion: Note this is not a vote, please discuss and debate.

I think we should at least wait with the merger, as the scandal seems to be very much a social/legal issue that is not easy to incorporate in this soccer article. Bondkaka 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it difficult to incorporate, simply add a new section and continue from there. It directly relates to the parent article, and doesn't stand well on its own out of context. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we should not be writing stand alone newspaper style articles - instead we should be treating subjects holistically. --Monotonehell 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to wait until the hearing, because it might not be that momentous. If they decide to do the bog-standard and give it to Sweden 3-0 then we can just give it the little paragraph it has now without giving it it's own page. If it's anything else, like a replay or playing the last 5 minutes, then it's be more significant so it might deserve it's own page. Aheyfromhome 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we can wait until the hearing. Since Bondkaka seems to want to disrupt normal procedure by quickly and repeatedly removing merge tags we wont get a proper discussion and consensus on this anyway. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this tag. --Monotonehell 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that we wait for the disciplinary commision to give their verdict and then if it is 0-3 we keep the little paragraph, if not then we can keep the paragraph with the page Chaza93 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No don't merge with this article... Either let it be (but move it to a better title). Or merge it with Parken Stadium and just have a small description + link either in UEFA Euro 2008, 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying or 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group F. I personally would propose a merge with Parken Stadium as I think its the most logical merge. But if the story unfolds (after the UEFA disciplinary hearing) it might bring a big change/impact on Danish or European football at large and if that's the case, maybe a own article is the way to go. (I'm pretty sure someone will create a article of the guy who did it soon enough) ^CHANDLER   06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose That article is currently too extensive to merge with this article. That article was nominated for deletion on June 5, 2007, and the result of the discussion was keep.--Camptown 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The fan attack would have been notable in almost any context (not just UEFA) and deserves its own article. The fact that it was a UEFA qualifying match is interesting, and that match should have an appropriate footnote here, but otherwise, it's not very important to the tournament as a whole. Simishag 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The punishment to the Danish FA has set an interesting president, so the fan-attack article deserves some independent status. Seconded that the fan-attack article has been 'kept' on it's own merit, so a simple refering paragraph in this article would suffice. Aheyfromhome 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose templates for all the groups

Now they all are on 3 different places (that I know of) The main article, the qualifier article and the group article. And it would be easier too edit from one place Template:2008_UEFA_Euro_qualifying_Group_A etc... any support for this idea? And in a case of this being made, would it only include the table or maybe tiebreakers too? Do this, or maybe change so that the main article and qualifier article only have Team Played Points in a small table and the whole thing is in the Group articles

Team	Pts	Pld
Poland	19	8
Portugal	14	7
Serbia	14	7
Finland	11	7
Belgium	7	7
Kazakhstan	5	7
Armenia	4	6
Azerbaijan	4	7

Something like this for the two other articles ^CHANDLER   07:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The only suggestion I would have (if possible) if we did go down this route is to have an option in the template for the "expanded" view of the table, which will also show, W, L, D, GF, GA, etc, since this information would need to be displayed in the corresponded more detailed qualifying articles. // laughing man 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the group standings table should always be expanded. I'd only condition the appearance of the fixtures table on the main article (it's only important in the main and group qualifying articles). Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, the group standings tables don't look so bad in a reduced form on the main article, but they should be expanded for the lower level articles. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered someone created specific template for the smaller versions of the group tables. Was it necessary? A single template with the full table for every group would suffice; the possibility to show only a small part of the table could be achieved by conditional functons. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please just leave the full tables on the article AND the seeding, this is very important! comment made by Charlie 16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template adjustment

I've created a test page for {{2008 UEFA Euro qualifying Group A}} where I've added some parser functions to make possible for 3 different visualizations by just using a single template. See what I mean. I think the extra coding doesn't refrain users/readers from editing/updating them.

What do you think? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but remember to use style="background:#ffcccc;" when a team is "eliminated", well done comment made by Charlie 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you and me liking it is hardly a consensus. If more people find it worthy, I don't mind to apply this to all templates (once this matchday is over, of course :S). Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK i have replace all of the tables on the article comment made by Charlie 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After I've taken a new look at it, I don't think it's necessary to perform any further changes. I think that the full template display looks good on the Euro 2008 main article and the qualification main and group articles. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - This is how the page will be from now on comment made by Charlie 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the tiebreaking and elimination information be in the templates too? I think they should be, as that would be the same in all uses of the template as well - MTC 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the tiebreaker's should only be in the Groups article imo. Parutakupiu that thing with expanding the template would be great! for the mainin only the small table, for the whole qualifying article use the big table, and for the Group article use the fixtures also. ^CHANDLER   20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the tiebreaking info should be added to the template to appear in all articles (it appears on the main article only, when it should appear first in the qualifying and group articles).

Chandler, currently I don't know if the task to convert all those templates is worth it. Before, I thought it would be nice, now I don't know... I mean the way things are now are not bad. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think if you put all the info on 3 different places, its overkill. Ok if the tables are shown on the qualifying article but I dont understad why they are on the Main article... that almost takes away the purpose of a qualifying article. I mean you dont see any of the qualifying groups on the old World Cup and Euro articles. ^CHANDLER   02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you strongly think it's better, I don't mind transforming the templates you created (BTW, they should've been named UEFA Euro 2008... not 2008 UEFA Euro... :P) the same way as in the example. Now that the matchday is over, there's no worries about edit-conflict. I almost want to say: your call. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first off, i just named them after the group articles ( 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group A ), so in that case they should be moved too. UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying Group A maybe? And I think that too edit them so you have at least the possibility to change the appearance of them doesnt <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">really have a down side, right? ^CHANDLER   03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New ideas

Hello, and welcome to the new ideas section of the page, Should you have an idea for a section of the page, just add it here, and it will be strongly considered. Its a simple as that!  ¢нαzα93  тαℓк  ¢σηтяιвѕ  14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY?

Why has the page been moved back to its origional name?  ¢нαzα93  Talk  Contribs  16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

no idea, it sucks, especially after the move to UEFA Euro 2008 Qualifying for the qualifying page. "European Football Championship" is just unnecessary. Move it back :) :) ^CHANDLER   20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Change

I would like to propose that instead of {{flagicon|AUT}} Austria: Austria we use the code {{flagcountry|SUI}}:  Switzerland, i have trialed with this on the page, and it seems to work Chaza1000 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template?

maybe there could be a template like the one for the World Cup Template:2006 FIFA World Cup For all the links teams and qualifying groups and what ever? Chandlertalk 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will start working on it :) El-Nin09 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I have "quick failed" the nomination as the article cannot meet the criteria for stability: It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day. As the tournament is only in its qualifying stages the information will change greatly in the coming year and cannot be considered stable. Oldelpaso 12:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well could you not put a check list of everything else, so we know what else to do? El-Nin09 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A few other points:

• • Bid process section is unreferenced.
  • Problems with Hardturm need a citation
  • Image:UEFA Euro 2008 Venues.jpg claims that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, but the UEFA website makes no such indication. It should be easy enough to create a free image conveying the same information, for example Image:Euro2008 suisse autriche carte.png is used on the French Wikipedia, a modified version of that using English names would be suitable.
  • Changes in qualifying format needs a citation
  • The list of broadcasters seems rather trivial. Oldelpaso 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualified teams qualification status

I deleted the 'Group X - Winner' and 'Group X - Runner-up' from the qualification status section. It is misleading because (at the moment) it implies that Germany has actually qualified as the Group D winner, when there position (1st or 2nd) has not yet been determined. I do, however support this being reverted back once the final position in the groups is known. gresszilla 13:33, 14 October 2007 (AEST)

Yes, please keep this as just Group D, etc. etc. until atleast we know Germany and others will win the "league" F9T 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Group D

UEFA said the best team in qualifications will be put a head of this group not Germany since the qualifications not ended till now ! ! --Max Mayr 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? F9T 19:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody prematurely added that Greece will be seeded C1 and Germany will be seeded D1. This has been removed. The seeding of each pot (apart from the hosts and Greece) will be determined by the qualifying results of 2006 World Cup and Euro 2008, so nothing is certain now. (Actually it's quite unlikely Germany will be seeded first, given their Euro 2008 qualifying results) Chanheigeorge 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The eventual seedings are a farce. With three relative minnows guaranteed of top seeding, and several other teams out of position due to the ignoring of World Cup competitive matches, we are guaranteed to lose major teams in the groups. Is there any way this can be better incorporated into the article? --MartinUK (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Removal of Broadcasting Rights section

Reason: Rather Trivial, messy, not on previous articles. F9T 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greece

I think they will be seeded on top of group C.--Blain Toddi 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball F9T 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

How is Israel in Europe? I was watching the qualifiers and I saw a game with Israel. How can they compete? Do they have special privleges or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.60.189 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out the section about European Memebership in the Israel national football team article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

short answer: Israel is member of UEFA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.217.114 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Long answer. If Israel was to play in their proper confederation (the AFC) there'd be a war in practically every game. As to say that most Arabic nations don't like them would be a massive understatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.80.250 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The seedings are published

Official seedings from UEFA here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.186.107 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add this map instead of the current one!

Image:Propermap euro2008.jpg this map is properly colored unlike the current map.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niggahz90 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What map is not properly colored... and no .jpg's. Chandlertalk 13:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:hows israel in europe

cause they decided to join the uefa... how is kazahstan in euro?armenia?azerbaijan etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.24.94 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UEFA EURO 2008 New Logo.svg

Image:UEFA EURO 2008 New Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The draw

The draw was complete someone needed to update te article--Max Mayr 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been done. You need to clear your cache and try again. – PeeJay 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knockout Stage Diagram

Is the diagram showing the knockout stage correct? There appears to be no cross over between the top and botton halves. If you compare the format with that from the 2004 competition, you'll see that there is a cross over between the A & B and C & D groups at the semi final stage. As it stands, were they to win all their games, the hosts would meet at the semi final rather than the final (as should be the plan). I find it hard to believe that UEFA would change to this format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.216.79 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's how it's supposed to be. – PeeJay 13:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is very odd indeed, as it makes likely the repetition of matches between winners and runners-up of any group. Did UEFA change the previous model? Húsönd 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, as with the 2002 World Cup in South Korea/Japan, the knockout bracket is like this to ensure that a host country team stays in its own country as long as it remains in the competition (with the one exception that the venue for the Final has to be pre-selected. LondonStatto (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't work at all. Imagine Switzerland and Austria to be runner-ups, both wouldn't play at home in the QF and Austria will never play at home in the semis! UEFA is stupid, they should put Austria into group C or D and cross over the semis! It perfectly worked in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.198.24 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Match KO Times

Due to the time of the year these matches are playing at Central European Summer Time|CEST is used so I hope i have changed this to show. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.153.199 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results Table

Surely Results table's should be used to summarise the groups in this article rather than detailing each match individually, like here in the qualifying article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.matheson (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but then I realised that since each team only plays each of the other teams once, they would end up looking like the results tables at 2007 Rugby World Cup. – PeeJay 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, so I think this example should be followed.Darryl.matheson 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there's always the option of not showing the results at all, in the manner of 2006 FIFA World Cup. – PeeJay 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home games

Why are Greece, Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland listed as home team three times? /193.242.103.51 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As seeded teams. Edgar 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I can't see why it's a big deal though. It's just the way the draw was organised. – PeeJay 11:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Add to that fact Austria and Switzerland are at home. Peanut4 13:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where the team are going to stay

Switzerland National Team - will stay in Lugano (Swizterland, Canton Ticino) for a week jut before the EURO 2008.

Italy National Team - Lugano (Switzerland, Canton Ticino), training at Cornaredo Stadium in Lugano

Germany Nationa Team - Ascona (Switzerland, Canton Ticino), training at Centro Sportivo Nazionale in Tenero-Contra

Netherlands National Team - Vevey (Switzerland, Canton Vaud). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeeJay2K3 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this PeeJay (normally quite good a these you!) and also, I don't find it very encyclopedic? F9T 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask me. I just copied them from the main article as I didn't think it was very encyclopaedic. – PeeJay 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Euro 2008 - Group A

Some smart guy edited the article putting results that Portugal and Czech Republic advanced!The event isn't even happening!--Someguyudontknow (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note about France in Pot 4

I don't think it's notable to mention the reason why France ended up in Pot 4: France's large number of draws (5 out of 10 matches played) in the 2006 World Cup qualifying tournament, plus their two defeats to Scotland in the UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying saw them seeded in the bottom pot (note that teams' records in the World Cup Finals are not counted). Some teams had to end up there anyway. Artyom (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's explained over the pots how teams are seeded. Chandlertalk 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Good spot. I've been WP:BOLD and changed it. Peanut4 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to draw attention to what a ridiculous system is used for teh groups. With automatic seeding for the hosts and holders, we've ended up with a situation where the Netherlands were punished for being the best team in qualifying (despite throwing their final match in the hope of avoiding such a status), while France weren't rewarded for an excellent World Cup.--MartinUK (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to prove your own point and how ridiculous the system is. As Artyom said, the seeding system is explained in the article. Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of participating countries

What is the scale on the map for 1, 2, 3-4 etc...? Has someone cobbled this map together and forgotten to remove the editing residue? BuzzWoof (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the similar image on UEFA Euro 2004 article suggests, respective colors will be applied to countries denoting their final positions in the tournament after it is over. So far the map shows only the participating countries, though, so maybe the "key" can be removed from the image for now. Artyom (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also the islands of Guernsey and Jersey are colored red, so please change this too since they aren't participating in the tournament. 85.159.97.2 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Guernsey and Jersey are members of The Football Association, so they should be given the same coloration as England. – PeeJay 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this map is quite confusing. Can someone please add a legend explaining what the colours (and their associated numbers) mean? This could be as simple as changing it to say "red = group stage" rather than "red = 9-16" as it currently does. I only worked out what it was talking about when I read this discussion thread.

Also, what do people think of the current location? Currently it simply shows participation, but once we move further on in the competition it will show progress too. Therefore, should it be moved down the article to somewhere in the "results" section? Witty Lama 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spain controversy

Should Spain be suspended for the European Championship, Northern Ireland, as the next highest team in Spain's qualifying group, or England, as the highest non-qualifying European team in the FIFA World Rankings, would take their place in Group D.

Isn't Bulgaria a possible team to take Spain's place as they are the non-qualifying team with most points gained during the qualification procedure? Has it been verified? 212.36.9.130 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh, that's true. There was no real information, however, who would have replaced Spain had they been suspended; possibility of England or Northern Ireland being included were just speculations (of British media, I guess). Anyway, it seems now that Spain will not be suspended.  ARTYOM  16:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warmup section

The euro warmup matches section and wiki page ( http://www.google.com/search?q=euro+2008+warmup+wiki ) disappeared. What happened ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.25.165 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.  ARTYOM  19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The {{future}} tag

I have removed the {{future}} tag from the top of the article. I believe it is superfluous, since the very first sentence of the article clearly indicates that this is an upcoming event. The event is well-documented, and the article has many sources. The event will most certainly occur, and there is really no need to have a disclaimer at a premium position in the article. --Kildor (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, as it clearly indicates that the content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available. More information might indeed become available soon.  ARTYOM  21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is quite obvious, isn't it? And it is in fact true for almost every article here on Wikipedia - that articles may change when more information becomes available! The tag does not add anything that the reader does not already know, and that is why I think it should be removed. --Kildor (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, how it usually happens is the future event template gets replaced with current event template when the event starts, and the latter gets removed when the event ends. Why not do the same here?!  ARTYOM  22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, {{current}} is only used for occasions when many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (see Template:Current#Guidelines). But it is true that there are many articles using the {{future}} (sport events and other articles) although there is absolutely no need for it. Perhaps it is useful if the article is unclear on that the topic is about a future event, or is somewhat speculative. But that is not the case for this article. Most articles on Wikipedia are subject to change; any article on a country or a living person, as example. But it makes no good to add warning tags/banners to all those articles. --Kildor (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I interprete the "silence" as it is ok to remove the tag? --Kildor (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What if something happens that causes the tournament to get postponed? You can never say that the event will certainly occur unless it actually starts. However, from now on I will take the neutral position on this issue, and will not put the template back if you or someone else removes it.  ARTYOM  16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The contingent nature of the topic can be addressed in the article text or the article lead. Any scheduled event (of any type) may be cancelled, but you do not need to warn readers about such a trivial fact (by the way, I have never ever seen a similar warning or banner on any news article about the Euro 2008 stating that the event may not occur or that the content may be speculative or may change). -Kildor (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The opinion that future tags are all superfluous may be a valid one, but this is not the place to rehearse it. Given the existence of the tag, and the fact that it cannot yet be replaced with the current tag, it seems eminently sensible to have it in place. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article did not have one for several weeks when it was added earlier today. And seriously, is the existence of the template reason enough to add it here? --Kildor (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of the community is that these tags serve a purpose. It is clear from your contributions that you do not agree. The purpose that the community sees in these tags is served by its inclusion here. Is the opportunity to re-inforce your {{WP:POINT|point]] sufficient reason to remove it? Kevin McE (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider removing this tag to be an improvement. So removing this tag is not making a WP:POINT (but it would if I added a "historic" tag to the World War II article). The future tags are being used in a lot of articles, but there are also many articles about the future that do not have it. There is no consensus on using them, and there is no guideline or policy that encourage or discourage its use. The tag is possibly useful on certain topics that are less likely to happen, or in articles with no or few sources. But Euro 2008 will definitely happen, and the article has plenty of reliable sources. So I would like to know why it is needed here! --Kildor (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Match reports

When we get to the point of filling in scores and match reports, I think we could use Wikinews. NPOV would not be violated since articles are suppose to be NPOV. Sources won't be an issue since articles must have 2 sources and this is a good for inter-wiki promotion. Here is an example of how 2 out of the 3 parts of the article will look. The other part is the written part which will come after the match and of course the 2 sources will be at the bottom of the page. Kingjeff (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Squads' article needed

Croatian squad unveiled: [2]. --necronudist (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date formats

Is there any reason why, considering that this is a European tournament, that the dates in the tables are in a month/day US format rather than European day/month? Harry the Dog WOOF 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? I only see YYYY-MM-DD and DD MONTH YYYY ← chandler 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but YYYY-MM-DD is the American formulation, as 9/11. European style is DD-MM-YYYY is it not? Harry the Dog WOOF 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, american is MM/DD/YY. Its so you can Archive by date properly. When its just "May 2" or "2 May" I dont know if that goes under the same things as "2008-05-14" and "05/14/08" ← chandler 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD is not American, or related to any specific country that I know of. But it's a format that's been suggested (by various "tech" groups) as the most logical one because the dates are correctly sorted by an alphanumeric sort, which is a useful property. Tapir (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The dates in this article should be written as DD-MMM-YYYY (or YYYY-MM-DD, in the case of the match summaries). However, the dates should be showing up in your preferred format no matter how they are written in the code. – PeeJay 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official Song

Would someone please add something about it to the article? Here are some infos. I can add it of course, but I'm not sure where to put it, so that I won't mess up the page's logical structure. Therefore, somebody who has been editing this article for long would do it better, I guess. Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have included the info on Enrique. Thanks for your assistance. :) --86.45.221.165 (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to match reports

Hey there, i tried to introduce links next to the game results but it just doesn't look right. Can anyone help? Sergiogr (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out {{Footballbox}} for an example of how it should look. --Scottmsg (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romansh title

Does anyone know what is the Romansh for "UEFA European Football Championship Austria/Switzerland 2008"? Romansh is Switzerland's fourth official language and it should be necessary for some articles in other languages to show the Romansh title as well as the German, French, and Italian ones. --212.36.9.177 (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is an official title, but in the standardized Rumantsch Grischun I guess it would be UEFA campiunadi europeic da ballape Austria / Svizra 2008. Note that Rumantsch is a national language, but doesn't have the same official significance as Italian, French, and German do. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistant Darren Cann

Of all the linesmen present, only Darren Cann has an article, or so it seems. The article it links to is about some Darren Cann who has a lot to do with football, but nowhere does it say that he is a football assistant or linesman. Is the article incomplete or are we talking about another Darren Cann? Note that it is an englishman, but that the article mention he works in Canada, which is quite strange if you're frequently playing referee in Europe. --Pelotas^talk 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a different Darren Cann. And in my opinion, all linesmen should be delinked, as most of them have never been and will never be notable enough for their own articles. In fact, the only notable linesman I can think of throughout the whole of history is Tofik Bakhramov. – PeeJay 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draw between Turkey and Czech Republic

As I understand the rules, in case of a draw between Turkey and Czech Republic there will be a penalty shoot-out. If I am right, please correct this in the article. Thanks. --91.23.208.183 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, they are level on goal difference and goals scored and would remain so in the case of a draw. I am going to correct unless and until someone can explain to us why that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed, according to [3] - article 7.08, page 9. DrFishcake (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkey will proceed in this case I believe, as it will have scored more goals in all its three games. Ben, Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.240.155 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I obviously made a miscount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.240.155 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't find anything about penalty kicks in uefa.com, show a source, or its probably just vandalism ← chandler 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The rules are written on Page 9 in this document: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf Could someone please update the article accordingly?Halukakin (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are already on the article. The bit about Czech Rep having an advantage if it was a draw was my error, and I was on my way back to correct it quickly, but got caught in a edit clash, by which time it was done. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to specify that there will be no extra-time, they'll go straight to penalty kicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.11.227 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how can this be that you are writing on Page 9 of the UEFA regulations, penalty kicks would decide. No such thing there, instead, article 7.07f clearly applies, where the "coefficient" points/matches from qualifiers for Euro and last World Cup, would decide (which is better for the Czechs). I am new to Wikipedia so I don't dare to edit the article, someone please confirm and do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.84.202 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just in case the teams are not playing one another in the deciding match. --Tone 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page 9 as defined in the table of contents, not page 9 as defined by the PDF document. DrFishcake (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On June 12 (Yesterday), UEFA wrote an article stating that the 2 teams could go to a shootout. Here is the article. The opening sentence of the article states "If Turkey and the Czech Republic draw their final Group A match in Geneva on Sunday, second place and a quarter-final berth will be decided on penalties." Kingjeff (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal

Why is Portugal listed as the winner of group A when technically they can still end as runner-up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.141.220 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they can't finish as runners-up. The first tie-breaker for teams tied on points is head-to-head results, and since Portugal has already beaten the two teams that they can tie on points with, they have won the group. – PeeJay 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read article 7.07 in this document: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf Head to head results determine the standing. Halukakin (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize Switzerland are predetermined to finish bottom of the group. I thought (as the way things stand) if Switzerland beat Portugal by enough goals to give them a higher goal difference against either losing side from the Czech / Turkey game then that would position Switzerland above the losing side from the Czech / Turkey game. I am only saying this as at the moment it appears that Switzerland are ultimately going to finish bottom of the group, that is slightly misleading. I know the Swiss will probably lose to Portugal. But stranger things have happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinster2001 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the first tie-breaker for teams tied on points is head-to-head results. Switzerland can only get tied on points with either Czech Republic or Turkey (the losing side of Czechia-Turkey match). But since Switzerland has already lost to both, they will ultimately end up at the bottom of the group no matter by how many goals they might be able to beat Portugal.  ARTYOM  01:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal and Croatia have ALREADY been determined as group WINNERS and NOT runners up of their groups - for the following reason (this has already been stated on the page): "Should two teams from the same group finish with an equal number of points, they will be ranked based on the following criteria:" 'Number of points earned in matches between the teams in question' This takes PRIORITY over: 'Goal difference in all group matches;'" OmgReaverDrop (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who scored? At what minutes?

need these info: 1) goal scorers of each match 2) when he score the goal, in minutes 3) list of all the goal scorers sorted according to how many goals scored

Well part 3 is done. Parts 1 and 2 are done for the first few but it seems to have tailed off for the more recent matches. TheTrojanHought (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Look in the group articles for that information. Group A Group B Group C Group D -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Group B

How come Croatia is highlisghted in Green? Croatia is not 100% sure be in quarterfinals yet......

If Poland wins against Austria...... Then next Monday, Poland wins against Croatia, Germany wins against Austria, that means the 3 teams all have 6 points and thus have to count goal difference among the 3 teams!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doraemon2151 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be changed. Any of the group B teams can still be in the quarter finals, there is nothing confirmed as yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.121.128 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Poland beats Austria, going into the next game, Germany will be +1 between the three teams, Croatia will also be +1 and Poland will be -2. If the scenario plays out - Germany and Poland winning the third games, the worst Germany can be is +1 and the best Croatia can be is +0. So if the three-way-tie scenario plays out, Germany would definitely qualify, and Croatia would qualify if they lose by 1 and Poland would qualify if they win by 2 or more.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be over-pedantic, but Croatia aren't certain to finish top yet. If they lose (although highly unlikely) to Poland, and Germany win against Austria, the'll finish 2nd. So placing them in the knockout section is a bit misleading, isn't it? Ignore that. I've read the rules before, but I just plumb forgot. I'll blame it on doing nightshift.Chrisriddell1987 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Croatia has won over Germany. ← chandler 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia is NOT yet the Group winner: if we have the following scenario:

Poland beats Croatia 0:2 and Germany beats Austria 2:0. Germany will be the group winner with a goal difference of +2 and Croatia ends up with 0 GD. This is unlikely to happen but there are still chances so you shouldn't put Croatia as group winners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 21:25, June 12, 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The first criteria then is a match between Croatia and Germany that Croatia won. --Tone 21:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the time stamps: it was true when he said it:@) Kevin McE (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, he said it at 21:25 UTC. For some reason (presumably timezone issues) the guy signing it for him wrote 17:25. Doesn't matter much now either way... -- Jao (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. When I put in the unsigned tag I forgot to convert to UTC. I have adjusted the time on his comment to show in UTC. --Scottmsg (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited that right after the Austria-Poland match ended but the only thing here is that Croatia is NOT yet the group winner? How can they be? Rules changed or something? If Germany beats Austria with over 2 goals and 0 against and Croatia loses then Germany could be the group winner. Why are you putting Croatia as the definite group winners? Just because is not likely that Poland might beat Croatia? If its because of that then this article is not neutral at all Tony0106 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a UEFA competition, not FIFA, therefore goal differential is NOT the first tiebreaker, head to head results is. Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship. Read section 7.07 on page 9. --Scottmsg (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the qualification now says: "Austria need to score 2 goals more than Poland to qualify" in the last line, as they now have the same goal scored, if their goal difference is ultimately the same, Austria just need 1 more goal to beat Poland in the ranking. Also the coefficients for the two teams should be in favor of Poland am I correct? May be we should include this determined decision in case everything is a draw. Ivan (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The qualifier for that was "If Poland's winning margin is one greater than Austria's...". If that is the case, then the GD will still be equal but the GF will not be equal (favoring Poland). --Sesameball^Talk 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to imply that if Poland win 2-0 and Austria would need to win 4-3 to advance. But it would seem that 3-2 would also be good enough for Austria to advance (both teams would have 0 GD, but Austria would have 4 GF to Poland's 3). --Scottmsg (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks right. Too much situational dependency on a lot of these hypotheticals. --Sesameball^Talk 03:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right: my miscalculation. Sorry. To clarify:

If they both win by the same margin (e.g. both games 1-0, or one match 1-0, the other 2-1), then Austria will go through on goal difference.

If Poland's margin of victory is one greater than Austria's (e.g. Pol 2-0 Cro and Aus 1-0 Ger), then goal difference is equal, and the next criterion is goals scored. At present this is equal.

If Poland's margin of victory is one greater than Austria's, and Austria score the same number of goals as Poland (e.g. Pol 2-0 Cro and Aus 2-1 Ger), then the two sides have identical records of points, goals scored, and goal difference, and the next criterion is co-efficient of results from 2006 and 2008 qualifiers. Poland lead this (52 points from 24 games, compared to 15 points from 10). Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music

There is no mention of Seven Nation Army by White Stripes, which is played whilst the teams approach the pitch from the tunnel, in the music section. Should there be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.23.219 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on the miscellany page (that hasn't started yet, but never mind). I don't think it's significant enough for the main article. DrFishcake (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics missing!

Hey all!

A few versions ago there were some interesting statistics, like biggest goal difference, fastest/latest goal, and so on. Can we please add that again?

kR — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be nice to have: First, Fastest, Latest, Last goals, and some other statistics. There are alot of nice statistics on uefa.com that could be compiled, maybe a UEFA Euro 2008 statistics, or include detailed statistics from the matches. ← chandler 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But be careful to include just relevant statistics and not just some trivial. (hard to say where is the border but let us trust football experts :-) ) --Tone 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well statistics in football has always seem to be spares... If you compare it to American sports and their statistics. There are at least much here, and I think much of it is interesting ← chandler 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quarter finals

I think that putting the countries like Croatia and Spain in the quarter finals tables like they are now is going too fast, they sure are qualified, but I think there are scenarios where they don't win their group and are runners up. Hektor (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia has won its group, as they have already beaten the only team that can draw level on points with them (Germany). – PeeJay 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I was mistaken, see rules about direct confrontation I don't agree with you PeeJay2K3, if Croatia loses it's match against Poland & Germany wins and scores enough goals it will become first of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.194.194 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OH MY GOD, this has been repeated so much! The thing that decides the top is the results between the two teams, NOT goal difference! Pn57 (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goalscorers

You may use this tablo:

Line	Name	National Team	Club	Goal	Played Time
1	David Villa	Spain	Valencia	3	90'
	Lukas Podolski	Germany	Bayern München		180'
2	Raul Meireles	Portugal	FC Porto	1	7'
	Quaresma	Portugal	FC Porto		10'
	Svěrkoš	Czech Republic	Baník Ostrava		34'
	Fàbregas	Spain	Arsenal		36'
	Vastić	Austria	LASK Linz		55'
	Semih	Turkey	Fenerbahçe		58'
	van Nistelrooy	Netherlands	Real Madrid		70'
	Ibrahimović	Sweden	Inter Milan		71'
	Arda	Turkey	Galatasaray		90'
	Sneijder	Netherlands	Real Madrid		90'
	van Bronckhorst	Netherlands	Feyenoord		90'
	Pavlyuchenko	Russia	Spartak Moscow		90'
	Hansson	Sweden	Rennes		90'
	Hakan Yakın	Switzerland	BSC Young Boys		121'
	Guerreiro	Poland	Legia Warsaw		129'
	Olić	Croatia	Hamburg		155'
	Mutu	Romania	Fiorentina		166'
	Srna	Croatia	Shakhtar Donetsk		170'
	Sionko	Czech Republic	F.C. Copenhagen		173'
	Luka Modrić	Croatia	Tottenham		180'
	C. Ronaldo	Portugal	Manchester United		180'
	Pepe	Portugal	Real Madrid		180'
	Deco	Portugal	Barcelona		180'
	Panucci	Italy	AS Roma		180'

PS: It was edited after Italy-Romania match.--Mdmdmd55 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The way currently used uses the space better, and is what is used for all other world cups and euro's, see 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Scorers 2002_FIFA_World_Cup#Scorers UEFA_Euro_2004#Goalscorers UEFA_Euro_2000#Goalscorers, this sort of list will become too long ← chandler 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chandler. We could perhaps use a similar table in the UEFA Euro 2008 goalscorers article though. – PeeJay 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holland only need one more win

Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2008#Group_C,

"If Netherlands avoid defeat in both remaining matches, they are assured of reaching the quarter-finals."

should be:

"If Netherlands avoid defeat against France, they are assured of reaching the quarter-finals." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyriot uk (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. If they avoid defeat by drawing with France, and then lose to Romania while France beat Italy, they will be eliminated. It is true to say that one win would assure them of progressing, and that if that win were against France, they will be sure of winning the group. But while only half the games in the group have been played, we should not try to list every permutation, especially as many would be eliminated in less than 1 1/2 hours.

Why not just change it to "Holland qualify if they beat France" then? TheTrojanHought (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to that ← chandler 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Group C possibilities

The confusing scenario is if Netherlands win and the France-Italy game is a draw.

If it is a score draw, France n-n Italy, then Italy go through, because they will have scored n+1, France will have scored n, and Romania will have 1 goal.

If it is a goal-less draw, then, as I understand it, France will be out, because they will not have scored in games between the three "joint runners-up", while Italy and Romania will have scored once each. The remaining criteria, overall goal difference and goals scored, and co-efficient, will only be between Italy and Romania. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup it's exactly as what u wrote. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it in the apparently vain hope of avoiding lots of people questioning the logic behind it. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If Netherlands beat Romania, and France and Italy play out a score draw, then Italy will reach the quarter finals

Why would that be the case ?? Wouldn't the goal difference be pertinent ? E.g.

• RO 0 v NL 2
• FR 1 v IT 1

Then the goal differences will be

• RO -2
• FR -3
• IT -3

I.e. : Romania progresses. Passportguy (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I follow, why would Italy go through if there is a draw between France and Italy? They both have the same goal difference. In fact if Romania looses 3-0 and France Italy is 0-0 then all 3 teams would have the exact same goal difference.

How do you know who go through then? FFMG (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not look at the goal differences first, and instead have to look at the head-to-head records. Hence in this case, 3 teams would have the same number of points, and thus only the matches involving Netherlands are removed. And there u go. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something obvious here, but why would France be dropped if Italy and France have the same number of goals? they would have both lost to the same team and both drawn to Romania.

Would it be because Italy scored against Romania? FFMG (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Note the current relevant results. Romania 0 France 0. Italy 1 Romania 1. France X Italy X (where X is to be determined in the remaining game). All the results vs Netherlands are ignored if all the three teams have the same number of points. Kiwi8 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I undertand the reasoning behind this now, but can anyone confirm that the "Goals scored in matches between the teams in question" is applicable if more than 2 teams are in contention ? Passportguy (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it applies! Kiwi8 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It can only apply if more than 2 teams are otherwise tied. If only two teams were tied, and the points in the match between them were the same, that would be because they drew against each other. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, ppl need to start reading the tie-breakers before commenting. It will explain everything Kevin McE said. ← chandler 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What u said is damn rite! :) Kiwi8 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, sorry if this seem to have annoyed you so much. FFMG (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"And Romania loses 3-0 or by more than 3 goals, Italy advances" (and FR v IT 0:0)

Ok. let's say Romania looses 0:3, then

• Number of points earned in matches between the teams in question;

• France : 2
• Italy : 2
• Romania : 2

• Goal difference in matches between the teams in question;

• France : 0
• Italy : 0
• Romania : 0

• Goals scored in matches between the teams in question;

• France : 0:0
• Italy : 1:1
• Romania : 1:1

Goal difference in all group matches;

• Italy : -3
• Romania : -3

Goals scored in all group matches;

• Italy : 1
• Romania : 1

So why does Italy advance ?? Passportguy (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because as I said at the top of this section the next criterion is coefficient, and Italy's is superior. Kevin McE (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Italy's qualification record is better than Romania's. Kiwi8 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been adopted by a parrot  :@) .Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

if it goes ITA 0:0 FRA and NED 3:0 ROM, then we draw lots between ITA and ROM ...... fun times 142.73.16.134 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No Italy has a better coefficient than Romania ← chandler 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Qualification

• France will advance if
  • they beat Italy, while Romania fail to beat the Netherlands.
• Italy will advance if
  • they beat France, while Romania fail to beat the Netherlands,
  • or they play a 1–1 or higher draw with France, while Romania lose to the Netherlands,
  • or they play a 0–0 draw with France, while Romania lose to the Netherlands with 0–3 or a margin of 4 goals or more.
• Romania will advance if
  • they beat the Netherlands,
  • or draw with the Netherlands, while Italy and France draw,
  • or lose to the Netherlands by a margin of 3 goals or less, but not 0–3, while Italy and France play a 0–0 draw.

It shorts it down, I tried to make the sentences as short as possible... Not totally satisfied with the last Romania sentence though... And just so everyone can check through it so no mistakes have slipped in. ← chandler 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't ITA and ROM have the same coefficient from qualifying (29 pts in 12 matches)? Goal difference doesn't count in the qual coefficient. Then I suppose it goes to fair play standings, not drawing lots..... my bad. 142.73.16.134 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I failed to notice that for some reason, WC2006 qual counts toward the coefficient.... horribly unfair to ROM in my opinion. Let's hope it doesn't get that far 142.73.16.134 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be even more unfair to Austria and Switzerland if it didn't! Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably in that case they would just go straight to the fair play stats. Why should WC2006 play into this totally separate tournament at all? Some of those matches were played almost 4 years ago. They might as well go by the FIFA rankings. A team should be judged by their performance in the current tournament, not by other historical statistics. Just my opinion, like I said I hope we don't get to that. 142.73.16.134 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifying from group stage changed method

Is it just me or are the tie-breaker rules for Euro2008 different to the norm? Isn't it usually the case that in the event of two teams with equal points at the end of the group stage then the first deciding factor is the goal difference? In this championship the deciding factor seems to be the score in the game between those two teams.

If this is indeed new/unique/different then could we place a paragraph in the relevant section of the article explaining the significance of the change? A lot of the edits to the Euro2008 article are mistaken clarifications to which team one/lost a group. I think a lot of the hassle would be avoided if we described this different scoring system more overtly. Witty Lama 03:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of confusion about this rule change. Goal difference has indeed been demoted as a criterion, now being less relevant than the matches between the tied teams. I've attempted to clarify this here. dorftrottel (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New? No they were used in Euro 2004 as well as the qualifications... The only new thing is the penalty kick part. It was probably used in Euro 2000 as well, even though no situation there showed it self... Though it was used in the Qualification for the Euro 2000 as can be seen here Denmark/Switzerland. Used in 96 look here ← chandler 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then clarify it in the article. Obviously, a lot of people have difficulties understanding this ruling. dorftrottel (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear in the article already. Number of points earned in matches between the teams in question; Goal difference in matches between the teams in question; Goals scored in matches between the teams in question; Goal difference in all group matches; If ppl don't get that, I don't know how you should explain it. As I showed the current first tie-breaker have been in place for over 10 years in this competition, how it could have gone past anyone (especially after what happend in Group C in 2004) is beyond me. ← chandler 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just take a quick glance at the number of people (and the article is currently sprotected, mind you) who have apparent difficulties understanding this. That's why I believe a concise footnote may clear this up, but you removed the footnote instead of improving it according to the best of your knowledge. dorftrottel (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If they don't read the tie-breakers, you think they'd read the footnotes in the tie-breakers? ← chandler 06:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it a shot. Why not? dorftrottel (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, if they don't read the tie-breakers, how would they find the footnotes in it... One thing you might do though is draw attention to them by bold and having # instead of *'s infront so its 100% clear that they are ordered by importance ← chandler 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you assume that people don't read them as opposed to not understanding them? dorftrottel (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is VERY clearly stated. ← chandler 06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, by the number of people inserting the same incorrect information, the tie-breaker criteria are not clear enough. That you and I understand them is not a factor here. What I think is needed is just a sentence or two saying that these tie-breaker rules are different to the "normal" rules in x and y manner. (I don't understand the nuance of the difference enough to trust myself writing this.) We do not need to restate the tie-breaker rules but we DO need to explain how they are different. Witty Lama 07:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They are NOT different, as I've shown they have been used in the European championship for at least 12 years. They are clear and people just don't read them... if they did they'd see that the top criteria is head-to-head record, it is VERY clear. ← chandler 07:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sometimes, inserting hidden editing notices can be useful. Maybe something along the lines of

<!--

 *****************************************
 *                                       *
 * PLEASE READ THE TIE-BREAKING CRITERIA *
 * BEFORE EDITING THIS SECTION.          *
 *                                       *
 *****************************************

-->

? dorftrottel (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ill insert it at every line of the article... or somethng like that. ← chandler 07:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Chandler - stop being so agressive, it's not helping. We all agree there is a problem with a large number of people misunderstanding the rules. What we are trying to do is fix this problem. Sarcastic comments to every suggestion made is not productive.

So, the two options that have been raised so far are 1) a footnote explaining that this is different to what people would normally expect, or 2) to place some hidden text in the edit page. I would suggest 3) to place one or two sentences in the tie-breaker rules section describing how this is different from what people would normally expect (and perhaps the reasons for it being different). Whilst I do agree with you that it is not different to the recent editions of Euro championships, it is different enough from the standard to warrant qualification IMO. Witty Lama 08:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not different than the "norm", ts used for qualification for the world cup and euro. I'm much against adding that line you added, as it's like even if they would read the tie-breakers they still wouldn't believe them. ← chandler 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and placed a one sentence explanation in tie-breaking criteria section that says:

"These criteria are different from the norm, though not different from previous European championships, in that the goal difference is not as important as the head to head record between the tied teams."

What does everyone think? Witty Lama 08:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even at the risk of people not reading it, it or something like it should nevertheless be in the article, for those who read and have understandable difficulties understanding it, seeing as the goal difference used to (and still does in other tournaments) weigh more than head to head record. I think it's fine. dorftrottel (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would vehemently oppose such an addition, because it is not encyclopaedic information, which is what an encyclopaedia should include: it is rather a highlighting comment for those either unable to understand clear criteria, or unwilling to read them carefully. There is no one established "norm" to differ from, and to suggest that there is assumes familiarity with one tournament over another. Kevin McE (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and agree with, your concern about the word 'norm' - although I'm not sure how to better phrase it at the moment. Of more importance however is that I contest that this phrase is indeed encyclopedic - It is a direct explication of relevant information - that that information is presented in point form in the previous paragraph. We repeat information all the time in Wikipedia articles (in this very article we show who has gotten into the quarter finals three times or so, but in different ways) - so as to elucidate different aspects. In this case we have the point form to show the criteria-by-criteria breakdown, whereas this expands on a particular aspect in prose form. Witty Lama 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the phrase in the article and changed the word "norm" with "other championships". Is this a better wording? Any suggestions for improvement? Witty Lama 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we should come up with sources regarding the changing of the rules. It used to be different, which also explains why so many assume that goal difference still outweighs head to head record. dorftrottel (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know myself! Witty Lama 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It has already been shown in this thread that it is not a recent change (although the possibility of penalties in the group stage is new at this level). The authoritative source for the criteria is clearly posted. As regards Wittl Lama's search for phrasing, I have drawn attention to this priority at the top of the tie breaker section. Although we repeat info, we normally do so to present it in different formats, not to account for editors with a lack of concentration or comprehension. Kevin McE (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Group D

I see someone has already highlighted Spain as group D winners after their win over Sweden. However, we should wait for the Greece-Russia game, because in case Greece beats both Russia tonight and then Spain in the last round, they might end up as group winners (highly unlikely, but it's a possibility editors have to consider). Timbouctou (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right... Still ppl don't seem to read the tie-breakers ← chandler 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't green highlighting mean one of the top two? Spain can't be 3rd or 4th anymore, right? Mtcv (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they can, If Greece beat Russia and then Spain by 2-0 or a bigger margin, Greece and Sweden progress (if Sweden beat russia) ← chandler 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Spain has qualified already. The lowest they can finish is 2nd now. – PeeJay 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Greece beating russia and Spain by 2-0 while Sweden beat russia...

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Sweden	2	1	0	1	3	2	+1	3
Greece	2	1	0	1	2	2	0	3
Spain	1	1	0	1	2	3	−1	3

← chandler 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quote: Switzerland cannot qualify for the quarter finals and will finish bottom of the group.

if either Czech Rep or Turkey lose at two goals or more difference, and Switzerland wins their game (unlikely, but hey), Switzerland will be third in the group, and the loser between the two afore mentioned teams will be at the bottom.

Just my 2 cents.

164.107.156.41 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one who havent read the tie-break criteria... ← chandler 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, fact beats out opinion. Switzerland has lost to both the Czech Republic and Turkey, teams that currently have 3 points. The most points that Switzerland can gain is 3, and the first tie breaker is head-to-head. Therefore, Switzerland cannot finish higher than fourth. – Nurmsook! (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal, Croatia, and Netherlands

Can we add a (A1), (B1), and (C1) next to those teams in the group tables? I get that the green indicates that they have secured a place in the next round, but the fact is that each of those teams have secured the top spot in the group, so I think this added parenthetical will clarify that they have clinched that spot. I know it is confirmed in the bracket just below that, but I thought there would be no harm in making it extra clear. Just a thought. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain it's entirely necessary, but I wouldn't revert if someone decided to put it in. Of course, it should probably be removed when all the games are played. – PeeJay 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you look at the knockout stage you see they have won the group... Don't think it would look nice with (A1) etc in the table. ← chandler 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)